Reference i NBSIR 81-2400

NBS

Publications

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

AlllDb sis of Data From Room Fire

Test of Parsons Tables and

Comparison With Laboratory Test

Methods for Flame Spread and

Smoke Generation, Volume I

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

November 1 981

Final Report

1JU »ARTMENT OF COMMERCE

.U5G

61- 2 m

1)^61

. BUREAU OF STANDARDS
i
NBSIR 81-2400

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM ROOM FIRE

TEST OF PARSONS TABLES AND

COMPARISON WITH LABORATORY TEST

METHODS FOR FLAME SPREAD AND

SMOKE GENERATION, VOLUME I

NATIONAL BUREAU

OR STANDABD8

LIBRART

MAR 15 1982

/-. ..

too

;U_-

nr,

I 'i /

David D. Evans

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

November 1 981

Final Report

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

PREFACE

This report deals with the analysis of data from 18 room fire

tests conducted by L. H. Breden at the National Bureau of Standards.

The report is presented in two volumes

Volume 1 - contains the text of the report.

Volume 2 - reproduced only in microfiche format, contains the

data listings corresponding to appendixes A, B, and

C in volume 1.

ii
Vf ir.j' L- J

I®; f'^g"ES # ': ^

, «®

• V .. ^^ ‘^: V';

' .'’ S’.'

• ^ 'u-a .MK— -.—_. {tjmxfXpv - ...^^

^

^

' M. ' :i

^
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Furnishings Program 1

1.2 Source of the Data 3

1.3 Choice of Parsons Tables for Testing 4

1.4 Description of Data Analysis 4

2. ROOM FIRE TESTS 6

2.1 Facilities 6

2.1.1 Burn Room 6

2.1.2 Fire Test Room 7 2.2 Instrumentation «... 7 2 . 3 Animal Exposure 10

2.4 Parsons Tables 11

2.5 General Test Observations 12

3. SMALL SCALE TESTS 13

3.1 Smoke Test Measurements 13

3.2 Surface Flammability ASTM E162 17

4. COMPARISON OF ROOM FIRE AND SMALL SCALE TEST RESULTS .... 18

4.1 Surface Flammability 19

4.1.1 Correlation with Table Fire Involvement 19

4.1.2 Correlation with Room Fire Intensity 21

4.2 Smoke Production 25

5. CONCLUSIONS 30

6. REFERENCES 30

APPENDIX A. ROOM GAS AND CEILING TEMPERATURES A1

APPENDIX B. DOORWAY GAS VELOCITY, TABLE MASS AND LIGHT

TRANSMITTANCE DATA B1

APPENDIX C. ROOM FIRE MOD VALUES Cl

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Parsons tables 32

Figure 2. Plan view of building 205 test facility 33

Figure 3. General view of room-corridor complex 34

Figure 4. Plan view of test rooms 35

Figure 5. Elevation of test rooms 36

Figure 6. Schematic of smoke meter 37

Figure 7 . Burning of a Parsons table 38

Figure 8. MOD test results for acrylic 0.05 m x 0.05 m

specimen 39

Figure 9. MOD test results for polypropylene 0.025 m x 0.025 m

specimen 40

Figure 10. MOD test results for ABS, 0.025 m x 0.025 m specimen . 41

Figure 11. MOD test results for polystyrene 0.025 m x 0.025 m

specimen 42

Figure 12. Effect of sample size of MOD value 43

Figure 13. MOD calculated by ratio of slopes method for a 0.025 m square sample of polypropylene 44

Figure 14. Perspective view of test room 45

Figure 15. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 6 ... 46

Figure 16. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 7 ... 47

Figure 17. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 8 ... 48

Figure 18. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 10 . . . 49

Figure 19 . Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 11 . . . 50

Figure 20. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 12 . . . 51

Figure 21. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 13 . . . 52

Figure 22. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 14 . . . 53

iv
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)

Page

Figure 23. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 15 . . . 54

Figure 24. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 16 . . . 55

Figure 25. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 17 . . . 56

Figure 26. Average gas and ceiling temperatures for test 18 . . . 57

Figure 27. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 6 58

Figure 28. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 7 59

Figure 29. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 8 60

Figure 30. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 10 61

Figure 31. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 11 62

Figure 32. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 12 63

Figure 33. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 13 64

Figure 34. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 14 65

Figure 35. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 16 66

Figure 36. Table mass and mass loss rate for test 17 67

Figure 37 . Table mass and mass loss rate for test 18 68

Figure 38. Average ceiling temperature for wall tests 69

Figure 39. Average ceiling temperature for corner tests 70

Figure 40. Comparison of calculated and measured smoke

generation rates , test 7 71

Figure 41. Comparison of calculated and measured smoke

generation rates, test 8 72

Figure 42. Comparison of calculated and measured smoke

generation rates, test 11 ..... 73

Figure 43. Comparison of calculated and measured smoke

generation rates, test 16

V
LIST OF FIGURES (cont’d)

Page

Figure 44. Comparison of calculated and measured smoke

generation rates, test 17 75

Figure 45. Comparison of calculated and measured smoke

generation rates, test 18 76

Vi
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Parsons Table Tests 77

Table 2. Instrumentation - Data Channel Numbers 78

Table 3. Test Event Times (Estimated from Video Tapes) .... 81

Table 4. Description of Parsons Tables 82

Table 5. Breden's Mass Optical Density Numbers for Table

Materials 84

Table 6. Comparison of Breden's MOD Values with those from a Retesting of Materials 84

Table 7a. Flame Spread Index (I ) for Parsons Table

Materials 85

Table 7b. Ranking of Table Materials Based on Flame

Spread Index 85

Table 8a. Flame Spread Factor (F ) for Parsons Table

Materials

Table 8b. Ranking of Table Materials based on Flame

Spread Factor 86

Table 9a. Heat Release Factor (Q) for Parsons Table

Materials 87

Table 9b. Ranking of Table Materials based on Heat Release

Rate Factor 87

Table 10a. Time Difference Between First Drip and Table

Collapse (Based on Video Tape Estimates)

Table lOb . Ranking of Time Differences from Table lOa for Wall

and Corner Tests

Table 11. Key Parameters of Celling Temperature Curves 89

Table 12. Variability of Key Parameters for Wall and

Corner Tests 89

Table 13. Comparison of Smoke Chamber and Room Fire Test

Plateau MOD Values for Various Materials 90

Table 14. Comparison of Calculated and Measured Total Smoke

Production from the Table Fires 90

vii
. '" >» %^r j-.!? -%r -

:

.,g^ iSlHIIani.,.-./ '^S'" . .i^.

» yir «

. ^ ^9i</a'

aitfs'

AS

,^’*#. y* '* '^- ' ’^^"^

--

. %•; «

< - • i*j| •^' - » r"'i?' • •'* .4..; ’* « '••“; » ' •' •'^'*. I. =S2-b^X - "*'

:S?'- '''^'^i . ,. m. |i<

''

’ -%^J.

_ ^ *1510832^’-

-liL #,

?ElV'

' ''*'

'ii’l..'*’=^''’'

^',^jaHfiA'£^ 5.ilff'';fc'9»is . Bisi-l _&jf -|^ , <

* ,, . ;.,

‘ . ',. y:;y'^V, »;. v

>' ,/'>

= ';' ' •£- -.1ffi:,A" . ©s ^ If* '"&-' •

. S'’;'' ' ,, ^mf^% ^.<65 '^<P:)

' 'xo.ii>M' .sC^ilda

K' \ ^.:, . s

*j , •* Tm }^-

‘ K?/ *

•.^/- .- -v..- .'tM-V#*' '*« ... .-^::.'/i.A .•• p tt\' ^‘^ ifV-*.^ . ^N. 'T-iTiP'

Ru

' "

*iV» M Xi

'*». .. tt -I =. > ' .^' • y /

*- '» - '- :"f "

rjfl

•a

' ^ft^oaJ^«j(6.jS. f

r•:

’ ’m v: ’

, ”V' . : .J,. * » ^.,,

Hi .ili .iM-1^

^iL,^
ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM ROOM FIRE TEST OF PARSONS TABLES AND

COMPARISON WITH LABORATORY TEST METHODS FOR

FLAME SPREAD AND SMOKE GENERATION

David D . Evans

Abstract

Data from a series of 18 room fire tests in which

a Parsons table was the only combustible item were

analyzed. Selected data from the tests were compared

to laboratory fire test data from the ASTM E162 surface

flammability test, and a modified smoke density test.

The flame spread index from the ASTM E162 test was

not shown to be an dependable indicator of either the

time for table fire involvement or room fire intensity.

Results from the National Bureau of Standards smoke

chamber using an MOD (mass optical density) method for

data reduction were able to predict the smoke production rate and total smoke production from the table

fires to within 34 percent and in several cases within

5 percent.

Key Words: ASTM E162; fire tests; flame spread; tables;

plastics; smoke chamber.

1 . INTRODUCTION

1.1 Furnishings Program

Fire codes end standards traditionally have dealt with selected

fire performance requirements of construction and interior finish

(celling, wall and floor covering) materials used in buildings. The

use of these codes has resulted in buildings that can in most circumstances be expected to maintain their physical integrity when threatened

1
by fire. Being confident that a building structure will survive an accidental fire, additional attention in recent years has been paid to

the unique fire characteristics of the interior furnishings contained

in the building. Usually it is the interior furnishings and not the

construction materials that are the major contributors to the fire load

for a building compartment. At present only two items of furnishings

1 are required to comply with federal fire performance standards; carpets

2 and mattresses . A proposed standard is also being considered for

3 upholstered furniture . However, these deal with ease of ignition of

these materials when exposed to a small source of flame or heat and not

with the contribution of the item to fire growth within a compartment.

One of the objectives of the Furnishings Flammability Program is

the development of methods to assess the relative level of fire risk

introduced by the use of different furnishings in a given situation.

This is attempted by concurrently studying the behavior of furnishing

materials (a) in small scale fire performance tests and (b) in a large

room fire testing facility under simulated end use conditions. Usually,

materials under study are subjected to a number of standard small scale

fire performance tests. In addition, comparative data are also obtained

using non-standard fire testing procedures undergoing development at

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . Our goal is to develop means to

predict the performance of products such as furnishings when involved

in typical fire situations.

The room fires used to evaluate the performance of furnishings can have various degrees of sophistication. Room tests may range from an evaluation of a single isolated item of furnishing in a compartment, to a fully furnished compartment simulating an occupied space. For the

^FF-1-70 and FF-2-70

^FF-4-70

^PFF-6-76

2
case of a single item test, the burning of an individual type of furnishing, e.g., a chair, table, or carpet, under the influence of the enclosure

would be made. Since this test involves only one combustible furnishing,

there is no opportunity to observe fire spread or interaction between

different items of furnishings in the compartment. This lack of interaction makes the data from single item tests easier to analyze for

comparison between different furnishings designs or materials of con- struction than test results from a more fully furnished compartment

test, although this arrangement may not be typical or fully realistic.

The fully furnished room burns are a primary source of data for fire

growth and spread under conditions that reflect common usage of a particular set of furnishings, but do not permit analysis of the

separate contributions of the contents.

1.2 Source of the Data

This report deals with the analysis of data obtained in a series

of ventilated room burns of small utility tables constructed from

different materials. These tests were conducted in the winter of 1974-

75 by L. H. Breden in the then newly constructed room burn facility in

Building 205 on the NBS Gaithersburg site. The raw test data from all

of the tests were reduced to conventional units and tabular form in

mid-1975 using a program written by J. Smith for use on the NBS Univac

1108*. This set of reduced data was placed on computer cards in Speed

4

II format [1] for storage.

The analysis of the data from this set of room burns is based on

the analysis of the data stored on the computer cards. These data were

retrived from storage and dumped onto a hard disk compatible with the

Interdata 732* system used in the Center for Fire Research (CFR) in

*The identification of commercial products is made in order to specify

adequately the experimental procedure, and does not imply recommendation

or endorsement by the National Bureau of Standards.

4Numbers in brackets refer to the references listed in Section 6.

3
December 1977. Using this mini-computer system, the data files were

edited to eliminate spurious values and to correct several data channels

for sign errors. This report is the result of a detailed analysis of

the edited data files integrated with test time measurements made by

the author while reviewing video tape replays of most of the tests in

the series.

1.3 Choice of Parsons Tables for Testing

The primary objective of the room fire tests conducted by L.

Breden in 1974-75 was to obtain comparative fire performance data on

several plastic and wood materials commonly used in furnishings. As

comparative information about materials was the primary objective,

single item room fire tests of a piece of furnishings constructed

entirely from a single material were considered the best procedure to

follow in order to produce useful data.

At the time the tests were performed, small plastic utility tables,

commercially sold under the name Parsons tables and available in several

types (see figure 1) were popular casual furnishings. These simply

designed tables were in most cases fabricated from a single material.

Through commercial purchases and contracted fabrications, a variety of

these tables made from different plastic and wood-base materials were

obtained for testing (see table 1). Thus, these tables were ideally

suited for furnishing fire tests to compare different materials.

1.4 Description of Data Analysis

For each of the tables burned in the room burn facility, an attempt

was made to obtain 117 separate channels of data to help assess the

major fire characteristics. These data channels sampled the output of

strategically located probes measuring gas temperature, surface temperature, mass loss gas velocity, gas composition, smoke density, heat

flux, and radiation flux in the test facility at 20 second intervals.

Using these data, a fairly complete characterization of each room fire

could be made.

4
It has become common practice to obtain relative rankings among

materials burned in enclosures based on the time a given event occurs following ignition. Generally these critical events are identified

with the generation of untenable conditions within the enclosure. The

earlier in the test untenable conditions are generated, the greater the

presumed risk associated with the material. Tenability criteria for

heat flux, gas temperature, smoke density, and carbon monoxide, carbon

dioxide, and oxygen concentrations are discussed in detail by Budnick

[2] and O'Neill [3].

Another approach taken in assigning relative risk ratings to test

data is to neglect time altogether and only to consider the Intensity

of the fire. In this case, peak values of given measurements are used

to rank materials and the greater the peak value the greater the assumed

risk. For example, one may choose as the critical measurement, highest

average ceiling temperatures, highest average gas temperatures in the

upper half of the room, or highest heat flux to the floor.

In this report assessments of relative risk among the materials

from the room test data will be given in terms of both integrating

information throughout the fire and comparison of specific events

during each fire. In some cases, this integration will be formal

summing of measured values throughout the test. In others, substantial

deviations over an extended period of time will be considered. To

determine if substantial deviation exists among test measurements, an effort was made to determine measures of the repeatability of selected

bench and full scale room measurements.

Relative risk ratings for materials or groupings of materials, in cases where a substantial difference is not established, are compared

with ranking for the same materials from existing small scale fire

tests. Of particular interest is the comparison of laboratory smoke

chamber data for the Parsons table materials to the values of total

smoke production calculated by integration of light attenuation by the

combustion products leaving the room doorway.

5
In the analysis of the test data, only key data channels were

utilized. The fire performance of each Parsons table could be characterized sufficiently by using several gas and enclosure temperature

measurements along with table weight loss, doorway gas velocity, and

doorway light obscuration measurements. A complete energy and mass balance for the room that might be of some academic interest and would

involve the use of data from most of the sensors was not attempted.

The primary benefit of such a calculation would be a check for con- sistency in the data set. Little would be added to the evaluation of

the relative risk among the set of materials tested as a result of such

a calculation. In addition, Tu and Babrauskas [4] in their work with

steady gas fires in the same burn room facility have found that the

instrumentation, especially in the room doorway, is too limited to

yield accurate energy and mass balances.

2. ROOM FIRE TESTS

2.1 Facilities

2.1.1 Burn Room

The construction of a large room-corridor fire testing facility

was completed in the summer of 1974. This facility occupies a major

portion of building 205 on the NBS Gaithersburg, Maryland, site. The

test data on which this report is based, were obtained from the first

series of room fire tests performed in this facility. Therefore,

secondary to obtaining room fire test data on the Parsons tables, this

series of tests served as shake down trials for the facility itself.

Building 205, containing the room-corridor fire test facility is a large building constructed with two different ceiling heights 7.93 m

(26 ft) and 10.97 m (36 ft). The general plan view of the 57 m (187 ft)

by 26.6 m (87 ft) building is shown in figure 2. As noted in the

figure, the building is equipped with a large exhaust hood through which

combustion products generated in the room-corridor complex can be vented.

An afterburner system is provided to clean these exhaust gases to reduce

6
smoke and pollutants in the flow before it leaves the building. The

air needed for combustion during room fires enters the building through

open doorways and is drawn into the burn-rooms by natural convection.

The exhaust hood at the end of the corridor carries combustion products

away at a low velocity to reduce its effect on room fire air circulation.

Air conditioning in building 205 maintains a nominal pretest average

ambient temperature of 23°C with a relative humidity of 40 percent.

2.1.2 Fire Test Rooms

The rooms off the corridor used for full-scale burns may be

considered representative of bedrooms or small living rooms. The

corridor and room complex is shown in figure 3. Isolated views of two

adjacent rooms used in the fire test of Parsons tables are shown in

figures 4 and 5. The length of the room in which the tables were

burned, farthest from the exhaust hood, was 3.50 m (11.5 ft). The

smaller adjacent room was 3.05 m (10 ft) long and joined the corridor

which measured 6.10 m (20 ft) in length. The width of both rooms was

3.4 m (11.2 ft) and the corridor was 2.44 m (8 ft) wide. All three had

the same ceiling height of 2.44 m (8 ft). The two inline doorways

measured 2.13 m (7 ft) high by 0.91 m (3 ft) wide.

The burn rooms were constructed with a 0.13 m thick concrete slab

floor. Walls and ceilings were constructed of 16 mm type X gypsum

wallboard applied on steel studs. All the interior surfaces of the

rooms, including the floors were lined with 13 mm low density (928

kg/m^) cement-asbestos board. The seams in the cement-asbestos boards

were off-set slightly from the seams of the gypsum board beneath it in

order to minimize air leakage through the structure. All joints, both

gypsum and cement-asbestos, were spackled.

2.2 Instrumentation

The room-corridor test facility was instrumented with 88 thermocouples,

6 bidirectional velocity probes, one pitot-static tube, 7 light transmittance meters, 4 radiometers, 4 total heat flux meters, 6 gas sampling

7
ports (2 each of CO2 , CO, and O2 ) , and a load cell. Test data were

recorded by a digital data acquisition system at a rate of one scan of

all instruments every 20 seconds. The locations of all measurement

points are given in table 2. The locations of key sensors utilized in

the data analysis are shown in figures 4 and 5. In addition to the

standard measurement equipment listed above, several tests were recorded

in color on video tape and 16 mm motion picture film. In conjunction

with the combustion gas analysis, the reactions of live rats caged in

the room adjacent to the burn room containing the fire were recorded.

HCN measurements were attempted using a bubbler system sampling gases

Inear the caged fats.

Most of the thermocouples used in the test facility were 18 gauge

metallic-sheathed mineral insulated Chromel-Alumel (Type K) . Thermocouples identified in table 2 as "quick response" used smaller diameter

wire

Radiometers and total heat flux meters were commercial Gardon-foil

type water cooled units.

The six bidirectional velocity probes located in the doorway to

measure gas inflow and outflow velocities were modeled after those

developed by Heskestad [5]. These robust velocity probes are particularly

good for obtaining low-velocity flow measurements under fire conditions

which can involve water condensation, soot particulates, and flow

reversals. McCaffrey and Heskestad [6] have provided calibration

techniques for these probes. The probes used in the room-corridor

facility were 12.7 mm in diameter.

Construction details for the light transmittance meters used to

measure smoke obscuration in the doorway are shown schematically in

figure 6. Each of the four horizontally placed tubes, measured light

transmittance over aim path length using an ordinary tungsten filament

8
bulb as a light source and silicon photodiode as a detector. The

spectral response of the detector is shown in figure 6. Each light

transmittance meter was calibrated as follows:

1. A dark current voltage reading was obtained with the photodiode

covered. This reading corresponded to zero percent light

transmittance

2. The photodiode was uncovered and the light source adjusted so that

the photodiode output did not exceed its linear range. This

voltage reading corresponded to 100 percent transmittance.

3. Filters of known optical density were placed between the light source and the photodiode and the output voltages recorded. These

values were then used to cross check the linearity of the photodiode outputs.

Gas analysis for CO and CO2 was performed with non-dispersive

infrared instruments. A polarographic analyzer was used for O2 . Calibration curves were prepared for the CO and CO2 instrument to

correct the non-linear output using known gas samples. Traps were

inserted in the sampling lines to protect the analyzers. As the sample was drawn from the room it traveled through stainless steel tubing and

entered a glass wool trap at ambient temperature to remove the majority

of the particulate matter. Stainless steel tubing connected this trap

to two others; the first, a dry ice trap packed with glass wool to

eliminate water, and the second, glass wool filter at ambient temperature

to insure a clean flow into the analyzers. Copper or polyethylene

tubing connected the last trap to the analyzer. The output of each

analyzer was connected directly to the data acquisition system.

Analysis for HCN in the combustion gases was performed with a bubbler system. Two bubblers were used in series each containing 200

ml of 0.1 N NaOH. The flow rate through the bubblers averaged 2 liters/

min. Analysis of the NaOH solution was done using both specific ion

9
electrodes and the calorimetric technique according to Leithe. The

stainless steel sample lines were kept as short as possible to minimize

the absorption of HCN on the walls of the tubing or the collection of

particulate matter.

Parsons table weight loss measurements were made using a platform

suspended from a load cell located above the ceiling of the burn room. Three locations were used for the load cell platform corresponding to

the three table fire positions - center of the room, along the east

wall, and southeast corner. Water cooling and insulation were used to

protect the load cell from the heat produced during the table tests.

The load cell used had a range of 45.4 kg. The weight of the platform,

zeroed out during the tests, was approximately 11.4 kg.

This series of tests were the first at NBS to employ the video

tape recording system as a method of recording test events. This

system was used in addition to the still and motion picture records

normally produced. These video recordings proved to be an invaluable

aid in the data reduction process. A summary of times for key events

occurring during the table burns given in table 3 was prepared by

viewing the video tape records.

2 . 3 Animal Exposure

To aid in the assessment of the toxicological hazard associated

with the combustion products from the table fires, several tests were

run in which rats caged in the room adjacent to the room fire were

exposed to the combustion products. These were the first tests run at

NBS in which animals were used for toxicological measurements of com- bustion products from a room fire. The detailed test description and

data analysis associated with this phase of the Parsons tables tests is

being prepared by Birky et al [7] under the Center for Fire Research,

Program for Toxicology of Combustion Products.

10
Briefly, to assess the toxicological hazard of the combustion

product, male rats were placed in a partitioned metal cage located

1.8 m from the burn room door and 1.5 m above the floor. A thermocouple

was placed in front of the cage to monitor the temperature of the gases

flowing from the burn room and through the cage. Continuous gas com- position measurements were also made on gas drawn from the 1.5 m level

near the cage. An effort was made to measure CO2 , O2 , CO, and HCN.

These measurements were to be related to the physiology of the rats.

For example, in the report in preparation by Birky !71, carbon monoxide

and oxygen measurements in the combustion products are correlated to

carboxyhemoglobin and oxyhemoglobin measurements from the caged rats.

2.4 Parsons Tables

The Parsons tables used in this series of fire tests were typically

0.4 X 0.4 X 0.4 m in dimensions, although some variation in overall

size and construction was found. Figure 1 shows photographs of four

different Parsons tables. At the top, photograph A shows the most

common plastic construction, while B shows the alternate tube con- struction. Photographs C and D show examples of the heavier wood

Parsons table construction. A detailed listing down of table weights

and measurements is given in table 4.

For this series of tests, the table could be located in one of

three locations within the burn room; in the center, along the east

wall, or in the southeast corner. With each change in position, the

load cell and platform used to obtain table weights during the fire

would be moved. Table 1 gives a list of the table locations within the

room for each of the 18 tests. Additional information on table material

and construction is also given in this table.

11
2.5 General Test Observations

The development of the fires involving the plastic Parsons tables

were all similar. Based on the video tape records of the tests, several

common key events could be identified. These major events were:

establishment of sustained ignition, first dripping of flaming melt,

establishment of major melting and flaming, table falling against

screen surrounding the platform, and total table collapse. Figure 7 shows several still photographs of the fire growth during a Parsons

table test. Table 3 records the test times for each of five key test

events. These times were assigned based on the judgement of the author

in viewing video tape recorded during some of the tests.

The ignition source used in all tests was 15 milliliters of heptane

placed in a 51 mm diameter aluminum pan. The center of the pan was

placed under one edge of the table top, usually adjoining the table

leg. The effect of the burning heptane on the test measurements was

minimal.

After the burning heptane established a sustained ignition on the

edge of the plastic test table, melting plastic from the table top

would drip into the small pan used to hold the igniting fluid. This

plastic melt would burn, maintaining a flame in the pan even after the

heptane was consumed. As fire spread on the table top, additional

burning melt would drip onto the platform. A major fire would be

established by the burning of the table structure and the pool of melted

plastic on the platform below it. As the fire progressed the table

would usually fall over against the retaining screen that surrounded

the platform. Eventually the entire structure would be reduced to a pool of flaming melt on the floor of the platform. Many of these

stages of burn can be seen clearly in the photographs in figure 7. The

time from ignition to table collape was approximately 300 s (5 min)

12
3. SMALL SCALE TESTS

As the major objective of this series of tests was to compare full

scale fire performance of materials used in furnishings with results of

small laboratory fire tests, each table material was evaluated by

several small material fire tests popular at the time, L. Breden and

D. Schmulling supplied data from the following: a modified smoke

density chamber test (now ASTM E662/NFPA 258) , and ASTM E162 test for

surface flammability.

3.1 Smoke Test Measurements

The smoke density chamber test was used to evaluate the smoke

production characteristics of each Parsons table material under flaming

conditions. The test procedure used was that developed by Breden and

Meisters [8] . In this procedure, a76mmx76mm specimen cut from the

top of a Parsons table was supported horizontally in the 0.51 m^ closed

smoke chamber. The face of the specimen was exposed to a radiant heat

flux of 25 kW/m^ and ignited by a pilot flame. Continuous measurements

of light obscuration over a 0.91 m vertical path and sample weight loss

were made during the test.

The test data was reduced to the form of a time dependent mass

optical density number (MOD) proposed by Seader [9] and defined as:

where;

MOD (t) = Mass Optical Density at time t. kg

V = Chamber volume (0.51 m^)

L = Light beam length through smoke (0.91 m)

Am = Sample mass loss up to time t (kg)

T = % light transmittance at time t

t = time

13
The sample mass and light transmittance vary during a test making

the values of Am and T in equation 1 time dependent. The sample mass

decreases as the sample burns producing smoke and other products of

combustion. As smoke is produced and collected in the closed smoke

chamber, the amount of transmitted light from the bottom to the top of

the chamber decreases. After the initial transient period of the test,

during which the sample ignites and the smoke produced begins to circulate through the chamber, the value of the MOD stabilizes at a plateau

value. At the end of the test as the sample is consimed and smoke

particles coagulate and are lost to the chamber walls, the MOD value

decreases. Plateau values are indicated on the MOD curves for acrylic,

polypropylene, ABS and polystyrene shown in figures 8, 9, 10 and 11

respectively.

^•Then the Parsons table materials were tested in the smoke chamber

by Breden, only the plateau values of MOD were recorded. Operationally,

he established the plateau value of MOD for each material by calculating

the MOD values at a 15 second interval during the smoke chamber test.

The recurrence of four or five successive nearly equal MOD values

established the plateau values for the’ material. Breden' s average

plateau values of MOD for five Parsons- tables materials tested in the

smoke chamber are recorded in table 5.

Fortunately, three excess Parsons tables, purchased with the

initial lot used in the full scale tests were recovered from storage by

the author. Recovery of these tables allowed a retesting of polypropylene, arcylic, and ABS materials in the smoke chamber to verify Breden'

measurements. With the retesting a complete set of light obscuration

and sample mass loss values as a function of time were obtained. With

these data an alternate method for calculating MOD numbers from that

recommended by Breden and Meisters [8] was examined.

With the retesting of materials it became obvious that Breden had

used smaller specimens rather than the prescribed .076 m x .076 m specimens

cut from the top of the Parsons table since the full size ABS and

14
polypropylene samples generated enough smoke to overrange the light

transmittance meter before the samples were consumed. Overranging the

light transmittance meter while testing produces erroneous MOD values.

Seeing these results, a modest effort was made to determine the

effect of sample size on the MOD vs time curve. One sample each of

0.005 m thick polypropylene in 0.013 m, 0.025 m, 0.05 m, 0.075 m square

samples were tested in the smoke chamber tests. The results of these

tests are shown in figure 12. The highest value of MOD were achieved

with the 0.025 m square sample. This test also produced a reasonably

stable plateau region. One could speculate that the relatively greater

amounts of smoke produced by the larger samples produces higher smoke

densities in the smoke chamber leading to a greater influence of coagulation and wall loss on the results. With the small .013 m square

samples test inaccuracies would probably produce a large scatter in

results. In addition, the burning time for this sample is shorter than

the larger samples possibly because of greater edge effects and a plateau value of MOD is not achieved before the sample is consumed. At

this time, no basic research has been published to determine how coagulation of smoke, wall losses, mixing, and recirculation through the hot

zone in the smoke chamber affects the smoke chamber measurements.

Obviously, sample size may have an important influence on smoke chamber

measurements. Investigation of these effects are beyond the scope of

this report. Further testing was performed on .025 m square samples of

polypropylene, polystyrene, and ABS, and .05 m square samples of acrylic.

These test results are shown in figures 8-11.

Using the raw data that was used to calculate the MOD vs time curve for the .025 m square sample of polypropylene shown in figure 12, an alternate method of MOD determination will be described. Figure 13

shows the optical density and sample mass curves from that test. Two

additional broken lines in the figure indicate the rate of change of

samples mass and optical density. A MOD value may be calculated using

these changes by taking the ratio of the rate of change of optical

15
density to the negative of the rate of change in sample mass and multiply

the ratio by the smoke chamber constant 0.5574 m^. For this method to

produce a meaningful MOD value the slope should be measured over an interval during the test where both the optical density and sample mass

curves are undergoing constant rates of change. It is unknown at this

time what the shortest sustained interval for constant rates of change

should be to produce useful results. The question has also been raised

as to whether the lag time between smoke production by the sample and

measurement in the smoke chamber light beam has an important “effect on

the MOD calculated by this method. For this calculation, the rate of

change in mass loss for the center of the time interval in which the

optical density curve was undergoing a constant rate of change was

used to calculate the MOD. As recorded in figure 13 the MOD value

calculated from the slopes of the curves was 396 m^/kg; this is in good

agreement with the 390 m^/kg plateau value for the 0.025 m square

sample recorded in figure 12.

Operationally, the method developed by Breden and Meisters [8] for

calculating MOD values is preferred to the alternate ratio of slopes

method. This is due largely to the fact that more judgement is required

in drawing the slope that is required during the data analysis in the

latter method, as compared to the selection of plateau region using the raw data.

In the discussions to follow, MOD values will refer to those

calculated by the Breden and Meisters method unless indicated otherwise.

Table 6 shows a comparison of Breden 's MOD values for the Parsons

table materials with those obtained by the recent retesting. Agreement

between test results for ABS and polypropylene is good. The recent

measurements on acrylic results in a somewhat lower MOD value than

measured by Breden. Even though the polystyrene foam could not be

retested, the good correspondence for the other sets of data increases

one's confidence in Breden 's measurements for this material.

16
As will be discussed later, good agreement was found between MOD

values for materials from Breden's work with the smoke chamber and

values calculated from table fire data. The retesting described above

was an effort to verify all parts of the test results associated with

the set of encouraging smoke calculations which show a correspondence

between small and large scale test results.

3.2 Surface Flammability ASTM E162

D. Schmulling supplied test data from the ASTM E162 test for most

of the Parsons table materials. This test is used to characterize the

surface flammability of materials [10]. Briefly, this test employs a 0.3 m X 0.45 m gas fired radiant panel in front of which an inclined

0.15 m X 0.45 m specimen of material is ignited on the top forward

edge. Measurements of the flame spread rate down the sample and the

air temperature rise in the exhaust duct above the sample are made.

The results of the test are reported in the form of a flame spread

index which combines the flame spread rate and a hot gas temperature

rise measurement^. The test results for the flame spread index, and

its components, the flame spread factor, and heat evolution factor are given in tables 7, 8, and 9 respectively.

Each table is divided into two parts: part a, lists the test data

and part b, divides the materials into groups that are significantly

different at the 95 percent confidence level as determined by the least

significant difference method [11]. The groups are in order of fire

risk based on this test. Within each grouping there is no statistically

significant difference between the materials test performance at the 95

percent confidence level.

Based on the normal test result, the flame spread index (I )

s among the plastics, polystyrene is identified as a significantly better

performer than the group, polypropylene, ABS, and acrylic (see table

= F . Q. See reference iQ.

s s 17
7b) . Both of the wood materials were significantly better performers

than the plastic materials. As the flame spread index is calculated

from the product of two factors, it is instructive to look at the

ranking of materials based on each factor separately.

The flame spread factor (F^) from table 8b, ranks all the materials

except polypropylene the same. Probably the ease with which the polypropylene melts, contributed to its significantly faster flame spread

rate down the face of the sample. Looking at the heat evolution factors

(Q) from table 9b, the easily melted materials, polypropylene and

polystyrene, were ranked significantly lower than the ABS and acrylic

materials. This result would be explained by a relatively larger

amount of the polypropylene and polystyrene (compared to acrylic and

ABS) that may have dripped from the holder to the floor and not become

involved by flame or contributed to the exhaust air temperature rise.

Obviously the commonly used flame spread index (Ig) result from

this surface flammability test is an integration of a material's performance in the test. This makes it difficult in some cases to determine

if a material's index value is primarily influenced by flame spread or by heat release rate. In all cases it is difficult to determine what

effects sample distortions, such as melting and dripping, might produce.

4. COMPARISON OF ROOM FIRE AND SMALL SCALE TEST RESULTS

The test results from two small scale laboratory flammability

tests: the ASTM E162 test for surface flammability, and the ASTM E662

smoke density chamber modified to determine the MOD of horizontal

specimens were discussed in the previous section. A comparison between

these tests and the room fire data will be made to judge the usefulness

of each test in assessing the expected fire performance of a material

when used in a common furnishing item. The nature of the materials

tested and the accumulated experimental data only permitted a weak

evaluation of the surface flammability test. Although also troubled by
incompleteness, the smoke chamber data were used successfully to quantitatively account for the smoke production from the burning table in

the room fire tests.

4.1 Surface Flammability

One of the objectives of Breden*s study of Parsons tables was to

determine if existing flammability tests could be shown to correlate

with any aspects of the room fire tests he conducted. This is, of

course, the opposite of the normal procedure employed in fire research,

by which specific small scale tests are designed to simulate specific

room fire conditions or to correlate with larger tests which are more

expensive to operate.

The ASTM E162 surface flammability test was intended to correlate

with surface flame spread on materials with large areas of exposed

plane surfaces, (e.g. ceilings, walls, wall-to-wall kitchen cabinets).

Using Breden's tests an effort was made to examine possible correlations

between ASTM E162 test data and both measurements of rate of fire

involvement for the table and measurements of the room temperature

increase

4.1.1 Correlation with Table Fire Involvement

The only source of data from the tests to estimate the fire spread

were the video tapes. As a measure of the rate of fire involvement for

the table, the difference in times between the first dripping of material

near the ignition source and the collapse of the table were used.

These are two events that can be clearly identified in the video tapes

and are listed in Test Event Times, table 3. The use of time difference

between these two events helps to eliminate variations due to the

iiiitial ignition process and errors in timing because of delay in

starting the video recording process. These end points, of first

dripping and table collapse, were useful in this study because each of

the plastic tables tested behaved similarily. They may not be useful

19
for tests of rigid char forming materials. Table 10a presents a tabulation of this time difference for each test where sufficient data were

available. The data from tests 3 through 8, all using the same type of

polystyrene table can be used to compare the influence of room location

on fire involvement rate and also serve as a measure of repeatability

of the time difference. It can be seen that in each location the time

difference is very repeatable having a within group standard deviation

of 5 seconds. This establishes a least significant difference at the

95 percent confidence level of 16 seconds for the average values at

each location among tests 3 through 8. Thus, from the set of data on polystyrene tables, fire involvement was significantly faster at the

wall location than in the corner, which in turn was significantly

faster than the middle of the room location. Seeing this significant

difference because of table location within the room necessitates

dividing the rest of the room data involving different table materials

into corner and wall test groups.

Table 10b shows a ranking of materials in order of increasing risk

based on the time difference between the first dripping of materials

and the table collapse for wall and corner tests. For comparative

purposes with the laboratory scale surface flammability data, the

results for the polystyrene foam can be ignored because this material

was not fully evaluated in the laboratory test . Considering the other

materials ranked in table 10b for the corner location, polypropylene

was ranked as having the longest period of burning prior to collapse or least average rate of involvement. Polystyrene and acrylic were nearly

equal but both had greater average rates of Involvement than the polystyrene foam. ABS was identified as having the greatest average rate

of involvement characterized by the time difference between the key

events

The ASTM E162 test run with polystyrene foam was terminated before

completion for safety reasons because of the intensity of heat and

smoke generation. (Personal communication with L. Breden, 4/17/78).

20
Comparing the relative ranking of materials from the room burn in

the corner location with the results of the surface flammability test

(tables 7, 8, 9), no exact agreement was found. Polypropylene showed

the slowest table involvement in the room fire but was ranked lowest

risk only by the heat evolution factor (Q factor). The heat evolution

factor ranked polypropylene equally with polystyrene, where the room

test data ranked polystyrene as equal to acrylic. The flame spread

index ranked polystyrene the lowest risk and acrylic the greatest risk.

Room fire results ranked their rate of fire involvement as comparable.

Even though imperfect, the heat release rate factor shows the best

agreement with the measure of table fire involvement used for these

tests. Rate of heat release measurements have for some time been

identified as an important parameter in characterizing the fire performance of materials [12] . No individual, laboratory scale heat release

rate test data are available for the Parsons table matetials, so that

a further evaluation of the Importance of heat release rate measurement

relative to the room fire data in this study cannot be made.

4.1.2 Correlation with Room Fire Intensity

Having demonstrated that there is little agreement between the

ASTM E162 test results and the table fire involvement rate, as determined

by the difference in time between first dripping and table collapse, a comparison of the data with a measure of the room fire intensity was

made. As a measurement of the room fire intensity, the average gas

temper ture in the upper half of the room and the average ceiling temperature were calculated as a function of time throughout the test.

To calculate the average gas temperature in the upper half of the room data channels 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 were used. Their specific

locations are given in table 2 and figures 4, 5 and 14. The failure of

data channel 18 in all of the tests prevented the use of a completely

symmetrical pattern in obtaining an average value. The data from these

channels and the averages are recorded in Appendix A.

21
To calculate the average ceiling temperature data channels 45, 46,

51, 52, 55 were used. Their specific locations are given in table 2 and figure 4, 5, and 14. The failure of data channel 53 prevented the

use of a completely symmetrical pattern in obtaining the average.

Sensor 45 closest to 53 was used in its place. The data from these

channels and the averages are recorded in Appendix A.

The data for the average gas temperature and average ceiling

temperature as a function of time is presented in figures 15-26 for

tests 6-8, and 10-18. No usable data were recorded in the other tests

in the series.

Figures 15-26 demonstrate the close correspondence between average

ceiling temperature and average gas temperatures in the room. The

average temperature curves are similar in shape to the respective table

mass loss rate curves shown in figures 27-37^. As is typically the

case, all indicators of fire intensity within the room closely follow

the mass loss rate. The two indicators of fire intensity to be examined

are the average gas ‘ temperature in the upper part* of the room and the

average ceiling temperature.

Accepting the curves in figures 15-26 as a fair indication of the

room fire intensity, a study of their repeatability was made. To

assess the repeatability of the table fire test, successful data records

from duplicate tests in the corner location and wall location were

studied. Figures 16 and 17 (tests 7 and 8 respectively) show the

results for a polystyrene table tested in the wall location. Figures

19 and 20 (tests 11 and 12 respectively) show the results for a polypropylene table tested in the corner location. These two sets of data

were used to determine in an approximate way a gauge for the repeatability of wall and corner table tests.

Test 15 is omitted because no table weights were recorded.

22
It is evident by comparing the sets of curves that the two tests

conducted in the comer with a polypropylene table were more repeatable

than the two tests where the polystyrene tables were burned in the wall

location. Unfortunately, there are not enough data among the sets of

successful room burn data files to separate out the possible interaction

between table materials and room location. In the following analysis

of repeatability, it will be assumed that the location within the room

and not the material tested was the dominant source of variation.

An unsuccessful effort was made to quantify the repeatability of

the table test data by trying to curve fit data for average ceiling

temperature as a function of time from each test with a single simple

function form f = At^e It was hoped that variations in the three

parameters A, n, a could be studied to generate expected error bands

for experimental data. The attempt was unsuccessful because all the

test cases could not be fit satisfactorily with this simple functional

form.

Quantification of repeatability of the corner and wall location

table tests was performed by studying various parameters of the average

ceiling temperature curves (figures 15-26). To eliminate as much as possible variations in the ignition process and in initial ambient

temperature, temperature parameters were taken as the difference between

measured temperatures and 40°C plus initial ambient temperature.

Similarily, all time parameters were taken as the difference between

the test time and the time of the first temperature excursion in excess

of 40°C plus initial ambient temperature. In this manner four parameters for each curve were calculated: the time to peak temperature;

the peak temperature; the total duration for which ceiling temperatures

were in excess of 40°C above the initial ambient temperature; and the area between the line at 40°C above the Initial ambient temperature and

the time-temperature test curve. Table 11 lists the values of these

parameters for each of the ceiling temperature curves. In spite of the

23
fact that only two test were available, calculated coefficients of

variation for the key parameters are given in table 12 for the data

from the wall location tests, numbers 7 and 8, and the corner tests,

numbers 11 and 12.

With the reservation that the amount of replicate data from this

series of tests is small, the repeatability of the corner tests as measured by the selected parameters was much better than for the tests

in which Parsons tables were burned in the wall location. From table

12, it can be seen that the relative time for key events, such as peak

time difference, repeats^ well in both corner and wall tests. The

apparent greater variability of the wall tests is caused by the large

variations of temperatures in the room, such as the peak temperature.

As the average ceiling temperature measurements and average gas

temperature in the upper half of the room have been found to be similar,

the comparisons between table materials burned at the same location

within the room were limited to studies of the ceiling temperatures.

Figures 38 and 39 present comparisons between the different materials

burned in the wall and corner locations. The vertical bar limits

attached to each curve at positions close to the peak in each curve,

represent estimates of plus nnd minus one standard deviation of the

local curve values. These standard deviations are calculated from the

values of the coefficient of variation (COV) from the duplicate tests

of tables in both the corner (COV = 13% for peak temperature difference)

and the wall (COV = 37% for peak temperature difference) tests. The

coefficient of variation measured for the peak values with one material

are assumed to apply to other materials tested in the same room location

and to other values along the time temperature adjacent to the peak.

For ease of calculation a 20°C ambient was assumed for all test data in

the calculation of vertical bar limits.

In figure 38, room temperatures for a short time may be significantly

greater for the polystyrene foam material than the other two, but the

large variations among these wall location tests make definite conclusions

24
impossible. For tables tested in the corner, this is not the case. Figure 39 clearly identifies the polystyrene structural foam and polypropylene materials as producing significantly higher temperatures

within the room than the other materials tested.

Generally it may be concluded that no correspondence has been

demonstrated between a material performance in the E162 surface flammability test and its performance under fire conditions when incorporated

into a Parsons table. The best comparison between the small scale data

and the room fire is between the heat evolution factor (Q) and the rate

of table fire involvement. From analysis of the room fire data, tables

tested in the wall location were identified as becoming involved with

fire significantly faster than with the corner or middle of the room

location. Test run in the corner location may be considered more

repeatable than those run with the table along the wall but quantification of the difference is difficult.

4.2 Smoke Production

In the previous section a correlation between selected room fire

test data and the small scale surface flammability test was sought. For

the analysis of smoke data from the room tests a more ambitious goal of

prediction of large scale results from the laboratory test data will be

examined

The ASTM E662 smoke chamber test is a closed 0.51 m^ box that serves as an accumulator or integrator for the smoke produced by the

burning test specimen. A specimen mass loss measurement may also be

made. In the room fire tests of the Parsons tables, a table mass loss

measurement was made, but no physical method was supplied to collect the

combustion products. Even though no physical accumulation of smoke was

performed, data was collected on the flow rates of gases in and out of

the room doorway and the amount of light obscuration caused by the smoke

in the flow. A numerical integration of this doorway data could provide

the same type of cumulative smoke data as collected in the smoke chamber

25
but on a larger scale. In the same manner as detailed for the smoke

chamber, the Integrated smoke and table mass loss data can be used to

calculate a room fire MOD value for the table material. A comparison

between smoke chamber and room fire test MOD values will provide a good

indication of the predictive power of the small scale test results.

To calculate the total (Integrated) amount of smoke that flowed out

of the room during the table burn, smoke was treated as if it were an ideal gas combustion product. That is, for a given amount of smoke, the

smoke concentration was accepted as simply inversely proportional to the

dispersed volume. The optical density per meter was taken as a measurement that was proportional to smoke concentration.

With these two assumptions, the total smoke production during the room test would be:

T Total Smoke = X X ( ^ dAdt (2)

where: t OP

L

V

A

is the total test time

is the optical density per meter

is the component of velocity of the gas flow normal to the

plane of the doorway

is the area of the doorway

Dividing equation 2 by the table mass loss (Am) yields a MOD smoke

number for the table material based on the room fire test:

MOD = (3)

26
From the test data, four measurements of smoke concentration and

six measurements of gas velocity were made in the doorway at positions

shown in figure 14. Data from each probe were recorded once every

twenty seconds. To perform the integration of velocity and optical

density per meter over the area of the doorway, the smoke and velocity

data were curve fit and all values were assumed uniform in the horizontal plane across the doorway. Straight line segments were used to

interpolate values between adjacent data points. The end sets of

straight line segments were simply extrapolated to the upper and lower

door boundaries. MOD values were calculated every twenty seconds

using the cumulative table mass loss.

Appendix B is a compilation of test data from the room fire.

Values of doorway velocity, table mass, and doorway light transmittance

are given on a 20 second time Interval throughout the test. These

data were available for tests 6-8, 10-14, 16-18. Only a fraction of

these sets of test data were further analyzed to obtain MOD values.

In test 6 the load cell and several velocity probes failed. In tests

10, 12, and 14 one or several smoke meters failed. Test 13 was not

studied because the table burned was a combination of two materials,

polypropylene and PVC, and no small scale test data were taken for the

PVC. The remaining sets of test data were analyzed to calculate MOD

values. Appendix C presents the time dependent MOD values calculated

from the test data for tests 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, and 18. In addition to

the MOD values, information on the rate of smoke generation at various

times during the tests can be seen in the data for optical density

flow (OD FLOW) . These numbers represent the value of the area integral

in equation 1 at different times during the test. The column "Total

Flow" refers to the value of equation 1 at various test times.

Studying the MOD values in Appendix C, it can be seen that in

each test the MOD values increase to a plateau value near the end of

the test. Slight variations in the plateau value are caused by fluctuation in the mass loss measurement and incomplete recovery to 100 percent

transmittance of the smoke meters.

27
Table 13 presents a comparison of MOD values for materials between

those calculated from table fire data and those measured in the NBS

smoke chamber test. The agreement between the two results for most

tests is good. For test 11, the table fire MOD number of 670 m^/kg

can be identified as an overestimate of smoke production because the

highest smoke meter in the doorway indicated a great amount of light

absorption at the completion of the test as can be seen from the data

in Appendix'cB. Even though the results from tests 8, 16, 17, 18 show

excellent agreement with smoke chamber tests, test 7 only shows fair

agreement. There appeared to be no anomalies in this set of data, so that the 34 percent deviation may represent estimate of the difference

for this predictive calculation.

The good agreement between the smoke chamber test results reduced

to an MOD form and the MOD numbers calculated from the room tests

suggests that the MOD ratings of materials can be used to calculate

the total expected smoke production from a furnishing item involved in

a fire. This process can be exemplified by recasting the data presented

in table 13 into another form. If one assumed that the entire table

would be consumed in a fire, then the original weight of the table

multiplied by the MOD number for the material measured in the smoke

chamber will yield a prediction of the total expected smoke production.

This total smoke production will be in terms of an optical density per

length times a volume. In this case, the units will be m^. Roughly

this may be thought of as a smoke concentration times the volume of

gas in which the smoke is mixed or a total effective particle area for

light absorption. Table 14 compares predicted values for total smoke

flow to measurements from the room fire taken from Appendix C.

Agreement between actual and predicted values is good and is

similar to table 13 because for these plastic tables fires the tables

burned were almost completely consumed. Therefore, the mass loss

number used in table 13 was practically equal to the original table mass used in the calculation for table 13.

28
The results shown in table 14 suggest that a good assessment of

maximum smoke production potential for furnished rooms can be made.

Coupling this with an estimate of the volume in which this smoke will

be dispersed allows one to calculate an estimate of the mean smoke

obscuration. The calculation of light absorption from optical density

numbers is of course very sensitive to the accuracy of the optical

density measurement because of the logarithmic basis for the optical

density measurement.

The MOD smoke number can be used in a way that standard smoke

numbers (specific optical density [8]) cannot. If a good estimate or measurement of the burning rates of materials within a room are available,

an evaluation of the rate of smoke production from the fire can be

calculated. Simply the MOD smoke number is multiplied by the mass loss

rate for the material in the room fire as a function of time to produce

a curve of smoke generation rate as a function of time. Using the

measured mass loss rate from Parsons table test data, comparisons of

calculated and measured smoke generation rate are shown in figures 40

through 45 for tests 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, and 18. The agreement between

calculated and measured values follows that for the total smoke production discussed above, as the total smoke production is simply an integration of the smoke generation rate vs time curve.

Even though the data from these sets of tests is meager, it has

been demonstrated that the MOD method of smoke chamber data reduction

has a potential for predicting the smoke generation from materials

involved in fires. The agreement between the small and large scale

test results for smoke generation in these tests Involving a single

furnishing item constructed entirely of one material is a first step.

Additional testing of the applicability of the MOD numbers to room

fires where more than one material and furnishing item is involved is

clearly the next step.

29
5 . CONCLUSIONS

Surface flammability data from the E162 radiant panel test was

compared in several ways to the room fire data. No correlation was

found between the flame spread index number from the E162 test and

measurements of average upper room temperature or table fire involvement time. Even though imperfect, the heat release factor of the flame

spread index number showed the best agreement with the table fire

involvement times

Measurements of smoke production from materials made in the NBS

smoke chamber and reduced to a MOD number successfully account for the

total smoke production and rate of smoke production from the table

fires. In order to firmly establish the predictive power of the MOD

number, additional room fire data should be obtained for cases where

more than one item and material are burned.

The encouraging results from the study of smoke data from this

series of tests reinforces the idea that prediction of large scale room

fire data may be possible using results from selected small scale

tests

6 . REFERENCES

[1] Peacock, R. D., Smith, J. M. , SPEED 2, A computer program for the

reduction of data from automatic data acquisition systems, NBS

Tech Note 1108, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), September 1979.

[2] Budnlck, E. K. , Mobile home living room fire studies: the role of

interior finish, NBSIR 78-1536, September 1978.

[3] O'Neill, J. G., Hayes, W. D., Jr., Zile, R. H., Full-scale fire

tests with automatic sprinklers in a patient room. Phase II,

NBSIR 80-2097, July 1980.

30
[4] Tu, K. and Babrauskas, V., The Calibration of a Burn Room for Fire

Tests on Furnishings, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech Note 981,

December 1978.

[5] Heskestad, G., Bidirectional flow tube for fire- induced vent flows,

in large-scale bedroom fire test, pp. 140-5, July 11, 1973 (FMRC

Serial 21011.4). P. A. Croce and H. W. Emmons, eds.. Factory

Mutual Research Corporation, Norwood, MA (1974) .

[6] McCaffrey, B. J. and Heskestad, G., A robust bidirectional low

velocity probe for flame and fire applications. Combustion and

Flame, Vol. 26, 125-7 (1976).

[7] Birky, M. M. , Pitt, B., Alderson, S., Part II Parsons tables;

findings on toxicity of combustion products, in preparation.

[8] Breden, L. , Meisters, M., The effect of sample orientation in the

smoke density chamber, J. Fire & Flammability, Vol. 7, pp. 234

(1976) .

[9] Seader, J. D., and Chien, W. P., Mass optical density as a correlating parameter for the NBS smoke density chamber, J. Fire & Flammability, Vol. 5, p. 151-163, April 1974.

[10] ASTM E162, Surface Flammability of Materials using a Radiant Heat

Energy Source, 1979 ASTM Annual Standards, Part 18, ASTM,

Philadelphia, PA.

[11] Duncan, A. J., Quality control and industrial statistics, fourth

edition, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL, pp. 703-706, (1974).

[12] Smith, E. E., An experimental determination of combustibility.

Fire Technology, Vol. 7, No. 2, May 1971, pp. 109-119.

31
Type A Type B (Tube Type)

Type C (Butcher Block) Type D (Particle Board)

Figure 1. Parsons tables

32
57

Ref

eg

>1

-p •H

rH•Ho

fO

M-)

CO

0) 4Jmo

<N

CT' c

•H

rH•H

;3

IHo

*H>C

fd rH

a,

CN

(DP5

CP •H

Eu

33
EXHAUST

HOOD

c/>

o>E

t/i o

‘ui c

a>

<D rHtOouo

'O•Huuo01eoou

iwo

150) •H>

fdu0

ti0o03

In •H

C0

34
35
LU

</> 0>

+-• 0>E

(/> o

*cE

c/3 ae CD oo

U)Boo

V4 p

cn

<D +joco

•H

+J>

(D iHH

in LU (U LU LU 00 u

-U _J Of

p

O. CL LU QC Cn 13 D. •H LU Pu O O >- oS LU O

QC OC SCm LU LU o

LU

1— 1— c/3 > • o 0

36
12

DC

BULB

O -7

Figure

6

.

Schematic

of

smoke

meter
38

Figure

7

.

Burning

o'f

a

Parsons

table
3>|/3U1 QOW emo• oXe

LOo9 oo

•H

iH>15

-'

Q)U

+J

C

W 0) gHU Q (1) Os

a,

cn

cc

(UUH

39

TIME

seconds
sii/jul aomi

40

Figure

9.

MOD

test

results

for

polypropylene

0.025

0.025

m

specimen
aii/jul aoM

4l

Figure

10.

MOD

test

results

for

ABS

specimen
3)(/2iu aotm

42
t/> o

a»

{/>

LU

iVz'n aow

43

Figure

12.

Effect

of

sample

size

of

MOD

value
cooo

SSVW 31dNVS

A1ISN3Q 1V3lldO

44

Figure

13.

MOD

calculated

by

ratio

of

slopes

method

for

a

0.025

m

square

sample

of

polypropylene
o46

45

Figure

14.

Perspective

view

of

test

room
00

o

a»

c/9 CM

I

p

in

0)

p

0

M-4

in

CDu

•P

n3U

d)a

1

P

C

•H

rH•H

(Uo

TJc

(d

in

fdCn

(U

CT1 IdP

(U><

m

(DU

d

•H

CMCSICM^^^i— ^

Go 3dDlVd3dl/y31

46
c/> u

09

CO CM

P

w

Q) •PP

O

U)0) p

0

+J

fOp

0) cue

(D 4J

C

•H

iH•H

CDU

'0C

fd

tn

<dCP

CDcn

(dP

Q)

rH

CDP

0

CP •H

fa

CMCMCM^^^^-^

3o BdnivdBdMai

47
Do 3dniVd3dM31

48

TIME

X

10"^

seconds

Figure

17

.

Average

gas

and

ceiling

temperatures

for

test
3o BdniVdBdMBl

49
C/J oo

(U

00

CM

+J

(A

Q) 4J

5-1 O

iWW

0)U3

4-1 fO

<De

(D p

Cn •H

iHH

Q)Oc

td

(0

fd

iTi

(D

fdu

0)

<Ti(1) u0

tj* •H

Cm

CM CM

3o 3dniVd3dM3i
3o 3dniVd3dM31

51
oo

3o 3dniVd3dVy31
oo

CO

to

CO

CNJ

03

OO

CO

uo

CO

CM

00

o

o

03

00

CM

Go

53

Figure

22.

Average

gas

and

ceiling

temperatures

for

test

14
oo

CO

LO

CO

CM

03

C30

CO

lO

CO

CM

m

i-H

COooo

CO CMI

LU

W

QJ PPO

(00P

13 P

(du

a>(hB

0) +J

Cr> ci •H

rH•H0O

T3

(3

(d

CO

(d

tri 0

Cr> 0P0

cn

CM0P

:dCn •H

Em

O

O

CM

CM CM

CO

Oo 3dniVd3dW31

54
oo

CO

in

CO

CM

O)

oo

CO

in

CO

CM

O oo CO

^

CO CM CM CM

CM O oo CO

CM CM

^ ^

CM OO CO

^

CM

00

o

0>

(/> CM

U5

•PW

0) 4-> P

0

IWw

(UP

4-> toU

0)a

e

QJ -P

PH

iH•H

(Uo

"S

(0m

to

<UtP

tou

(U

.5

CN

0)p

p

Cr> •H

fr,

3o 3univd3(jMai

5 5
Go 3dniVd3dM31

56
00

u

a»

(/> CM

00

+J

cn

<D •PU

o

0}

(U

S-t p

+J

fdp

o

cug

0) 4J

O'C

•H

rH•H

0) u

c

to

U)

(0O'

Q)O'

tou

0) >

VO

CM

0)p

p

O' •H

Oo 3dniVd3dM31

57
s/3)) 31VM SS01 SSVIN

CO

8 8 8

CO m

3)) SSVW

58

Figure

27

.

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test
s/3m 31W) SSOl SSVW

r«. CO lo

s s s

O C) o s s

o o

Figure

28.

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test
CM

Figure

29.

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test
s/3)l 31VM SS01 SSVW

o) oo S 8 S

COIO^COCM — S

O CDOCDO O O

Figure

30.

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test

10
s/3)( 3iVd SS01 SSVW
s/3)l 3iva SSOl ssvw

s s

3)1 SSVN

Figure

32.

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test

12
S/3)I 3iva SS01 ssvw

3m ssvw

64

Figure

33,

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test

13
s/3)l 3iva SS01 ssvw

o 05 oo CO lo

^

5 S 8 S S S o

CO CM ^

8 8 S

oo

CO

LTJ

CO

CM

05

oo

oo

CO

UJ

00

CM

X

CO

IT5

CO

CM

3)1 SSVW

65

Figure

34,

Table

nass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test

14
s/3)| 31VJJ SS01 SSVW

s s

c5 c5

Figure

35.

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test

16
Test

17

Table

Mass

Polystyrene

foam

(wall)

Mass

Loss

Rate

-

0.010

s/3)l im SS01 ssvw

oooSpOOGOOO OOOOOOO

C30 oooooooo

I r T \

ID

CO

CM

CT>

GO

CO

oo

LU

00

CM

I X

CD

m

CO

CM

3)1 SSVN

67

Figure

36,

Table

mass

and

mass

loss

rate

for

test

17
s/3)( 31VM SS01 SSVW

c5

o> oo S 8

c=> o

CO LO

3)) SSVW
Figure

38

.

Average

ceiling

temperature

for

wall

tests
70

TIME X

10

'^

SECONDS

Figure

39

.

Average

ceiling

temperature

for

corner

tests
s/;iu 31Vtl N0I1V)13N39 3)«IMS

71

TIME

X

10'^

SECONDS

Figure

40.

Comparison

of

calculated

and

measured

smoke

qeneration

rates,

test

7
S/ ;U1 3ivil N0I1VU3N39 JmS

72

TIME

X

10

'^

SECONDS

Figure

41.

Comparison

of

calculated

and

measured

smoke
CO

lO

CO

CM

O)

OO

CO

lO

CO

CM

s/jUi iLVd NOliVUBNaO 3)M)NS

7'3

Figure

42.

Comparison

of

calculated

and

measured

smoke

generation

rates,

test

].l
s/;U> 31VU N0liV)l3fa9 3)N)WS

\

TIME

X

10

-^

SECONDS

Figure

43.

Comparison

of

calculated

and

measured

smoke

generation

rates,

test

16
<DOew

'X303

in006C0

'O r-l 0P 4J 0 W

iH 0 0 4J 00 in o 0

+J

M-l 0 0 P C C 0 C

in -H

•H +J M 0 0 U a 0 e c O 0 U tTi 0u0

tJ! H

s/zUi 1LV8 N0liV)GN39 3)I0WS

75
S/zUi 3iVd N0lim3N39 3)K)WS

76

Figure

45.

Comparison

of

calculated

and

measured

smoke
Table 1

Parsons Table Tests

Test # Date Material Shape * Position

in Room

Animal

Evaluation

Video

Tape

1 12-23-74 Wood - Middle

2 12-23-74 Particle Board A Middle Yes

3 12-23-74 Polystyrene A Middle Yes

4 12-24-74 Polystyrene A Middle Yes

5 12-30-74 Polystyrene A SE Corner Yes

6 12-31-74 Polystyrene A SE Comer Yes

7 1-21-75 Polystyrene A E Wall Yes Yes

8 1-21-75 Polystyrene A E Wall Yes

9 1-22-75 Polypropylene ABS B E Wall Yes

10 1-23-75 ABS A E Wall Yes

11 1-23-75 Polypropylene A SE Corner Yes

12 1-24-75 Polypropylene A SE Corner Yes Yes

13 1-27-75 Polypropylene PVC B SE Corner Yes Yes

14 1-27-75 ABS A SE Corner Yes

15 1-28-75 Acrylic A SE Corner Yes Yes

16 1-28-75 Polystyrene Foam D SE Corner Yes

17 1-30-75 Polystyrene Foam D E Wall Yes

18 1-30-75 ABS A E Wall Yes

* See Figure 1

77
1

2

34

5

6

78

9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Table 2

Instrumentation - Data Channel Numbers

Description

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

- center of bum room 0.03m down from ceiling

- center of burn room 1.07m down from ceiling

- center of burn room 1.52m down from ceiling

- center of burn room 2.13m down from ceiling

- southeast corner of burn room 0.30m down from ceiling

- southeast corner of burn room 0.91m down from ceiling

- southeast corner of burn room 1.37m down from ceiling

- southeast corner of burn room 2.13m down from ceiling

- southeast corner of burn room 0.30m down from ceiling

- northeast corner of burn room 0.91m down from ceiling

- northeast corner of burn room 1.52m down from ceiling

- northeast corner of burn room 2.13m down from ceiling

- northwest corner of burn room 0.30m down from ceiling

- northwest corner of burn room 0. 76m down from ceiling

- northwest corner of burn room 1.52m down from ceiling

- northwest corner of burn room 1.83m down from ceiling

- southwest corner of burn room 0.30m down from ceiling

- southwest corner of burn room 0.91m down from ceiling

- southwest corner of burn room 1.52m down from ceiling

- southwest corner of burn room 2.13m down from ceiling

Thermocouple - 0.91m from E . wall and S. wall in burn room 0.076m from

Thermocouple - ceiling

0.91m from E. wall and S. wall in burn room 0.102m from

Thermocouple - ceiling0.91m from E. wall and S . wall in burn room 0.30m from

Thermocouple - celling

0.91m from E. wall and S . wall in burn room 0.61m from

Thermocouple - celling

0.91m from E . wall and S. wall in burn room 0.91m from

Thermocouple - ceiling

0.91m from E . wall and S . wall in burn room 1.22m from

Thermocouple - ceiling

0.91m from E. wall and S . wall in burn room 1.52m from

ceiling

Thermocouple - 0.91m from E. wall and S. wall in burn room 1.83m from

celling

Thermocouple - 0.91m from E. wall and S . wall in burn room 2.44m from

celling

Thermocouple - northeast corner of burn room 0.30m down from ceiling

Thermocouple - northwest corner of burn room 0.30m down from ceiling

Thermocouple - northwest corner of burn room 1.22m down from ceiling

Thermocouple - northwest corner of burn room 2.13m down from ceiling

Thermocouple - southwest corner of burn room 0.30m down from celling

Thermocouple - on S. wall of burn room 1.83m down and 1.22m from west wall

Thermocouple - on S . wall of burn room 0.61m down and 2.44m from west wall

Thermocouple - on E. wall of burn room 1.83m down and 1.22m from S. wall

Thermocouple - back up for #37 on outside surface of wall

Thermocouple - on E. wall of bum room 0.61m down and 1.22m from S. wall

Thermocouple - opposite #39 on outside surface of wall

Thermocouple - on N. wall of burn room 1.83m down and 1.22m from E. wall

Thermocouple - opposite #41 on outside surface of wall

Thermocouple - on N. wall of burn room 0.61m down and 1.07m from W. wall

Thermocouple - opposite #43 on outside surface of wall

Thermocouple - on center line of burn room ceiling 0.30m from E. wall

Thermocouple - on center line of burn room ceiling 1.83m from E. wall

78
47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

00

Table 2 (Cont’d)

Description

wall

wall

Thermocouple - opposite #46 on outside surface of celling

Thermocouple - on center line of burn room celling 2.74m from E. Thermocouple - opposite #48 on outside surface of celling

Thermocouple - on center line of burn room celling 3.35m from E. Thermocouple - on burn room celling 0.91m from W. wall and S. wall

Thermocouple - on burn room celling 0.91m from E. wall and S. wall

Thermocouple - on burn room celling 0.91m from E. wall and N. wall

Thermocouple - opposite #53 on outside surface of celling

Thermocouple - on burn room celling 0.91m from W. wall and N. wall

Thermocouple - center of burn room doorway 0.089m down from top of door

Thermocouple - center of burn room doorway 0.127m down from top of door

Thermocouple - center of burn room doorway 0.30m down from top of door

center of burn room doorway 0.61m down from top of door

center of burn room doorway 0.91m down from top of door

center of burn room doorway 1.22m down from top of door

center of burn room doorway 1.52m down from top of door

center of burn room doorway 1.68m down from top of door

Thermocouple - halfway from center of doorway to Its S. side 0.127m down

from top

Thermocouple - halfway from center of doorway to Its S. side 1.52m down

from top

center of adjacent room 0.30m down from celling

center of adjacent room 0.91m down from celling

center of adjacent room 1.52m down from celling

center of adjacent room 2.13m down from celling

center of adjacent room doorway 0.30m down from top of door

center of adjacent room doorway 0.91m down from top of door

center of adjacent room doorway 1.52m down from top of door

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple

Thermocouple - center of adjacent room doorway 2.13m down from top of door

Thermocouple - on burn room floor 0.91m from east and south walls

Thermocouple - on burn room floor 1.07m from north and east walls

Thermocouple - on burn room floor in northwest corner Thermocouple - on burn room floor in southwest corner

Thermocouple - on burn room floor on door centerline 0.61m from east wall

Thermocouple - on burn room floor on door centerline 2.59m from east wall

Thermocouple - on burn room floor on door centerline 3.05m from east wall

Thermocouple - opposite #45 on outside surface of ceiling

Thermocouple - quick response next to thermocouple #48

Thermocouple - on top doorway velocity impact probe

Thermocouple - on 2nd from top doorway velocity Impact probe

Thermocouple - on 3rd from top doorway velocity impact probe

Thermocouple - on 4th from top doorway velocity impact probe

Thermocouple - on 5th from top doorway velocity impact probe

Thermocouple - on 6th from top doorway velocity impact probe

Pitot tube exhaust stack

Smokemeter in exhaust stack

CO2 in stack

CO2 in stack

O 2 in stack

CO in adjacent room 1.52m from floor

CO2 in adjacent room 1.52m from floor

O2 in adjacent room 1.52m from floor

load cell

open

Horizontal smokemeter bum room doorway 0.61m from ceiling

Horizontal smokemeter bum room doorway 1.22m from ceiling

Horizontal smokemeter burn room doorway 1.83m from ceiling

79
113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

128

129

130

Table 2 (Cont'd)

Description

Velocity impact probe burn room doorway 0.127m from top of door

Velocity impact probe burn room doorway 0.30m from top of door

Velocity impact probe burn room doorway 0.66m from top of door

Velocity impact probe burn room doorway 1.07m from top of door

Velocity impact probe burn room doorway 1.37m from top of door

Velocity impact probe burn room doorway 1.91m from top of door

Radiometer in adjacent room 0.91m from burn room door on room center

line 0.91m up from floor

Radiometer in burn room on W. wall 1.83m up and 0.61m from S. wall

Heat flux meter in burn room on W. wall 1.83m up and 0.61m from S. wall

Heat flux meter in burn room on ceiling 0.61m from door on door centerline

Radiometer on burn room ceiling in the center

Heat flux meter on burn room ceiling in the center

Radiometer on burn room deling 0.91m from the door on the door centerline

Heat flux meter on burn room celling 0.91m from the door on the door

centerline

Horizontal smokemeter in bum room doorway 0.30m from ceiling

Vertical smokemeter in doorway

Smokemeter at animals - 0.91m for celling and 0.61m from adjacent room door

Time

80
Table 3

Test Event Times (Estimated from Video Tapes)

Test # Materials

Sustained

IGN

First

Drip

Major Melting

and Drip

Table Fell

into Screen

Table

Collapsed

1 Wood NONE - - - -

2 P.B. NONE - - - -

3 P.S. 70 120 130 220(a) 400

4 P.S. 35 75 240 310 360

5 P.S. 25 100 240 265 290

6 P.S. (b) 85 225 225 270

7 P.S. 35 100 180 215 250

8 P.S. 45 90 185 240 250

9 PP-ABS (c) c c c c

10 ABS (c) c c c c

11 PP (c) c c c c

12 PP 110 90 330 510 540

13 PP-PVC 45 135 185 220 290

14 ABS 115 175 260 295 315

15 Acr. (b) 250 395 (3) 430

16 P.S.F. 70 100 250 310 315

17 P.S.F. 50 155 260 275 295

18 ABS (b) (d) 80(d) 155(d) 185(d) 200(d)

(a) No screen used in this test; table fell off platform

(b) Unable to detect time

(c) No video tape available

(d) Video started sometime after ignition of heptane

(e) Table collapsed directly to the platform

P.B. Particle Board

P.S. Polystyrene

PP-AB Polypropylene - ABS

ABS ABS

PP Polypropylene

PP-PVC Polypropylene - PVC

Acr Acrylic

PSF Polystyrene Foam

81
Description

of

Parsons

Tables

CO

0)u<

<uu

CTJ M-l • CM o CM <r <1* CM

O

M S uO o cn 00 00 00 CO ON

:3 o vO o CM Csl CM

O 00 • 1—

tH pH <r CM CM

cr • • • • • • • OJ o o O o o o O O O nd

•HU

ON

00mo o ww

Q)Cu

*HXH

00 00 00 ^ 'O'

vD vO ^ vO

Lo cn

m

m

CO

00U

CM CM LH

oc 1 1 1 cn 00 CM ON

OO •H 1 1 1 • • • • • 0) CM CM CM o

CTn v£) O cnX X

vD ^£5 v£5 O un o O < o <r

Q • • • « E X X X X

(U v£5 <r v£> N O in ^ O

•H <t

O CD *<r cn • • • •

0)

/'—

B

X /'"s /-“V 03 0) u t—1 'O' 'O' W B

cd '—' '—^ ^

CO

0) 0) CO 'w' Q- 00 P- O <U -H OJ 4J H hJ hJ X U c 4J

03 •H

P-.C

'O •H i-P < a> < < H "la H T3 H QJ O tH O 0) O e H O H od H

OJ S rHO

0) >< CD CO iH 4J C pq

•H 10 QJ <; CD < H C

w iJ 0) CO a; CO T—

•H

C O. CO J-i 03 03 C OJ o

*H

O -H >-l TJ 4-1 TO

U iH TO DH COH

<D CO o o U Sj 4-1 CO H g H e

CO CJ 3 « O o

<i PQ <C pq Pm

rO

o> 00 <r a o

COm • • O • X X O X O • 00 VC CO

lTi

m cn LO

m

X

O

<r

O <3- CO UO • • • • • 03 • *H X X X X X X X nd X

00 <r cn fH pH CO

CO un v£> vO rH

m LTl 00 <f o O o O o

/•~v y—

/-N /-*s rH 00 00 CO

pH CM CM '

'— S-t/ s-y

CO CO CO CO CO

a 00

a cxa oo <u 0) o- o 0) •H 0 (U a a cd H hJ hH H pH •rH <u u

CL •H

CO P-. CO pH 0 U rH < u o < H CJ c H o u O H o H

CJ)

H QJ QJ 3 3

QJ 3

QJ

HH

t-H PM 1 PM

O cQ

OO

O

•H

H IM 3 3 JM pH PM PM 3 PM

QJ QJ -Q H QO QO 1—1 H

H

G 3 o pq pfl 0 O < H PM < < PM PM PM CO ^ O 82 i

Data

by

D.W.

Schmulling

1/75

Right

angle

corner

Pipe

shape
Outside

Surface

Area

Part

(each)

Size,

in^

Weight,

kg

Thickness,

mm

sq.

m. o o o 00 so 0\

vO iH as as o in as o 00 O CO o m 00 <!• as

<N CO as CM <1- iH vO CO

• • • • • • • • • • o o o o o o O o o o

CO CO CO ro o^ o^ o^

rM 1—^ t-H

<r vO CM CM o CM IT) 00 00 O 00 CO o • • • * • • • • • • tH I—

o CM 12 CM CM tH o

c c 00 as CO 00 vO vO 'd* VO vO o O ID vO uO liO as as 00 ON

IT) ID ID CO vO <r CO CO <1* CO CO CM CO

CO CO * • • * • • • • • • • X X X X X X (0 X X X X X

X X QJ 00 CO CM 00 CO 00 rH 60 <r 'd' LO • • o o O O o O ID ID T) LD as ID ID o^ ^ cd cd ID vD tH ID vD ID <r O o 0) CO O O CO

• v-i •H • « • • • • * • • & • • • • • 'Td T3 X X X X X X X X X X (U X X X X X

z z rH

r*^ t-h iH CO 00 CM vD VO ID as iH rH 60 1—as o^ <r

IT) ID iD 00 o o as rH ID c 00 rH tn rH

<r o O ^d- ID 1^ f-H O O O cd CO O o O CO

’ * • * * * * “

rH -<r «—! <r <r

w

rH

cd •HU

0) U

<d

cn CO CO P. 60 P.

(X 60 QJ QJ P. p- px p* 60 PX (A o QJ *H O QJ O- O O •H 'H o QJ •H 0) H rH rH H iJ •H QJ H rH rH H rH rH o

P- *H cd CO fH P

CO rH w rH cd o H < C Hd tH H QJ 4-1 H H 4J d

U d •H O O •H QJ d rH d IS H H & > O <

O rH O •H H

QJ CJ < 13 Cd I—Id CN Id d O

CM d H Hi d tH d d QJ QJ H

QJ O a cd d • cd • cd d 4-1 rH H o o QJ O O O o d K

0) rH ca > 2 PQ Id Z PQ CO W

t—rH PQ O o CO Cu 1 QJ r QJ o z QJ 0) 1—

cd O o d 1—rH rd t—

S Hd 1—

d cd H H H QJ QJ o pH a o u O Pd 4-1 P-. P- d JZ •H d d •H Id d •H o

QJ QJ U •U •H d 4-1 •H d 4-1 td H

rH O O tH iH U d > d d rH d d 60 3 O > > o d cd PQ cd o PQ cd •H d

H fH Ph PU P< PQ Pd s PH CP ~

Pd X o ^ a 'o

83

Right

angle

corner

Pipe

shape

Hollow
Table 5

Breden's Mass Optical Density Numbers for Table Materials

Parsons Table Material MOD (m^/kg)

ABS 520

Acrylic 100

Polypropylene 400

Polystyrene 785

Polystyrene foam 790

Table 6

Comparison of Breden's MOD Values with those from a Retesting of Materials

Material Breden MOD Retest m^/kg

ABS 520 650^ 540^

Acrylic 100 65^ 70^

Polypropylene 400 400^ 440^

Polystyrene 785

4 700 690^

Polystyrene Foam 790 (6) (6)

Average plateau value from figure 8

I Average plateau value from figure 9 'Average plateau value from figure 10

Average plateau value from figure 11

Values based on ratio of slopes method

’No material available to retest

MOD retest data collected by Robin Breese

84
Table 7a

Flame Spread Index (I ) s for Parsons Table Materials

Number Material I^ (duplicate) Avg.

1 Particle Board with Vinyl Overlay 80, 80 80

2 Particle Board Underside 114, 147 131

3 Table Type A* Particle Board Underside 122, 84 103

4 Polystyrene Impact Grade Pigmented

White .147, 192 170

5 Polypropylene Impact Grade Pigmented

White 358, 309 334

6 ABS Pigmented White 328, 255 292

7 Acrylic Clear 390, 324 357

Table 7b

Ranking of Table Materials Based on Flame Spread Index

1. Particle Board with Vinly Overlay 80 '

) 3. Table Type A, Particle Board 103 ' (1)

2. Particle Board 131 1I

4. Polystyrene 170 !

: (2)

6. ABS 292 j

1 5. Polypropylene 334 > (3) 7. Acrylic 357 )

1

Least significant difference between any two average values at the

confidence level is 82.

95%

85
Table 8a

Flame Spread Factor (F ) for Parsons

s Table Materials

Number Material F^ (duplicate) F^ Avg.

1 Particle Board Vinyl Overlay 5.7, 4.7 5.2

2 Particle Board Underside 5.0, 6.85 5.9

3 Table Type A* Particle Board

Underside 5.3, 5.0 5.2

4 Polystyrene Impact Grade Pigmented

White 6.8, 6.5 6.7

5 Polypropylene Impact Grade Pigmented

White 15.3, 13.6 14.5

6 ABS Pigmented White 6.7, 6.0 6.4

7 Acrylic Clear 6.1, 5.4 5.8

Table 8b

Ranking of Table Materials based on Flame Spread Factor

3 Type A* Particle Board 5.2

1 Particle Board with Vinyl Overlay 5.2

7 Acrylic 5.8

2 Particle Board 5.9

6 ABS 6.4

4 Polystyrene 6.7

5 Polypropylene 14.5

Least significant difference between any two average values at the 95%

confidence level is 1.85.

86
Table 9a

Heat Release Factor (Q) for Parsons Table Materials

Numb er Material Q (duplicate) Q Avg.

s

1 Particle Board Vinyl Overlay 14.1, 17.0 15.6

2 Particle Board Underside 22.9, 21.4 22.2

3 Table Type A* Particle Board

Underside 23.0, 16.8 19.9

4 Polystyrene Impact Grade

Pigmented White 21.6, 29.6 25.6

5 Polypropylene Impact Grade

Pigmented White 23.4, 22.7 23.1

6 ABS Pigmented White 48.9, 42.5 45.7

7 Acrylic Clear 63.9, 60.0 62.0

Table 9b

Ranking of Table Materials based on Heat Release Rate Factor

1 Particle Board Vinyl Overlay 15.6

3 Type A* Particle Board 19.9

1 2 Particle Board 22.2 1 5 Polypropylene 23.1 (2) 4 Polystyrene 25.6

6 ABS 45.7 f (3)

7 Acrylic 62.0 1 (4)

Least significant difference between any two average values at the 95%

confidence level is 8.24.

87
Test

3

4

5

6

7

8

12

13

14

15

lt>

17

18

Table 10a

Time Difference Between First Drip and Table Collapse

(Based on Video Tape Estimates)

Time, sec

# Material Location

First

Drip

Table

Collapse

Time

Difference

Polystyrene Middle 120 400 280

Polystyrene Middle 75 360 285

Polystyrene Corner 100 290 190

Polystyrene Corner 85 270 185

Polystyrene Wall 100 250 150

Polystyrene Wall 90 250 160

Polypropylene Corner 90 540 450

Polypropylene-PVC Corner 135 290 155

ABS Corner 175 315 135

Acrylic Corner 250 430 180

Polystyrene Foam Corner 100 315 215

Polystyrene Foam Wall 155 295 140

ABS Wall 80 200 120

Table 10b

Ranking of Time Differences from Table 10a for Wall and Corner Tests

Wall Corner

Polystyrene 155 sec Polypropylene 450 sec Polystyrene Foam 140 sec Polystyrene Foam 215 sec ABS 120 sec Polystyrene 187 sec Acrylic 180 sec ABS 135 sec

88
Table 11

Key Parameters of Ceiling Temperature Curves

Test #

Area Under

Curve

(2) Start Tlme^ ^ Seconds

(3) Peak Time^ ' Difference

Seconds

(4) Peak Temp.

Difference

°C

End Tlme^^^

Seconds

6 24,000 260 240 67 800

7 41,940 200 240 101 720

8 31,560 220 220 59 980

10 35,900 180 260 79 740

11 33,600 400 300 145 840

12 34,320 380 340 174 760

13 27,860 200 420 53 980

14 32,440 280 200 74 820

15 35,480 380 300 87 1160

16 72,060 260 40 206 960

17 64,840 240 200 170 840

18 29,760 180 200 68 720

^^^Area Under Curve - Area between the time- temperature curve and the line

at 40° C plus initial ambient temperature.

( 2 ) Start Time - Test time for the first temperature excussion above 40 °C plus

the initial ambient temperature.

(3) Peak Time Difference - Test time to the peak minus start time.

(4) Peak Temperature Difference - Peak temperature minus the quantity 40°C

plus the initial ambient temperature.

* 5 ) End Time - Time of last temperature excussion above 40 °C plus the initial

ambient temperature.

Table 12

Variability of Key Parameters for Wall and Corner Tests

Coefficient of Variation (percent)*

Wall Corner

Area Under Curve 20.0 1.5

Start Time 6.7 3.6

Peak Time Difference 6.2 8.8

Peak Temperature Difference 37.1 12.9

End Time - Start Time 26.5 10.3

*Values based on two tests.

89
Table 13

Comparison of Smoke Chamber* and Room Fire Test

MOD Values for Various Materials

Plateau

Test No. Material

MOD m^/kg

Table

Fire

Smoke

Chamber Ratio

7 Polystyrene 1000 785 1.34

8 Polystyrene 800 785 1.02

11 Polypropylene 670'^ 400 1.68

16 Polystyrene Foam 820 790 1.04

17 Polystyrene Foam 800 790 1.01

18 ABS 540 520 1.04

* Data furnished by Breden + Value may be unrealistically high as the top smoke meter in the doorway indicated

significantly lower than 100% light transmission at the end of the test.

Table 14

Comparison of Calculated and Measured Total Smoke

Production from the Table Fires

Test // Material

Table

Mass

OD-m^

Table Fire

Smoke Production

OD-m^

Calculated

Smoke Production Ratio

7 Polystyrene 2.3 kg 2.4 X 10^ 1.8 X 103 1.3

8 Polystyrene 2.3 kg 1.8 X 10^ 1.8 X 103 1.0

11 Polypropylene"^ 1.8 kg 1.3 X 10^ 0.72 X 10^ 1.8

16 Polystyrene Foam 3.0 kg 2.4 X 103 2.3 X 10 3 1.04

17 Polystyrene Foam 3.1 kg 2.4 X 10^ 2.5 X 103 0.96

18 ABS 2.4 kg 1.1 X 10^ 1.2 X lO^ 0.92

+See footnote table 11.

90
APPENDIX A

Room Gas and Celling Temperatures

Time

GAS 1 - GAS 7

AV GAS

CL 1 - CL 6

AV CL

Test time in seconds

Gas temperatures in °C from channel numbers

5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 17 respectively.

Locations are shown in figures 4, 5, and 8.

The average value of the gas temperature

measure at a given time.

Ceiling temperatures in °C from channel

numbers 45, 46, 51, 52 and 55 respectively.

Locations are shown in figures 4, 5, and 8.

Is the average value of the ceiling

temperature at a given time.

NOTE: Data reproduced in Analysis of Data from Room Fire Test of

Parsons Tables and Comparison with Laboratory Test Methods

for Flame Spread and Smoke Generation, Volume II.

A1
if

*4» ’

?B

f

' - 4

- —-^HSL

r, VJ. &i}aV:’6;I^0JL, ;

fc ®=i," *«i.?t i.o

' #' -'v v^ '"

, '^r^'.

tflU £X *0 i*><l t^»-.wI:SV’:„»$^36'V»' ^"

,. .,(> i >^S!*#!SL »1Il/3.WS<lCi53

l/.'fvfj

^jj. -tfS

. sJ ^ ^ . ti.|| ^

'*'“ in«.a.W»3k.<Wi»S«a-* . 'tw

5rfi ; Hi i)*JiDwtot(ty:i'!^24fcQi sa

• _

' r;»>:^V'Vbifii

.

: V. / ^
APPENDIX B

Doorway Gas Velocity, Table Mass and Light Transmittance Data

Time Test time in seconds, channel 131

Mass

VEL 1 - VEL 6

Smoke 1 - Smoke 4

Table mass in kilograms, channel 108

Are doorway gas velocities from data channels

113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, respectively.

Locations are shown in figures 4, 5, and 8.

Positive values represent gas flow out of the

test room, negative values are Inflow.

Are doorway smoke meter transmittance data in

units of percent of full transmittance,

channels 128, 110, 111, 112 respectively.

NOTE: *Negative smoke transmittance value replaced by 0.0001

[] Extraneous reading replaced by average of reading before

and after

NOTE: Data reproduced in Analysis of Data from Room Fire Test of

Parsons Tables and Comparison with Laboratory Test Methods

for Flame Spread and Smoke Generation, Volume II.

B1

APPENDIX C

Room Fire MOD Values

Time Test time in seconds

Mass Loss Table weight loss up to a given time in units

of kilograms

OD Flow Flow rate of smoke out of the test room at a given time in units of m^/s

Total OD Total flow of smoke out the doorway throughout

the test in units of m^

MOD Mass optical density number in units of m^/kg

NOTE: Data reproduced in Analysis of Data from Room Fire Test of

Parsons Tables and Comparison with Laboratory Test Methods

for Flame Spread and Smoke Generation, Volume II.

Cl
NBS-n4A (REV. 2 -ac) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. PubI ication Date

SHEET (See instructions) ' 'v INBSIR 81-2400 November 1981

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM ROOM FIRE TEST OF PARSONS TABLES AND COMPARISON

WITH LABORATORY TEST METHODS FOR FLAME SPREAD AND SMOKE GENERATION, VOLUME I

5. AUTHOR(S)

David D. Evans

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

.. '.s:::f’GTON, d.c. 20234

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

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

I

supplementary NOTES

Doc rnent describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached. AxBSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document Includes a significant

i bi bliography or literature survey, mention it here) Data from a series of 18 room fire tests in which a Parsons table was

_i,e only combustible item were analyzed. Selected data from the tests were

cor ared to laboratory fire test data from the ASTM E162 surface flammability

. test, and a modified smoke density test.

I The flame spread index from the ASTM E162 test was not shown to be an dependable indicator of either the time for table fire involvement or room

j fire Intensity. Results from the National Bureau of Standards smoke chamber

using an MOD (mass optical density) method for data reduction were able to

predict the smoke production rate and total smoke production from the table

f. res to within 34 percent and in several cases within 5 percent.

i

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) ASTM E162; fire tests; flame spread; tables; plastics; smoke chamber.

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

Unlimited

1 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 102

1 1 Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

15. Price 20402.

[X] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA, 22161 $11.00

USCOMM-DC 6O43-P0O