NBSIR 80-2097

FFJ cc?y

DO NOT Kimi

AUO 4 isgf Full-Scale Fire Tests With

Automatic Sprinklers in A Patient

Room. Phase II

John G. O'Neil!

Warren D. Hayes, Jr. Richard H. Zile

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D C. 20234

July 1980

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, D.C. 20201

NBSIR 80-2097

FULL-SCALE FIRE TESTS WITH

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS IN A PATIENT

ROOM. PHASE II

John G. O'Neill

Warren D. Hayes, Jr. Richard H. Zile

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

July 1980

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, D.C. 20201

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity. Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES v

LIST OF TABLES vii

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SUMMARY OF THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION 2

3. SCOPE OF WORK 3

4. OBJECTIVES 3

4.1 Overall Project Objective 3 4.2 Phase II Specific Objectives 4

5. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS *

5.1 Test Area, Construction Details 4 5.2 Automatic Sprinkler System 5 5.3 Instrumentation 8

6. ELEMENTS OF HAZARD ANALYSIS 7

6.1 Fire Spread 7 6.2 Heat Flux 8 6.3 Smoke Levels 8 6.4 Gas Concentration 8

7. SPRAY DISTRIBUTION TESTS 9

7 . 1 Background 9 7.2 Test Plan and Procedure 9 7.3 Results 11

7.3.1 Pendant Sprinklers H

7.3.2 Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers 11

8. MATTRESS AND BEDDING FIRE TESTS H

8.1 Background for Current Investigation H

8.2 Revisions in Instrumentation 12

8.3 Variation in Sprinkler Heads 12

8.4 Experimental Arrangement and Procedure 12

8.5 Test Results and Analysis 13

8.5.1 Standard Pendant and Horizontal Sidewall Sprinkler Tests 13

8.5.2 Movement of Smoke and CO - Analysis of Data 13

8.6 Simulated Rapid Response Sprinkler Tests 1^

8.6.1 Preliminary Test 1^

8.6.2 CFR Patient Room Tests 15

8.7 Discussion 15

iii

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page 9.

WARDROBE FIRES 16

9.1 Test Plan and Procedure 16

9.2 Nonsprinklered Wardrobe Fire 16

9.3 Pendant Sprinkler Tests 17

9.4 Horizontal Sidewall Sprinkler Tests 17

9.5 Packed Wardrobe Test 18

9.6 Noncombustible Wardrobe Tests 18

9.7 Simulated Rapid Response 19

9.8 Combustible Ceiling Tests 19

10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 20

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 21

12

.

REFERENCES 21

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

/ Page

Figure 1. Burn room floor plan - mattress series 24

Figure 2. Burn room elevation - mattress series 25

Figure 3. Burn room floor plan - wardrobe series 26

Figure 4. Burn room elevation - wardrobe series 27

Figure 5. Corridor and lobby floor plan 28

Figure 6. Corridor and lobby elevation 29

Figure 7. Sprinkler system plan view 30

Figure 8. Load cell suspension for mattress and bedding 31

Figure 9. Privacy curtain details . 32

Figure 10. Burn room floor view - sprinkler distribution test 33

Figure 11. Burn room doorway elevation - sprinkler distribution test 34

Figure 12. Sprinkler distribution - privacy curtain in place 35

Figure 13. Sprinkler distribution - no privacy curtain 35

Figure 14. Model two patient room 36

Figure 15. Typical distribution for standard sprinkler 37

Figure 16. Sprinkler distribution - privacy curtain directly under sprinkler .... 38

Figure 17. Sprinkler distribution - privacy curtain, 3 in down and 6 in away from

sprinkler 38

Figure 18. Sprinkler distribution— privacy curtain, 4 in down and 9 in away

from sprinkler 39

Figure 19. Sprinkler distribution - privacy curtain, 6 in down and 12 in away from sprinkler ..... 39

Figure 20. Sprinkler distribution - privacy curtain, 8 in down and 15 in away

from sprinkler ....... 40

21. Minimum vertical clearances — sprinkler deflector to top of privacy

curtain 4 ^ Figure 22. Sprinkler distribution - privacy curtain 6 in from ceiling 42

Figure 23. Sprinkler distribution — privacy curtain 9 in from ceiling ........ 42

Figure 24. Carbon monoxide concentrations (test N-37) 43

Figure 25. Center of ceiling gas temperature 44

Figure 26. Smoke obscuration at 1.7 m (5 ft 8 in) level in doorway .... 45

Figure 27. Smoke obscuration at 1.5 m (5 ft) level in corridor ........... 46

Figure 28. Smoke obscuration at 1.5 m (5 ft) level in lobby , 47

Figure 29. Carbon monoxide concentration - corridor 48

v
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Page

Figure 30. Smoke filling rate (test N-37) 49

Figure 31. Smoke filling rate (test N-39) 50

Figure 32. Wardrobe construction details 51

Figure 33. Center of ceiling air temperature wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 52

Figure 34. Corridor ceiling temperature 5 ft west wardrobe fire tests - center

ceiling pendent 53

Figure 35. Carbon monoxide concentrations - adjacent patient level wardrobe fire

tests - center ceiling pendent 54

Figure 36. COHb at adjacent patient level wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 55

Figure 37. Carbon monoxide concentration in the lobby wardrobe fire tests - center

ceiling pendent 56

Figure 38. COHb at 3 ft level in lobby wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 57

Figure 39. Corridor smoke obscuration 15 ft west 5 ft level wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling pendent 58

Figure 40. Heat flux - adjacent patient level wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 59

Figure 41. Center of ceiling air temperature wardrobe fire tests - horizontal

sidewall over door 60

Figure 42. Corridor ceiling temperature 5 ft west wardrobe fire tests - horizontal

sidewall over door 61

Figure 43. Carbon monoxide concentrations - adjacent patient level wardrobe fire

tests - horizontal sidewall over door 62

Figure 44. COHb at adjacent patient level wardrobe fire tests - horizontal

sidewall over door 63

Figure 45. Carbon monoxide concentration in the lobby wardrobe fire tests - horizontal sidewall over door 64

Figure 46. COHb at 3 ft level in lobby wardrobe fire tests - horizontal sidewall

over door 65

Figure 47. Smoke obscuration at 68 in level in doorway wardrobe fire tests - horizontal sidewall over door 66

Figure 48. Corridor smoke obscuration 15 ft west 5 ft level wardrobe fire

tests - horizontal sidewall over door 67

Figure 49. Heat flux - adjacent patient level wardrobe fire tests - horizontal

sidewall over door 68

Figure 50. Sprinkler distribution - interior of wardrobes 69

vi
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Page

Figure 51. Center of ceiling gas temperature wardrobe fire tests - center

ceiling pendent 70

Figure 52. Carbon monoxide concentrations - adjacent patient level wardrobe fire

tests - center ceiling pendent 71

Figure 53. Carbon monoxide concentration in the lobby wardrobe fire tests - center

ceiling pendent 72

Figure 54. COHb at adjacent patient level wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 73

Figure 55. COHb at 3 ft level in lobby wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 74

Figure 56. Center of ceiling air temperature wardrobe fire tests - center ceiling

pendent 75

Figure 57. Corridor ceiling temperature 5 ft west wardrobe fire tests - center

ceiling pendent 76

Figure 58. Carbon monoxide concentration in the lobby wardrobe fire tests - center

ceiling pendent 77

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Summary of fire tests 78

Table 2. List of instrumentation 79

Table 3. Mattress and bedding technical data 82

Table 4. Simulated clothing technical data 83

Table 5. Fire load for sprinkler tests 83

vii

FULL-SCALE FIRE TESTS WITH AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS

IN A PATIENT ROOM. PHASE II

John G. O'Neill, Warren D. Hayes, Jr. , and Richard H. Zile

Abstract

The Center for Fire Research conducted a series of full-scale fire

tests in a patient room and corridor arrangement to examine the use of

automatic sprinklers in patient rooms of health care facilities. This

is a report of twenty-one (21) fire tests in which either mattresses

with bedding or clothing wardrobes served as the burning items.

Test results indicated that actuation of both pendant and horizontal

sidewall sprinklers in the patient room acted to cool and redistribute

the combustion products in the patient room and in the corridor away

from the flowing sprinkler. This phenomenon resulted in total obscuration

throughout the test area. It was demonstrated that the use of a fast

response, (low thermal inertia) sprinkler resulted in significantly less

smoke obscuration in the mattress and bedding fires.

Sprinkler spray distribution measurements were made to develop

criteria for the position of privacy curtains with respect to the automatic sprinklers in the patient room. Recommended installation criteria

are provided.

Analysis of the test results indicated that the combustible clothing

wardrobe fire resulted in room flashover in a nonsprinklered test. In

several tests with sprinklers, flashover did not occur, however, estimated

hazardous thresholds for carbon monoxide were still exceeded in the test

area. It was determined that the combustible construction of the wardrobe

primarily contributed to the high concentrations of carbon monoxide.

Key Words: Clothing wardrobes; health care facilities; hospitals;

mattresses; smoke movement; sprinkler systems.

1 . INTRODUCTION

The Center for Fire Research (CFR) at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are jointly conducting a life safety/fire

safety research program which began in 1975. The program consists of projects in the

following areas: decision analysis, fire and smoke detection systems, smoke movement and

control, automatic extinguishment, and the behavior of institutionalized populations in

fire situations.

The initial full-scale fire tests concerning the use of automatic sprinklers in patient room fires began in August 1977. An interim report (Ph^se I) has been published which

presented the results of this initial investigation [1] . The project was resumed in

January 1979 and the results of this second phase of the investigation on automatic sprinklers

are presented in this report.

The role of automatic sprinklers in providing life safety in health care facilities

continues to be an item of considerable interest among the various parties who share responsibilities in assuring that adequate fire safety is provided in health care facilities.

Numbers in brackets indicate the literature references at the end of this paper.

1
These parties include code making officials, legislators, and regulatory agencies, as well as the administrators of the health care facilities. These various groups are examining the

range of fire safety requirements, from mandatory installation of automatic sprinklers

throughout all health care facilities to selective requirements for sprinklers which relate

to the type of construction, the size of the facility, the provisions for other fire safety

equipment and the relative mobility of the occupants. An example of this interest, reflecting the relative importance of the issues, is the consideration of a bill introduced into the

United States House of Representatives, "To amend the Social Security Act to require automatic sprinklers in all nursing facilities certified for participation in the Medicare or Medicaid program, and to provide for direct low-interest Federal loans to assist such facilities in constructing or purchasing and installing the automatic sprinkler systems." [2]

Although this bill has not yet become law, there is continuing interest in mandating the

installation in all skilled nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities participating

in Medicare and Medicaid [3].

The use of sprinklers in health care facilities has been of high interest not only to

those parties previously mentioned, but also to those who are developing alternative approaches

to fire safety in buildings. The Center for Fire Research has recently developed a quantitative system for grading fire safety in health care facilities [4]. This rating system is

based on achieving a level of safety equivalent to the Life Safety Code 1973 Edition [5].

The rating system is used to determine how combinations of fire safety equipment and building

construction can provide equivalency to the Code. The system, therefore, assigns a quantitative value to the installation of automatic sprinklers as well as to other fire safety

equipment. The basis for the value is the relative merit for providing life safety which

automatic sprinklers may have in relation to alternative types of fire protection equipment.

What evolves from all of these activities — that is, the consideration of national

legislation, the development of consensus technical standards and the development of a quantitative measurement technique for fire safety — is the need to understand what an automatic sprinkler system contributes toward the total fire safety system in a health care facility.

The objective of the CFR research program is to develop technical information on the

effectiveness of sprinklers in health care facilities. The program is designed to partially

fill the gap in available knowledge for those responsible for establishing fire safety

requirements and for researchers who are quantifying the impact of sprinklers on room fires.

In addition to developing this input, the analysis of experimental results has generated

ideas of where current sprinkler system technology can be improved.

2. SUMMARY OF THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION

Since the results of the initial CFR sprinkler project [1] served as a foundation for

much of the work in this second phase, the key findings are summarized here. In that investigative series full-scale tests were conducted, in which a patient bed and bedding served as the burning items. The following major conclusions were reached;

a. Critical levels for smoke obscuration were reached in the burning bedding tests prior to

sprinkler operation, potentially impeding the rescue of the patient in the adjacent bed

and the use of the corridor as an exit way Following sprinkler operation, total

obscuration (> .9 OD/m) occurred from fxoor to ceiling throughout the test area.

b. The presence of a privacy curtain in the fire room interfered with the extinguishing

performance of the sprinkler.

c. The distribution of carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations shifted after sprinkler actuation.

Concentrations were the highest at the floor level after sprinklers operated. Prior to

sprinkler operation the highest concentrations were recorded at the highest measuring

point, 1.7 m (5 ft 8 in) above the floor in the doorway.

2
d. The CO concentrations in general did not reach what were considered hazardous thresholds

except in tests in which the privacy curtain stayed in place. The privacy curtain

delayed extinguishment of the fire and resulted in significantly higher concentrations

of CO. Calculated carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) eventually exceeded a critical level of 25

percent at the adjacent patient level. The data suggested that a more optimal location

of the sprinkler with respect to the curtain, or the use of privacy curtains which do

not extend to the ceiling, may enhance the extinguishing action of the sprinkler and

reduce the CO concentration.

e. The presence of the Class C wall finish in this room arrangement and for this fire

scenario did not play a role in the fire development and subsequently did not affect

the fire control of the sprinkler.

3. SCOPE OF WORK

The series of full-scale fire tests and sprinkler spray distribution tests was based on fire scenarios involving either bedding and mattresses or clothing wardrobes in a twopatient room environment. These furnishings represented typical contents in patient rooms

of health care facilities and in the test procedures they served as the principal burning

items. The experimental procedure for the sprinkler evaluation was limited to the flaming

ignitions of these items. Smoldering ignitions of bedding materials were conducted in

conjunction with this program to examine the performance of fire detectors. The results of

that investigation will be provided in another report.

The location of the sprinklers and the water flow design parameters used in this test

series essentially followed current established installation standards [6]. In addition,

the sprinklers used in the series met the current Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard

199 [7]. The project did, however, include some tests in which a simulated rapid response

sprinkler operated at flow rates less than that required in the current installation standard.

In those tests, only the simulated fusible element of the sprinkler differed from the

sprinklers currently listed by UL. The scope of the project did not include the use of

sprinklers with spray patterns different from currently available sprinklers meeting the UL

standard.

In the fire tests where mattresses and bedding materials served as the burning items,

there was no attempt to assess the effects of adverse conditions on a patient in the burning

bed in the fire room. A reasonable assessment would have required a complex arrangement of

instrumentation which would have, at best, provided limited information. Therefore, the

scenario for the mattress and bedding fires was based on the assumption that the patient in

the bed which serves as the burning item either removed himself from the bed or was rescued.

Analysis of the test results for life safety was considered for: a) a patient in an adjoining bed, b) for patients and staff exiting in the corridor adjacent to the room, and c) for

a patient in a remote room at the end of the test area corridor.

It was also assumed that the door between the burn room and the corridor remained open

during the fire, i.e., the door had not been closed by actions of the staff nor by means of an automatic closing device. It was further assumed in the analysis of the data that the

patient in the adjoining bed had not escaped nor been removed during the time of the fire

test

.

4 . OBJECTIVES

4.1 Overall Project Objective

The overall objective of this project is to develop engineering design information on

the use of automatic sprinklers to minimize life loss and injury in the event of fire in

health care facilities. The effectiveness of the sprinklers was measured in terms of:

a. Overall fire control.

b. Time available for evacuation of patients in the fire area.

3
c. Maintaining tolerable environmental conditions for patients who cannot be evacuated.

To this end, current design criteria for sprinklers contained in the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13 [6] and fire safety requirements in the current

NFPA Life Safety Code 101 [8] are specifically examined to determine if these criteria can

be improved, based on both life safety and cost effectiveness of system designs.

4.2 Phase II Specific Objectives

Within the above overall program objectives, specific objectives were set for the

experimental work planned for this phase of the project. Several of these evolved from the

interim results summarized in section 2. The objectives of this phase included investigations

into the following:

a. the impact of sprinklers on clothing wardrobe fires

b. the use of horizontal sidewall sprinklers in patient room fires

c. the impact of a simulated fast response sprinkler on smoke obscuration

d. the impact of a fan coil unit, make up air supply and an exhaust system on fire

growth and environment conditions throughout the test area

e. the quantification of the impact of a privacy curtain which shields the sprinkler

spray during a bed fire.

5 . EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

5.1 Test Area, Construction Details

The fire test area consisted of a simulated patient room, corridor, and lobby located

in a building previously used as a military barracks building. Figures 1 thru 6 provide

detailed dimensions, as well as the instrumentation and sprinkler system plans. Table 2 lists the instrumentation installed in the fire test area.

The room where test fires were initiated, the "burn room", was lined with 13 mm (1/2 in)

cement asbestos board screwed to steel studs and channels over 13 mm (1/2 in) vinyl covered

gypsum board. For several tests included in this report, the walls surrounding the bed or the wardrobe were covered with prefinished lauan plywood paneling, 4 mm (5/32 in) thick,

fastened to nominally sized 1 x 2 in furring strips. The paneling had a Class C flamespread

rating (ASTM E-84) . In the tests where the impact of a combustible ceiling finish was

examined, 13 mm (1/2 in) wood fiber .6 x 1.2 m (2 x 4 ft) ceiling tiles were installed in

the burn room. The tiles which had a Class D flame spread rating (ASTM E-84) , were screwed

directly to the cement asbestos board with the unpainted surfaces of the tiles exposed. The

flooring throughout the test area was asphalt tile. The room opened into a 2.4 m (8 ft)

wide corridor and adjacent lobby with walls and ceiling lined with 13 mm (1/2 in) cement

asbestos over 13 mm (1/2 in) vinyl covered gypsum board as in the burn room.

Prior to test N-40, a simulated heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) system was installed in the burn room. The HVAC system consisted of a supply duct mounted high in the

wall, and an exhaust duct in the lower opposite wall as shown in figures 1 and 2. The air

flow rate for the burn room was based on criteria contained in the Minimum Requirements of

Construction and Equipment for Hospitals and Medical Facilities [9]. This standard requires

a minimum ventilation rate of 2 air changes per hour for patient rooms with zero pressure

difference between the patient room and corridor. For this sized room the flow rates for

both supply and exhaust were established at 1.2 m

3 /min (42 ft 3 /min) to give the minimum air

change rate without creating an air flow between the patient room and corridor. In several

tests (see Table 1) a fan coil unit as shown in figures 1 and 3 was installed to provide

recirculated air in the room. A separate system provided conditioning for the burn room to

maintain a limited range of temperature and relative humidity conditions in the burn room throughout the series of tests. These test conditions are described later in sections 8 and

9. The fan coil unit was set at a low speed which recirculated air in the burn room at an approximate rate of 3.4 m

3 /min (120 ft 3 /min).

4
5.2 Automatic Sprinkler System

The layout of the automatic sprinkler system is shown in figure 7. The steel piping

extended above the fire resistive ceiling and was supplied through a fire hose connection at

the building exterior. The water supply was provided through 15 m (50 ft) of fire hose

connected to a 1892 Jt/min (500 gal/min) pump which was interconnected with a pressure tank

to maintain a residual pressure between 414 and 621 kPa (60 and 90 psi) . A gate valve and

flow meter at the fire hose connection permitted regulation of flow to the sprinkler system.

Prior to each test the flow rate was calibrated through an open sprinkler orifice of the same type of sprinkler head to be used in the fire tests.

For the tests reported here the outlets in the corridor piping system were plugged. An

initial water flow for the sprinkler in the patient room was established at 102 £/min (27 gal

/

min) to provide the equivalent specified minimum flow resulting from one sprinkler head

operating if the system is hydraulically designed in accordance with NFPA Standard No. 13.

The standard requires a minimum average density of 4.1 mm/min (0.10 gal/min/ft 2

) for this

type of occupancy. The standard, however, states that for this type of room arrangement the

system must be designed to provide this density with the sprinkler in the burn room plus two

operating outside the room. Since the required average density is 4.1 mm/min (0.10 gal/min/ft 2

) for all three sprinklers operating, the actual density in the burn room with only the single

sprinkler operating will be more than the 4.1 mm/min (0.10 gal/min/ft 2 ). For the system

calculated for the test area, the actual flow in the burn room with only that sprinkler

operating was 102 £/min (27 gal/min), resulting in an average 6.9 mm/min (0.17 gal/min/ft 2

) density in the burn room.

Sprinklers used in the project included 13 mm (1/2 in) and 10 mm (3/8 in) pendant

sprinklers and 13 mm (1/2 in) horizontal sidewall sprinklers which meet the requirements of

UL 199 [7]. The sprinklers incorporated link-and-lever fusible elements with temperature

ratings of 71°C (160°F) or 74°C (165°F). The range of temperature for fusible elements

allowed in a health care facility (low hazard occupancy) is 57° to 74°C (135° to 165°F) [6].

The intent was to use a typical fusible element, operating in the higher part of the allowable range of temperatures, and not specifically designed for rapid response.

In tests where sprinklers were manually operated to simulate a fast response, open

sprinklers of the same type described above were used. The sprinkler system piping was

primed with water and a plug inserted in the open orifice to prevent flow until the system was charged at a given time during the test.

In addition to the active sprinkler head connected to the sprinkler system, three other

dry sprinkler heads were also placed at the center of the burn room ceiling. The purpose was to obtain data on response times of other types of sprinkler heads in the full-scale

fire tests. The dry sprinkler heads were pressurized by nitrogen which was pumped through

copper tubing placed above the fire resistive ceiling. A pressure switch was connected into

the tubing which led to each sprinkler head and, when the sprinkler operated, the pressure

switch activated a relay which stopped a clock. Thus, response times relative to time of

ignition were automatically recorded. The dry sprinkler heads included the following fusible

elements [12]:

Rapid-response 57°C (135°F) (commercially available)

Fusible bulb 74°C (165°F)

Link lever 74°C (165°F) duplicate of wet sprinkler head

'Sprinkler density is defined as average water flow rate per unit area protected by the

sprinkler (s) . The appropriate metric equivalent for sprinkler density as used in various

sprinkler installation standards is mm/min [10] [11] . This equivalency is derived as follows

:

1 gal _ 40.71, _ (40.7 x 10 3)m 3 _ 40.7 mm

min-ft 2 min-m2 min-m2 ——min

5
5.3 Instrumentation

The instrumentation used in the test series is shown in figures 1 thru 6 and listed in

table 2. In the mattress and bedding tests, various heat and smoke detectors were placed in

the burn room and in the corridor. Response times of these devices were recorded automatically

by activation of relay which stopped a clock, as with the dry sprinklers. The results of

the detector operations will be included in a separate report. All tests were recorded with

35 mm slide cameras or on video tape with separate coverage in the burn room and down the

length of the corridor. Generally, all instrumentation channels were recorded at 10 second

intervals on a magnetic tape data acquisition system. During the wardrobe tests, however,

the channels were recorded at 6 second intervals for the first six minutes of the test.

This was the maximum scanning rate for the data acquisition system.

Thermocouples measured gas and surface temperatures throughout the test area and

locations are shown in figures 1 thru 6. Thermocouples were chromel-alumel type, 0.51 mm

(24 gauge)

.

Calibrated, water-cooled heat flux meters measured total heat flux at the adjacent

patient level and across the corridor from the burn room.

The patient bed and the trash container which served as the initiating fire source were

placed on a steel platform (see figure 8), which was suspended from a load cell mounted

above the ceiling, to monitor weight loss rate during each test. However, due to limitations

in the test facility and time constraints of the project schedule, a load cell was not

installed for the clothing wardrobes. As discussed later under test procedures the wardrobes

and contents were weighed before and after the tests.

The velocity of air and gases entering and leaving the burn room and moving along the

corridor were measured with directional low velocity probes placed in the doorway and corridor.

This type of probe was developed by Heskestad [13], and the description and construction

details of these devices are provided in the reference. The differential pressure was measured with a calibrated diaphragm- type pressure transducer. Calibration techniques were provided by McCaffrey and Heskestad [14]. The equation for velocity is:

^eZp = c(Re)

P

Ap = measured differential pressure

p = gas density (calculated from temperature of thermocouple next to probe)

y = gas velocity

C(Re) = constant dependent on Reynolds number

C = 1.08 according to McCaffrey and Heskestad

Continuous gas measurements included CO, CO2 and O 2

. Sampling tubes for CO, CO2 and

O2 were located at the adjacent patient level and in the doorway at .05 m (2 in) and 1.5 m

(5 ft) above the floor. In addition, CO was measured at four different elevations in the

corridor at 4.0 m (15 ft) west of the burn room as well as in the lobby (or remote area) at

.9 m (3 ft) from the floor. CO in the burn room, in the doorway, at two locations in the

corridor and in the lobby was measured with non^ispersive, infrared analyzers. The CO at

the remaining two locations in the corridor was measured by electrochemical analyzers. This

difference was due to the availability of analyzers and the ranges needed at the given

locations. These ranges are given in the instrumentation list in table 1. Electrolytic

oxygen cells were used to measure O2 concentrations. All gases were drawn through dry ice

traps to remove condensable vapors and particulates before the analysis. CO2 in the burn room was also measured by infrared analyzers.

Smoke meters developed by Bukowski [15] were used to measure light obscuration in the

doorway to the burn room and in the corridor and lobby. Locations are shown in figures 1 thru 6. This type of smoke meter is essentially an extinction beam consisting of a collimated light source and a light sensor separated by a one-meter long path through the smoke.

The obscuration is measured by the magnitude of attenuation of the light seen by the detector.

6
As discussed later in section 8 this project included an investigation into the use of

simulated fast response sprinklers with thermal inertias lower than standard sprinklers.

The simulated fast response sprinklers were characterized by a dynamic heating measurement

proposed by Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FM) . The dynamic heating measurement is

determined by use of a proposed test developed by FM to measure response of sprinklers [16]

.

The test method is based on the assumption that in actual fire situations, the sprinkler

fusible element is primarily heated by convection and the effect of radiation on the element

is relatively small. The dynamic heating measurement of the fusible element is expressed as the time constant x; where

d(AT

L)/dt = t -1 (ATg - Tl

)

where AT is the increase in temperature of the fusible element (relative to ambient or initial temperature) and AT is the excess temperature of the gas; x, therefore, has units

of time. Heskestad and Smi?h found that selected standard sprinklers when tested in a "plunge test apparatus" varied in terms of x from 100 to 280 s at a reference velocity,

p = 5 ft/s.

o In order to model fusible elements with different x factors in full scale fire tests,

FM manufactured brass discs designed and verified for different x factors. The discs were

geometrically similar to fusible elements but varied in thicknesses which resulted in varying dynamic heating characteristics. In order to simulate fast response sprinklers three

different discs, provided by FM, were placed near the operating sprinkler in the CFR patient room tests. The x factors of the discs were 9.0, 14.4 and 21.5 s respectively. The temperatures of the discs were measured with the data acquisition system during the tests to

predict sprinkler response. (Prototype sprinklers with a x = 21 s were used in a residential sprinkler test program in Los Angeles, California.)

6. ELEMENTS OF HAZARD ANALYSIS

Consistent with specific objectives mentioned in section 4, the test results were measured in terms of the following:

° Fire Spread

° Heat flux

° Toxic gases

“Smoke obscuration

6.1 Fire Spread

In this phase of the project performance of center ceiling sprinklers and horizontal

sidewall sprinklers were evaluated in terms of controlling fires involving institutional

type mattresses and bedding and clothing wardrobes. Since the water spray and water absorption of the mattresses following sprinkler operation complicated the weight loss measurements from the load cell instrumentation, visual examinations of the burned mattress were made after each test to determine the approximate amount of material consumed by the fire.

The wardrobes and clothes were weighed prior to each test. Following each test the wardrobes and what contents were remaining were also weighed after they were allowed to dry for

several days. These total weight loss values were used in the analysis of the results as discussed later in this report.

In addition, combustible wall and ceiling finishes, when included in the tests, were

examined to determine the extent to which they had become involved in the fire. Film and

video records were also used to assess the impact of these finishes on the results of the

tests. Ceiling temperature data in the burn room and in the adjoining corridor were examined

to determine relative performance of the sprinklers in cooling the gas layer at the ceiling.

7
6.2

Heat Flux

Any consideration of limiting conditions adverse to human safety should include the

potential hazard of burn injuries. A critical level of heat flux for human exposure is a function of time, since a sustained exposure to a lower flux exceeding the injury threshold

can result in a burn injury equivalent to that of a short exposure at higher flux. In the

fire scenario selected for these tests, the patient in an adjacent bed would be in the most

immediate danger. The operating automatic sprinkler could be expected to reduce rapidly the

heat flux imposed at the adjacent level. A value of 0.95 W/m2 (18 BTU/ft 2 -min) radiant flux was selected as the threshold for feeling pain based on information provided by Dinman [17]

and Parker and West [18].

6.3

Smoke Levels

Limiting levels of smoke obscuration for human safety were determined for two separate

hazards in this fire test scenario. The first concern was the rescue of a patient in the

adjacent bed in the room of fire origin. The second involved the use of the corridor and

lobby adjacent to the room of origin as an exit way. Two critical levels of obscuration

were considered, one measured at the doorway to the patient room and the other in the

corridor and lobby. Critical levels selected for each location were based on investigations

by Jin [19, 20]. Jin recommended limits on obscuration based on not reducing the walking

speed below that of a blindfolded subject walking in a smoke free environment. This obscuration was approximately equivalent to an OD/m = 0.25.

The estimated hazardous level for smoke obscuration as measured at 1.5 m (5 ft) elevation

in the corridor and lobby was therefore, established as an OD/m = 0.25. The estimated

hazardous threshold for the doorway to the patient room was established an OD/m = 0.5, due

to the relatively shorter distance to enter and rescue a patient in the room of fire origin.

This level was measured horizontally at 0.3 m (1 ft) from the top of the door.

6.4

Gas Concentration

The quantities of CO and CO2 were measured along with O 2 depletion. It should not be

inferred that CO and CO2 are the only toxic gases which are significant in terms of having

adverse effects on humans in fires. These were the only two measured, however, because of

experimental uncertainties in measuring and evaluating the toxic effects of other gases. It is known, in any case, that CO and CO2 are always generated in building fires, and high

concentrations of CO have been associated with a large percentage of fire fatality victims

[ 21 ].

Critical limits or thresholds were selected for CO, CO2 and O2 depletion based on previous studies which examined the adverse effects on humans. Specific thresholds for this

study were based on quantities which are believed to result in incipient incapacitation of

healthy persons. Incipient incapacitation for this analysis can be considered the point at which environmental conditions could have an adverse effect on the ability of a person to function reliably. The critical levels or thresholds should not be interpreted as precise

boundaries but rather as an approximation, based on the literature concerning average healthy

individuals. The unique characteristics of the occupancy type being assessed would affect

the magnitude of the levels which would result in adverse effects.

In health care facilities occupants in varying states of health may be more severely

affected at the critical levels established here than in occupancies where most persons are

not physically impaired. It would be impossible to determine every critical level which may

adversely affect patients with varying physiological problems. Therefore, by practical

necessity, the criteria established here are based on the incipient incapacitation of

healthy persons, and would serve as upper limits for health care occupancies.

A critical level of 8 percent CO2 was established for this program based on tabulations

presented by Kimmerle [22]. A minimum oxygen concentration of 14 percent was selected based

on Pryor and Yuill's study [23]. However, determining critical levels of CO is a much more complex issue. What makes CO toxic is that it reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the

blood. CO forms carboxyhemoglobin in the blood and, therefore, the percent COHb is the more

precise measure of CO toxicity. The CFR has tentatively used a methodology for determining

8
a critical level of COHb from CO concentrations based on previous studies by others. Stewart

derived an equation of COHb from experiments with human volunteers [24]. The volunteers were subjected to very high concentrations of CO and their COHb levels were then measured.

CO uptake is directly proportional to the breathing rate which is approximately 6.5 Jl/min

for an individual at rest. The breathing rate increases with activity and also from exposure

to CO2

. A 4 percent concentration of CO2 will more than double the breathing rate [25].

Since both of these factors must be considered in a fire situation, a breathing rate was

established as 18 £/min. The equation for determining COHb% is:

ACOHb% = 5.98 x 10~4 (At) [CO]

1 ' 036

where At is time in minutes and CO is concentration in ppm. An initial value of 0.75 percent

COHb was established from information provided by Alarie and Zullo [26] was used in the

computation. A 25 percent calculated COHb was established in this study as the level of

COHb at which incipient incapacitation may occur [22].

In addition to the threshold for time-rated accumulation, another limit must be selected

for CO exposure. Instantaneous doses of high levels of CO must also be considered due to

the physiological effects such as cardiac arrythmia [27] which can occur independently of

the effects of increased COHb. Claudy [28] reported on the effects of exposure to high

concentrations of CO. The results of his work indicate that incipient incapacitation may

occur with only a few short breaths at an exposure level of 10,000 ppm CO. And, at a slightly higher concentration of 12,800 ppm Claudy reported that unconsciousness could occur

in 2 to 3 breaths, followed by death in 1-3 minutes. Based on this an instantaneous threshold of 10,000 ppm (1.0 percent by Vol) CO was selected as a criterion, in addition to the

time integrated exposure resulting in COHb level of 25 percent.

7. SPRAY DISTRIBUTION TESTS

7 . 1 Background

A major finding from earlier work in this research program indicated that a privacy

curtain placed between the burning bed and the sprinkler interfered with the extinguishing

performance of the sprinkler [1]. Figure 9 illustrates the position of the privacy curtain

with respect to the sprinkler as installed in the previous fire tests. Although the spray

from the sprinkler cooled the heated gases in the burn room, the mattress continued to burn.

By the end of the tests the mattresses were nearly totally consumed. In those tests the

concentrations of carbon monoxide were higher than in other tests where there was no privacy

curtain installed. Estimated carboxyhemoglobin levels, based on CO measurements as measured

at the adjacent patient level, eventually exceeded the estimated hazardous threshold of 25

percent. The higher concentrations of carbon monoxide were apparently due to the position

of the privacy curtain, which shielded the burning bed from the water spray and adversely

affected the extinguishing performance of the sprinkler.

7.2 Test Plan and Procedure

Based on these previous findings an investigation was conducted to quantify the

interference of the privacy curtain in terms of spray distribution; and to develop recom- mendations concerning the location and arrangement of the privacy curtain with respect to

the sprinkler. A simple collection container array was installed in the burn room at the

location of the bed to obtain spray density measurements over the horizontal plane of the

bed, as shown in figures 10 and 11.

The results of these non-fire tests clearly indicated that the privacy curtain as installed in the previous fire tests severely blocked the water spray from the sprinkler.

Figures 12 and 13 provide a comparison of results of one of the pendant sprinkler tests with

and without the privacy curtain. Repeated tests with other models of pendant sprinklers and

a horizontal sidewall sprinkler provided similar results.

9
The investigation then proceeded to determine design information on the placement of

the privacy curtains with respect to the sprinkler to minimize the impact of the curtain on the spray distribution.

Initially criteria were established for the minimum spray density which was necessary

to extinguish a fire involving a mattress and bedding. Following a series of full-scale

tests at Factory Mutual Research toward the development of a reduced scale sprinkler for

residential fires, Kung and others suggested a critical application density of 1.4 mm/min

(0.033 g/min/ft 2

) for halting fire spread underneath a urethane foam mattress [29].

In determining the maximum likely boundary condition for the distance of the privacy

curtain from a center ceiling sprinkler, spatial criteria contained in the Minimum Requirements of Construction and Equipment for Hospitals and Medical Facilities [9] served as a basis for modeling the spatial layout in a typical two patient sized room similar to the room in which the tests were conducted. Figure 14 illustrates the spatial arrangement of a bed in a two bed patient room. The requirements referenced above call for a minimum 8 m

2 (80 ft 2

) per person in multiple patient rooms with a minimum 106.7 cm (42 in) clearance

between the foot of the bed and the opposite wall. It is assumed that a minimum clearance

of 62 cm (24 in) is provided between the side of the bed and the wall to allow access for

staff. It is further assumed that the privacy curtain is located not less than 30.5 cm (12

in) from the patient bed and therefore not greater than 38.1 cm (15 in) from a pendant

sprinkler located in the center of the room.

The location of the sprinkler meets the criteria contained in National Fire Protection

Association Standard 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems [6]. The distance of the sprinkler from a wall should not exceed 2.3 m (7.5 ft). (For this type of occupancy, the standard

allows under certain conditions a maximum distance of 2.7 m (9.0 ft) from a wall. Due to the spatial limitations of the test facility this condition was not examined.)

The Underwriters Laboratories Product Standard includes spray distribution tests

including one which measures the distribution of a single sprinkler [7]. The test apparatus

consists of a row of collectors which rotates below the sprinkler at a distance of four feet

below the deflector. Figure 15 illustrates the location of the collectors below the sprinkler as well as the typical discharge densities measured for a "Standard" sprinkler flowing

at 56.8 Z/min (15 g/min) . This figure further illustrates that the impact of an obstruction

such as a privacy curtain is dependent not only on the clearance measured vertically from

the deflector to the top of the obstruction, but also on the distance of the privacy curtain

away from the sprinkler. For example, a screen located at position d' would create a greater

obstruction than at position d.

To facilitate the experimental work, a plywood screen was fabricated and it served in

the place of the privacy curtain. As various tests were conducted with sprinklers flowing

at 102 Z/min (27 g/min) the screen was raised and lowered and moved to various positions

horizontally in an effort to determine the position boundaries for the cases where the

critical density could not be obtained. During the experimental work it was noted that

variations existed among standard pendant sprinklers of different manufacturers, such that,

the spray from one tended to project more water directly parallel to the plane of the

deflector than others. Therefore, measurements were made for various 12.5 mm (1/2 in)

pendant sprinklers in order to insure that recommendations developed from the experimental

work were not biased toward the most favorable spray pattern. One sprinkler, of a given

manufacturer and model, was selected for the rer aining tests to establish the position

criteria. This sprinkler, noted as sprinkler A, was selected since it had the least favorable spray pattern, of the various sprinklers examined, with regard to the obstruction of

the privacy curtain.

Spray distribution measurements were also conducted with the horizontal sidewall

sprinkler to determine the impact on the sprinkler spray pattern. The simulated curtain was placed 40.6 cm (16 in) from the foot of the bed and 68.6 cm (27 in) from the corridor wall

and the height of the curtain varied for each measurement. The flow from the sprinkler was

also set for 102 i/min (27 g/min) to provide an average density of 6.9 mm/min (.17 g/min/ft 2 ).

10
7.3 Results

In all of the spray distribution tests it was observed that the collectors which were

placed along the wall collected most of the water which hit the wall. While the wetting of

the wall may be an important benefit, the quantities of water collected in these containers

do not reflect the actual density for that "slice" of the horizontal plane of the protected

surface. Therefore, data obtained from these containers were not included in the calculation

of the average density over the plane of the bed.

7.3.1 Pendant Sprinklers

The results of the tests verified that the effective spray density reaching the bed was dependent on both the vertical distance of the top of the privacy curtain from sprinkler

deflector and, the horizontal distance of the curtain from the sprinkler. With the screen placed directly beneath the deflector of the sprinkler, there was no adverse affect on the

effective density reaching the bed. As it was moved from the sprinkler toward the bed the screen was progressively lowered to achieve the minimum density criterion of .033 g/min/ft 2

. See figures 16 thru 20 for the results of the tests which served as the basis for the recom- mended installation criteria shown on figure 21. These criteria provide the minimum

vertical distances from the sprinkler deflector to the top of the curtain as a function of

the distance of the curtain away from the sprinkler.

7.3.2 Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers

The horizontal sidewall sprinkler was found to project a high percentage of the

discharged water toward the ceiling and in a radial direction, horizontal to the center line

of the orifice. This spray pattern reduced the impact of the privacy curtain on the "horizontal sidewall sprinkler as compared to the pendant sprinkler. The results indicated that

a minimum average effective density could be achieved over the plane of the bed if the

height of the privacy curtain was equal to or lower than the height of the horizontal sidewall sprinkler as shown in figures 22 and 23.

8. MATTRESS AND BEDDING FIRE TESTS

8.1 Background for Current Investigation

In the initial investigation, Phase I it was determined that of the four measures of

hazard (Section 6) , smoke obscuration exceeded the estimated hazardous thresholds in all of

the tests involving sprinklers. In tests where the polyurethane mattresses and bedding

served as the burning items, smoke obscuration exceeded 0.5 OD/m in the patient room doorway

1.7 m (5 ft 8 in) from floor and 0.25 OD/m at 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor in the corridor

before the sprinkler actuated. Following sprinkler actuation the entire test area became

totally obscured e.g. > 0.9 OD/m. Data from various instruments located in the patient room

doorway indicated that the smoke layer was pushed down to the floor and the flow of com- bustion products was from the patient room into the corridor and was greatest near the

floor. As shown in figure 24, data from test N-37 indicated that prior to sprinkler actuation the highest concentrations of CO in the bu^n room area were recorded at the highest

sampling point, 1.7 m (5 ft 8 in) in the doorway . Following sprinkler actuation, however,

the concentrations at this location were less than those recorded before the sprinkler

operated and less than concentrations recorded at lower elevations in the doorway and in the

burn room. Concentrations of CO at these lower elevations increased significantly after

sprinkler actuation. (These concentrations remained below the defined hazardous thresholds.)

The shifting in CO and visible smoke particulate according to the elevation in the burn room

and in the doorway indicated that the sprinkler spray acted to redistribute the smoke layer

and subsequently create severe obscuration within a short time after actuation.

The CO data in this analysis were used as an indicator for measuring the relative

quantities and location of combustion products throughout the test area.

11
8.2 Revisions in Instrumentation

I

I

The data from the previous tests had verified that the smoke was redistributed in the

burn room and burn room doorway. It was not known, however, if the sprinkler acted also to

redistribute the smoke in the corridor away from the immediate area of sprinkler flow.

Therefore, in preparation for this phase of the project, the instrumentation was expanded

and revised from the earlier fire tests in an attempt to better quantify the movement of

smoke in the corridor. As described in detail in paragraph 5.1 and table 2, thermocouples,

velocity probes, smoke meters and CO analyzers were installed in the corridor, 4.6 m (15 ft)

west of the burn room doorway in order to obtain a profile of smoke movement and CO con- centrations during the tests.

8.3 Variation in Sprinkler Heads

The findings of the initial investigation were based on the results of tests using a ceiling mounted pendant sprinkler in the center of the room. In the earlier work reversal

of the flow of gases through the doorway was attributed at least in part to the air entrainment of the sprinkler spray. The question arose whether or not the movement of smoke would

differ with the use of a horizontal sidewall sprinkler, which could be expected to have

different air entrainment characteristics from the pendant sprinkler. Therefore, this phase

included an investigation of patient room fires with the installation of horizontal sidewall

sprinklers

.

8.4 Experimental Arrangement and Procedure

For this phase of the project, the same type of mattress and bedding previously selected

for the initial investigation served as the burning item. The mattress was a polyurethane

innerspring type specified for use in health care facilities. The bedding consisted of a cotton water repellant drawsheet, two cotton/polyester sheets, a cotton/polyester bedspread,

a cotton/polyester pillowcase and a pillow which consisted of shredded polyurethane foam

filling in a cotton cover. Details of the mattress and bedding are contained in table 3.

The ignition sequence for the mattress and bedding fires was the same as used in

previous CFR studies including the initial patient room sprinkler tests [1, 30]. A small

polyethylene trash container containing approximately 450 g (1 lb) of combustibles was placed next to the bed between the bed and the east wall for each test. The container was placed in contact with the bedspread with the top of the container 2.0 cm (8 in) from the

top of the bed as shown in figure 8. Each test began at the time the contents were ignited

with a paper match. The earlier CFR work referenced above reported good repeatability using

this ignition sequence.

Prior to each test the burn room was conditioned to a relative humidity (RH) of 40 to 60 percent, and an ambient temperature range of 18 to 27°C (65 to 80°F) . The moisture

content of wood paneling was within the range of 5 to 8 percent before each test. All of

the bedding and waste container items were kept in a 50 percent RH conditioning room at a temperature of 21°C (70°F) for at least 24 hours prior to each test to maintain a consistent

moisture content in these items from test to test.

The sprinkler flow rates for each test were obtained by flowing water through the

orifice of an open sprinkler (deflector removed) of the same manufacturer and model as that

planned for the fire test. A gate valve was operated in coordination with a flow meter

until the desired flow was obtained. At that point a quarter turn valve placed in series

with the gate valve was closed to shut off the system. While the calibration flows were made the water pump for the site was kept continuously in operation. In all of the tests

other than those in which a rapid response sprinkler was simulated, a fully operable automatic sprinkler for the next test was installed after the valve was closed. Following

installation of the automatic sprinkler the valve was reopened.

In tests where a fast response sprinkler was simulated, as discussed later, an open

sprinkler was immediately installed with an elastomeric plug inserted in the orifice to

prevent leakage of water in the sprinkler system piping on the downstream side of the shut

12
valve. The control valve remained closed until at a selected point in the test, the valve

was manually operated. The time of actuation was based on ceiling gas temperature measurements or temperatures of the calibrated discs. Since the sprinkler piping was primed with

water, the sprinkler flowed immediately after the control valve was opened.

During the fire tests the water pump was kept in operation to maintain the same residual

pressure on the sprinkler system. During sprinkler operations the flow meter was monitored

to insure that the desired flow was maintained during the test.

8.5 Test Results and Analysis

8.5.1 Standard Pendant and Horizontal Sidewall Sprinkler Tests

During this phase of the investigation, and following the revision of the facility

instrumentation, a test was conducted with a standard 74°C (165°F) fusible element pendant

sprinkler under the same test conditions as test N-25 in the previous series [1] . This test

(N-37) reflected an installation following current sprinkler criteria for this type of

facility as described in paragraph 5.2 with the flow set to provide an average density of

6.9 mm/min (.17 g/min/ft 2 ). The results of the test were similar to test N-25 of the

previous series.

The sprinkler operated at 370 s following ignition in test N-25 and 330 s in test N-37

and at the time of sprinkler actuation, the estimated smoke obscuration hazardous thresholds were exceeded in the burn room doorway, the corridor and the remote lobby area. As in the

previous tests, there was total obscuration (> 0.9 OD/m) from floor to ceiling following

sprinkler actuation.

The test involving the horizontal sidewall sprinkler (test N-39) produced results

similar to the test with the pendant sprinkler. The major difference was the longer time to

sprinkler actuation. The horizontal sidewall sprinkler actuated at 388 s and a tell-tale

sprinkler of the same manufacturer and temperature rating located at the center ceiling

operated at 331 s.

As shown in figure 25, the center ceiling gas temperatures reached 270°C with the

sidewall as compared to 200°C in test N-37, center ceiling pendant sprinkler. The horizontal

sidewall sprinkler effectively controlled the fire and rapidly cooled the temperatures in

the burn room. CO concentrations were generally low; the maximum concentration at the

adjacent patient level was 0.097 percent and estimated COHb reached 14.2 percent at the end

of the test, 30 minutes after ignition. The maximum heat flux measured at the adjacent

patient level was .47 W/cm2 (8.9 BTU/sq. ft. min.) which is well below the hazardous thres~

hold. As in the previous tests, smoke obscuration exceeded hazardous thresholds at the

patient room doorway and in the corridor before the sprinkler operated. A video recording

and instrumentation in the corridor indicated that smoke level lowered to within .9 m (3 ft)

of the floor before sprinkler operation. Following sprinkler operation, the entire test area became totally obscure (> 0.9 OD/m) as in the previous tests, as shown in figures 26

thru 28. Velocity measurements in the doorway indicated that the combustion products were projected out into the corridor at floor level. Essentially, the same redistribution of

gases occurred as in the previous tests with ceiling mounted pendant sprinklers.

8.5.2 Movement of Smoke and CO - Analysis of Data

As mentioned previously, the impact on smoke movement by the sprinkler was significant,

especially in the doorway where velocity measurements, smoke meters, and gas measurements

indicated a reversal of flow of smoke through the doorway and the shifting of peak CO con- centrations from ceiling to floor level. Figure 24 provides the record of CO measurements

in the burn room and doorway for test N-37. As in test N-25, in the previous series, con- centrations of CO shifted after sprinkler actuation at 330 s. The CO data from the corridor

instrumentation tree indicated that the sprinkler acted to redistribute the smoke layer

(represented by the CO measurements) away from the immediate area of sprinkler actuation.

Figure 29 gives the CO measurements at the corridor tree prior to sprinkler actuation.

Following the initial sprinkler flow higher concentrations were recorded at 0.9 m (3 ft) and

1.5 m (5 ft) from the floor, with values in excess of 0.1 percent CO recorded. The con- centrations measured near the ceiling were lower than those measured at the other elevations

following sprinkler actuation.

13
The concentrations of CO measured at all locations were low and estimated COHb levels

did not exceed a hazardous threshold of 25 percent. The increase in CO in the corridor and

the redistribution of the CO throughout the test area, however, verified that, in these

types of fires, the sprinkler acted to lower the smoke layer throughout the test area and to

project the combustion products from the patient room into the adjoining corridor at a more rapid rate than before the sprinkler operated. This resulted in the severe smoke obscuration

recorded throughout the test area which in an actual health care facility could seriously

hamper the movement of staff and patients in the adjoining corridor.

An analysis of the data revealed that the smoke filling rate in the test area was roughly proportional to the fire growth rate as reflected in the record of gas temperatures

measured at ceiling in the center of the burn room. Figures 30 and 31 demonstrate this

correlation where the depth of the smoke layer is defined as the time a smoke meter located

in the doorway or in the corridor measured an obscuration of 0.25 OD/m. This boundary value

for the smoke layer was arbitrarily established in this analysis in order to assess the

impact of sprinkler response time as a function of the estimated depth of the smoke layer in

the test area. (As mentioned in section 6.3, 0.25 OD/m was selected as a hazardous threshold for visibility and personnel movement in the corridor.) In figures 30 and 31 the rate

of fire growth is indicated by the ceiling temperature scale on the right ordinate and the

depth of the smoke layer is indicated by the elevation measurements in the test area on the

left ordinate.

Figure 30 provides the results of test N-37 in which a pendant automatic sprinkler was installed in the center of the room. Although the sprinkler had a temperature rating of

74°C (165°F) , the thermal lag of the fusible element was such that the sprinkler finally

operated at 330 s. At this point the ceiling gas temperature had reached 200°C near the

sprinkler and the smoke layer had lowered to approximately 0.9 m (36 in) from the floor.

This lag was even more significant in test N-39 in which a horizontal sidewall automatic

sprinkler was located over the door. The sprinkler had a temperature rating of 71°C (160°F)

and at time of actuation, 388 s, the smoke layer was less than .9 m (36 in) from the floor.

See figure 31.

By plotting the smoke filling rate on the same time axis as the ceiling gas temperatures,

one can see that a fusible element operating at approximately 57°C (135°F) would actuate the

sprinkler when the volume of smoke in the patient room and corridor was significantly less

than when the standard 74°C sprinkler actually operated. Since the instrumentation as well

as visual observations revealed that the flowing sprinkler acted to lower and redistribute

the smoke layer, it follows that if a sprinkler operated sufficiently early enough in the

fire, there would be minimal smoke including CO present to be redistributed by the sprinkler. Based on this, the project focused on the investigation of sprinklers operating at an earlier stage of the fire development and their impact on smoke movement.

8.6 Simulated Rapid Response Sprinkler Tests

8.6.1 Preliminary Test

In test N-37, a tell tale sprinkler which was rated for 57°C (135°F) operating

temperature and designed for rapid response, operated at 285 s. At this time, as shown in

figure 30, the center ceiling gas temperature was approximately 120°C (248°F) and the smoke

layer in the corridor had lowered to within 1.2 m (4 ft) from the floor.

This suggested that a fusible element with a thermal inertia lower than exists for

current technology sprinklers was necessary if the sprinkler was expected to operate shortly

after the gas temperature near the sprinkler reached its nominal temperature rating.

Initially, a test (N-38) was conducted to determine the feasibility of preventing the

smoke obscuration from reaching hazardous theresholds by actuating the sprinkler sufficiently

early in the fire. This test included the same mattress, bedding, and waste container

ignition sequence described earlier. The sprinkler system consisted of an open 10 mm (3/8

in) pendant sprinkler arranged to flow 64.3 Ji/min (17 g/min) which provided an average

density of 4.1 mm/min (.10 g/min/ft2

) in the burn room. As described in section 5.2, the

open sprinkler was fitted with a resilient plug, and the system piping was primed with water

downstream of a closed control valve.

14
During the fire test the gas temperature measured near the sprinkler was continuously

monitored. To simulate the rapid response, the sprinkler valve was opened at 10 s after the

time the center ceiling gas temperature reached 57°C (135°F) at the sprinkler. The sprinkler was opened at 105 s into the test and the subsequent smoke obscuration was very low

throughout the test area. The maximum obscuration measurements at 1.7 m (5 ft 8 in) in the

burn room doorway and at 1.5 (5 ft) in the corridor were 0.10 and 0.086 OD/m respectively.

These levels were considerably below the estimated hazardous thresholds.

The results of this test indicated that for this type of fire, the smoke obscuration

problem both before and after sprinkler operation could be greatly reduced by means of a sprinkler with a low thermal inertia fusible link which would operate soon after the ceiling

gas temperature reached 57°C. (The temperature rating of 57°C was selected as a minimum

since this follows criteria contained in NFPA 13 [6] and UL 199 [7]. The criteria evolve

from the need to establish the minimum sprinkler temperature rating above expected ambient

temperature conditions.)

8.6.2 CFR Patient Room Tests

Following test N-38, this investigation sought to quantify the dynamic heating parameter

of a successful fast response sprinkler in terms of the suggested FM Plunge Test discussed

in 5.3. Three discs provided by FM were installed in the burn room ceiling near the sprinkler prior to test N-40. In addition a fusible link from a self-contained pressurized heat

detector was installed at the ceiling. In prior tests, response times obtained for this

detector, which had a temperature rating of 57°C (135°F) , indicated that it responded con- siderably earlier than the 57°C sprinkler. Since the link was similar in basic design to current sprinkler fusible links, (although of significantly less mass) it was decided that

it would be useful to key sprinkler response to this link and at the same time obtain data

on the temperatures of the discs.

Test N-40 was conducted under the same conditions as test N-38 except that the simulated

HVAC system described in section 5.1 was installed and placed in operation. The sprinkler was operated at the time when the heat detector link activated, 225 s. At this time the t = 21 s disc reached 62°C, (144°F) . The results indicated that smoke obscuration did not reach

hazardous thresholds at the patient room doorway, 1.7 m (5 ft. 8 in) elevation and, only

briefly exceeded the threshold of 0.25 OD/m obscuration measured 1.5 m (5 ft) above the

floor in the corridor. See figures 26 thru 28. This test was repeated (N-47) and provided

the same results. Figures 26 thru 28 also indicate the results of previous tests in which

standard fusible element sprinklers were used.

In addition to tests N-40 and N-47 which examined the performance of a pendant sprinkler

with a fast-response fusible element, two tests were conducted with the horizontal sidewall

sprinklers which included simulated fast-response fusible elements. The sprinkler was arranged to flow 102 5,/min (27 g/min) to provide an average density of 6.9 mm/min (.17

g/min/f

t

2

)

.

In the first test, N-42, the heat detector link and the discs were installed near the

horizontal sidewall sprinkler. In this first test, the simulated HVAC system was not

incorporated into the test. Therefore, the environmental conditions during the test were

the same as N-39 in which a standard fusible element horizontal sidewall sprinkler was used.

At 266 s into the test the heat detector fusible element (57 °C temperature rated) activated

and the sprinkler valve was opened. The temperature of the t = 21 s disc was 57°C at time

of activation. Smoke obscuration throughout the test area was significantly less than in

test N-39. The smoke obscuration as measured at the doorway briefly exceeded the 0.5 OD/m

estimated hazardous threshold and peaked at .83 OD/m, but it stayed generally below the

threshold. The smoke obscuration measured at the 1.5 m (5 ft.) elevation in the corridor

exceeded the threshold of 0.25 OD/m. Maximum obscuration peaked at 0.61 OD/m, but generally

the obscuration was below 0.30 OD/m throughout the test period.

This test was repeated (N-45) with the simulated HVAC system incorporated into the

test. In this test, the heat detector link near the horizontal sidewall sprinkler actuated

at 177 s and the control valve was immediately opened. Due to an unexpected instrumentation

failure early in the test, smoke obscuration measurements in the doorway were not recorded.

However, the measurements in the corridor as well as the visual observations indicated that

15
smoke obscuration was not as severe as in test N-39 nor in the previous simulated fast

response sprinkler test, N-42. As shown in figure 27, at approximately 480 s, the smoke

obscuration rose to slightly above the 0.25 OD/m level where it remained until around 960 s when the obscuration increased to approximately 1.0 OD/m. See figure 28 for smoke obscuration

data in the remote lobby area.

8.7 Discussion

The tests discussed in this section were conducted in a limited volume test area which

represented a typical patient room and corridor arrangement but it did not represent as great a volume as would likely be in a smoke zone in a health care occupancy. Therefore,

limited extrapolation can be made for other geometries and larger volumes.

Despite the limitations which prevent extensive extrapolation to other building sizes,

the experimental work reported here clearly demonstrates that a lower thermal inertia or

fast response sprinkler can reduce significantly the impact of smoke obscuration for a patient room mattress and bedding fire. Since the lowering of the heated gas layer and severe obscuration was immediate in and near the patient room, where the conventional sprinkler operated, this phenomenon suggests that the obscuration problem is severe near the room

of fire origin regardless of the volume of the building or smoke zone. The impact of the

fast response sprinkler, in reducing the smoke obscuration problem in and near the room of

fire origin, could enhance the rescue by staff of the patients closest to the fire.

9 . WARDROBE FIRES

9.1 Test Plan and Procedure

One of the objectives of this program was to assess the impact of sprinklers on wardrobe

fires in patient rooms. The clothing wardrobe and the bedding and mattress represented

types of furnishings which could become the predominant burning items in a patient room

fire. In a limited number of fire tests conducted by IIT Research Institute (IITRI) for the

American Health Care Association, test fires started inside clothing wardrobes resulted in a very rapid rise in room temperatures and high concentrations of CO [31]. The wardrobe fire,

therefore, was included in the CFR project in order to assess the impact of sprinklers on what was estimated to be a very severe fire in a patient room.

There was a concern that it might not be possible to obtain wardrobes manufactured of

the same materials from a commercial supplier over an extended period during which the test

fires would be conducted. Therefore, the wardrobes were fabricated at CFR for this project,

since it was necessary to use wardrobes of the same types of materials from test to test.

They were constructed of 1/2 inch unfinished Douglas fir plywood and their dimensions are shown in figure 32. These dimensions were taken from catalogs of commercial wardrobe

manufacturers

.

In an effort to develop a reproducible test fire, the same loading was initially used

in each test. The loading consisted of various fabrics which represent materials found in

clothing today. A description of the fabrics used in this "standard" loading are listed in

table 4. The materials were placed on wire coat hangers and arranged loosely in the wardrobe to provide a clear space between each hung fabric. This arrangement was chosen since

it was desirable to have a fire which would ^avelop rapidly inside the wardrobe. A cardboard box containing crumpled newspaper was placed on the floor of the wardrobe and the

newspaper served as the pilot flame inside the wardrobe. Each wardrobe test started when

the crumpled newspaper was ignited with a match. Following ignition the left hand door was

closed tightly while the right hand door was left partially opened resulting in a 7.6 cm (3

in) opening along the vertical edge of the door.

9.2 Nonsprinklered Wardrobe Fire

In order to obtain a baseline for evaluating the performance of sprinklers when exposed

to combustible wardrobe fires, a nonsprinklered fire test (N-54) was conducted. The test was actually carried out after several wardrobe tests with sprinklers because of a concern

that the "dry" test would result in extensive damage to the test facility instrumentation,

potentially resulting in an adverse affect on the program timetable.

16
The initial rate of fire growth was essentially the same as in the sprinklered tests.

With no other furnishings in the room, flashover occurred at approximately 120 s into the

test. See figure 33. At this time all hazardous thresholds were exceeded throughout the

test area. Several smoke meters in the corridor and in the doorway were damaged by heat and

much of that data was lost. Measurements made at the key elevations in the doorway and in

the corridor, however, indicated that hazardous thresholds had already been exceeded prior

to the instrument failures. The test was terminated at 480 s when an open sprinkler was

activated. Figures 33 through 40 provide important data including burn room ceiling gas

temperatures, smoke obscuration and CO measurements.

9.3 Pendant Sprinkler Tests

In the initial wardrobe test, N-48, a standard 71°C (160°F) pendant sprinkler was installed and arranged to provide the 6.9 mm/min (.17 g/min/ft 2

) density. As expected the

fire quickly enveloped the interior of the wardrobe and gas temperatures in the burn room

rose rapidly. Following actuation of the sprinkler, the ceiling gas temperatures were

lowered; however, the fire could still be seen burning inside the wardrobe for approximately

60 s following the initial flow of the sprinkler. Eventually, the smoke obscuration wiped

out the view from a window in the corridor across from the burn room doorway.

Analysis of the data from this test indicated that concentrations of CO were very high

throughout the test area. The instantaneous hazardous threshold of 1 percent was exceeded

not only in the patient room but also in the remote lobby area. Estimated COHb percentages

also well exceeded the hazardous threshold of 25 percent.

This test was repeated (N-49) and the overall results were the same as in N-48.- The

fire developed rapidly inside the wardrobe and, although CO concentrations were slightly

less than in N-48, hazardous thresholds were exceeded or approached in the burn room at the

adjacent patient level, at the 1.5 m (5 ft) elevation in the corridor as well as in the

remote lobby area. Figures 33 thru 40 provide the ceiling temperatures in the burn room and

the CO data as measured at several key locations, as well as smoke obscuration and heat

flux.

In both of these tests the lauan plywood paneling described in Section 5.1 was installed

on the walls adjacent to the wardrobe. The paneling did not become involved in these

sprinklered fires.

9.4 Horizontal Sidewall Sprinkler Tests

Using the same wardrobe fire scenario, a test was conducted using a standard 71°C

(160°F) horizontal sidewall sprinkler set to provide a 6.9 mm/min (.17 g/min/ft 2

) density.

The sprinkler was installed over the door as in the previous mattress test (N-39) and as shown in figure 7.

The initial fire development was as rapid as in the previous tests and following

sprinkler actuation, the fire was visible for a brief time inside the wardrobe. As in the

previous tests the visibility was limited soon after sprinkler operation. A major difference, however, was noted in the CO concentrations, compared to the previous tests with the

pendant sprinkler. CO concentrations were significantly lower; an instantaneous threshold

level of 1 percent was not reached, and the 25 percent COHb was exceeded only in the burn

room at the adjacent patient level at 1000 s after ignition. The test was repeated, (N-51)

and approximately the same results were obtained. Figures 41 thru 49 provide the record of

ceiling gas temperature measurements as well as the CO data, smoke obscuration and heat flux

data.

The record of total weight loss for the four tests was consistent with the CO data.

The data also indicated that the horizontal sidewall sprinkler achieved better fire control

than the pendant sprinkler. Total weight losses were less than in the pendant sprinkler

tests as shown in table 5.

In the initial analysis of the results, it was believed that the orientation of the

partially open wardrobe door with respect to the direction of the spray from the horizontal

sidewall sprinkler allowed more water to penetrate the interior of the wardrobe. Spray

17
distribution measurements were made in nonfire tests for both the pendant and horizontal

sidewall sprinklers operating at the same flow rates as in the actual fire tests. The

results of the tests are shown in figure 50. The spray measurement tests indicated that no more water penetrated the wardrobe with the horizontal sidewall sprinkler than with the

pendant sprinkler.

The greater extinguishing performance of the horizontal sidewall sprinkler over the

pendant sprinkler was apparently not due to a greater flow density inside the wardrobe. At

least two possibilities can be postulated for the distinct differences:

a. The droplet size of the spray from the horizontal sidewall sprinkler was such that

they penetrated the intense fire plume from the wardrobe and achieved more rapid

extinguishment. (To date the droplet sizes have not been measured for these

sprinklers.)

b. The spray from the horizontal sidewall sprinkler located over the door was somewhat

parallel to the flow of combustion air into the wardrobe. The spray may have been

entrained in the combustion air stream.

The reasons for the differences between the two types of sprinklers are not immediately

clear and need further investigation. These differences are significant in terms of the

impact of sprinklers on life safety and could have an effect on design recommendations. As

the CO data, in particular, demonstrate, the prevention of flashover by the sprinkler is not

the only benefit necessary for insuring life safety outside the room of fire origin. Limiting the generation of toxic gases must also be considered, which in these fires was dependent

upon the extinguishing performance of the sprinkler.

9.5 Packed Wardrobe Test

As mentioned previously it was intended in the scope of the project to incorporate a wardrobe test fire that would represent a severe but not unusual fire scenario for a fire

occurring in a patient room. Therefore, a wardrobe of combustible construction with contents consisting of clothing fabric loosely packed was selected as the burning item. In

order to verify this choice, and to obtain data on a different wardrobe loading, a test was conducted with a wardrobe packed tightly with clothing items. The sprinkler system con- sisted of a 71°C (160°F) pendant sprinkler set to provide a density of 6.9 mm/min (.17

g/min/ft2 ). The results of the test, N-58, as shown in figures 51 thru 55 indicated that

this test was less severe than previous tests where the loosely packed wardrobe served as the burning item. Table 5 gives the weight of the loading used in this test.

The significant difference in the severity of the fires between the tightly and loosely

packed wardrobe fire was the contribution of the wardrobe itself. The total weight losses

between these tests indicate that wardrobes with the loosely packed loading contributed much

more fuel to those fires and therefore contributed to the significantly higher CO concen- trations recorded throughout the test area.

9.6 Noncombustible Wardrobe Tests

The analysis of the results of the various wardrobe tests clearly indicated that the

contribution of the wardrobe itself influenced greatly the severity of the fire in terms of

the estimated hazardous thresholds. The CO data with the record of total weight losses

demonstrate this correlation.

Two tests were conducted with a wardrobe of steel construction to assess the impact of

a fire involving a noncombustible wardrobe and to determine if the hazard could be diminished.

Because of unexpected delivery delays from commercial suppliers, a steel wardrobe of the

exact size as the wooden wardrobes could not be obtained. A smaller one shown in figure 32 was selected.

In the first test, N-59 the same loading as in the previous tests was placed in the

wardrobe. Although the clothing fabrics were not as loosely packed due to the narrower

width, the loading was still loose enough to allow a very rapid involvement of the contents.

Although the initial fire growth was similar to the combustible wardrobe tests, the overall

18
test results Indicated that it was significantly le^9 severe. CO concentrations and estimated COHb percentage did not reach hazardous thresholds. Only the estimated thresholds for

smoke obscuration were exceeded. A second test N-6(f was conducted with a steel wardrobe

which was tightly packed with clothing. The purposd'iwas to assess the impact of a higher

fuel load in a noncombustible wardrobe and to compare the results with the test involving

the packed combustible wardrobe. While the loading was reduced because of the smaller

volume in the steel wardrobe, the density was the same. The key results of both noncombustible wardrobe tests are shown in figures 51 thru 55.

9.7 Simulated Rapid Response

Analysis of the disc temperature data from the sprinklered wardrobe tests indicated

that fast response sprinklers would have operated only 10 to 15 s prior to the actual standard sprinklers. A review of the photogrpahic record of the test showed that at the time

the discs reached 57°C the fire was just beginning to issue from the wardrobe. Two tests were conducted, each simulating a fast response, x = 21 s 57°C fusible element; one test (N53) with the pendant sprinkler and the other (N-52) with a horizontal sidewall sprinkler.

The purpose of the tests was to determine if the extinguishing performance of the sprinklers

could be improved with the fast-response sprinkler. As shown in figures 33 thru 49, and in

table 5, no significant improvements were noted for either sprinkler over the standard

fusible element sprinklers. It appeared as though the fire growth rate inside the wardrobe

had reached the point where the spray from the fast response pendant sprinkler could not

extinguish the fire any better than the standard fusible element sprinkler. ,

9.8 Combustible Ceiling Tests

i

Another goal of the project was to examine the impact of sprinklers on fires in patient

rooms with a combustible interior finish. Again, a boundary condition was sought in the

formulatibn of the test plan. Since the lauan plywood paneling surrounding the wardrobe did

not play a role in the fire tests when sprinklers were installed, the investigation keyed

upon assessing the impact of a combustible ceiling in these types of fires. The ceiling

consisted of wood fiber ceiling panels, described in section 5.1, fastened directly to the

existing burn room ceiling.

All of the previous tests indicated that the horizontal sidewall sprinkler wetted the

ceilirtg throughout the burn room. Therefore, it was considered unnecessary to investigate a combustible ceiling fire where a horizontal sprinkler was installed since a ceiling fire

would not present a challenge to this type of sprinkler protection.

Therefore the tests were conducted with only the ceiling pendant sprinkler system.

Since the combustible wardrobe fire with the loosely packed fuel loading typically projected

an intense flame plume onto the ceiling prior to sprinkler actuation, the wardrobe with a light loading was selected as the initial burning item. In the first test, N-55 the ceiling

became ignited just over the wardrobe. Following sprinkler actuation there was no further

evidence of sustained burning at the ceiling. Following the test an examination of the

ceiling revealed that approximately half of the ceiling was not damaged by the fire. The

corridor ceiling gas temperature data indicated that a corridor sprinkler might have been

actuated had it been installed. The question then arose as to the impact of multiple sprinklers operating, whereby the flow from the burn room sprinkler would be reduced from the

initial flow. This test was repeated with a procedure worked out to simulate this reduction

in flow due to multiple sprinkler head operations. A dry sprinkler of the same type as in

the burn room was placed in the corridor ceiling outside the burn room doorway. The test

procedure provided that at the time the dry sprinkler actuated, the flow to the burn room

sprinkler would be reduced to a flow of 64.3 £/min (17 g/min) which would provide an average

density of 4.1 mm/min (.10 g/min/ft 2 ). This envisions the minimum design density of 4.1

mm/min (.10 g/min/ft2

) considering the sprinkler in the patient room plus two in the adjoining corridor flowing [6]. In the test, however, the corridor sprinkler did not activate and

the flow to the burn room was maintained for the 6.9 mm/min (.17 g/min/ft 2

) density. The

results of the test were essentially the same as in N-55.

Finally, a test was conducted to reflect an extreme sprinkler location, to assess the

impact of the combustible ceiling in a patient room equipped with sprinklers. The condition, although unrealistic, reflected the extreme limits of the installation criteria [6].

19
A pendant sprinkler was installed in the burn room with the deflector .25 m (10 in) below

the combustible ceiling. A sprinkler was selected which tended to project a minimum amount

of water up toward the ceiling and the flow rate was set for 64.3 Jl/min (17 g/min) . The

combustible wardrobe with the light loading served again as the initial burning item. As

expected the ceiling became well involved in fire above the wardrobe prior to operation of

the sprinkler and the ceiling continued to burn for approximately 60 s following the initial

sprinkler flow. At that point the fire at the ceiling appeared to be controlled. Following

the test an examination of the ceiling indicated that it had been deeply charred above the

wardrobe, but was undamaged on the opposite side of the sprinkler away from the wardrobe.

See figures 56 and 57 for results.

The results of these tests indicated that the fire involving the combustible ceiling

inside the patient room was controlled by the sprinkler. The involvement of the ceiling

caused by the intense fire plume from the wardrobe did contribute to the total CO concentrations. As shown in figure 58, CO concentrations were higher in these two tests than in

N-48 with the noncombustible ceiling.

10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

For the given room arrangement, fire scenario and test conditions selected, and the

limited tests conducted to date, the following summary and conclusions appear justified.

a. The type and location of a privacy curtain in a patient room should be coordinated with

the location of the sprinkler protecting the room. The results of spray distribution

measurements reported here suggest that the privacy curtain should be located as close

as possible to the ceiling pendant sprinkler with the top of the curtain located below

the sprinkler deflector. For horizontal sidewall sprinklers the results of this study

indicate that the top of the curtain should be located no higher than the height of the

sprinkler on the wall.

b. The combustible clothing wardrobe fire represents an extremely severe fire which can result in flashover in the room of fire origin without additional fuel contribution

from other combustibles. The unsprinklered test fire resulted in flashover in the room

of fire origin and all smoke obscuration and carbon monoxide thresholds were exceeded

in the test area.

c. The contribution of the combustible wardrobe itself was the dominant factor in fires

where high concentrations of carbon monoxide were recorded. Significantly lower con- centrations were recorded in tests involving noncombustible wardrobes with similar

contents.

d. Automatic sprinklers demonstrated the ability to limit some of the hazards caused by

the combustible wardrobe fires, but carbon monoxide concentrations exceeded estimated

hazardous thresholds throughout the test area in the tests where pendant sprinklers were installed. The carbon monoxide concentrations were significantly less in tests

with horizontal sidewall sprinklers. Although the reasons for this improved performance are not completely understood, these sprinklers extinguished the fire more rapidly

than the pendant sprinklers and, thus, limited the involvement of the combustible

wardrobe

.

e. Both the pendant and horizontal sidewall sprinkler sprays acted to redistribute combustion

products in the burn room in which the sprinklers operated, as well as in the adjacent

corridor and remote lobby in the test area. The redistribution of the combustion

products resulted in essentially total obscuration (optical density >0.9 OD/M) throughout the test area.

f. The use of a fast response sprinkler (pendant or horizontal sidewall) reduced

significantly the smoke obscuration in the patient room doorway and adjacent corridor

in a flaming mattress and bedding fire. The reduction of smoke obscuration can enhance rescue efforts directed toward patients in and near the room of fire origin.

20
g. The use of simulated fast response sprinklers in combustible wardrobe fire tests did

not improve the overall performance of either the pendant or horizontal sidewall

sprinklers.

h. The presence of a combustible ceiling in the room of fire origin contributed to the

energy release in the test fires and the concentrations of CO in the test area when it was exposed to the intense fire plume generated by the wardrobe fires. The combustible

ceiling of Class D Flame Spread Rating did not adversely affect the overall performance

of sprinklers in the burn room in controlling fire growth.

i. For the tests conducted with the combustible wall paneling around the wardrobe, the

wall finish did not become involved in the fire and did not adversely affect sprinkler

performance.

j . The modest air movements created by the fan coil unit and simulated supply and exhaust

air system did not significantly influence sprinkler response nor the concentrations of

smoke and CO recorded during the tests.

11 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to specifically acknowledge Mr. William Stull who assumed primary

responsibility for preparation of instrumentation for each test and who participated in all

of the fire tests. Gratitude is also expressed to H. Wheelock, M. Womble, T. Maher, C. Veirtz, S. Nowstrup, W. Rinkinen and R. Lindauer who assisted in the experimental procedures.

12 . REFERENCES

[1] O'Neill, J. G. and Hayes, W. D., Full-scale fire tests with automatic sprinklers in a patient room, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 79-1749, (June 1979).

[2] H.R. 9689, United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 1st Session, October

20, 1977.

[3] Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 235, Dec. 6, 1978.

[4] Nelson, H. E. and Shibe, A. J., A system for fire safety evaluation of health care facilities, Nat. Bur. Stand, (U.S.), NBSIR 78-1555 (Nov. 1978).

[5] Life Safety Code, Standard No. 101, National Fire Protecetion Association, Boston, MA

(1973 Ed.).

[6] Installation of sprinkler systems, Standard No. 13, National Fire Protection Association,

Boston, MA (1978 Ed.).

[7] Automatic sprinklers for fire-protection service, UL 199, Underwriters Laboratories,

Inc., Northbrook, IL (5th edition with revisions up to May 18, 1977).

[8] Life Safety Code, Standard No. 101, National Fire Protection Association, Boston, MA

(1976 Ed.).

[9] Minimum requirements of construction and equipment for hospital and medical facilities,

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., May 1975 Ed and

Proposed Revision, May 1977.

[10] Rules for Automatic Sprinkler Installations, 29th Edition, Fire Offices Committee,

London, England, (1968).

[11] Richtlinien fuer Sprinkler - Anlagen, Verband der Sachversicherer Koeln, West Germany,

(1974).

21
[12] Bryan, John L. , Automatic sprinkler and standpipe systems. National Fire Protection

Association, (1976).

[13] Heskestad, G. , Bidirectional flow tube for fire-induced vent flows. In: large-scale

bedroom fire test, July 11, 1973, P. A. Croce and H. W. Emmons, eds. FMRC Serial

21011.4, pp 140-5, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Norwood, MA (1974).

[14] McCaffrey, B. J. and Heskestad, G., A robust bidirectional low velocity probe for flame

and fire application. Combustion and Flame, Vol. 26, 125-7, (1976).

[15] Bukowski, R. W. , Smoke measurements in large and small scale fire testing, Nat. Bur.

Stand, (U.S.), NBSIR 78-1502 (Oct 1978).

[16] Heskestad, G. and Smith, H. F., Investigation of a new sprinkler sensitivity approval

test: the plunge test, FMRC Serial No. 22485, Dec 1976, Factory Mutual Research

Corporation, Norwood, MA.

[17] Dinman, B. D., Journal of American Medical Association, Vol. 235, 2874-5 (June 28,

1976)

.

[18] Parker, J. F. , Jr. and West, V. R., Bioastronautics data book, NASA SP-3006, Scientific

and Technical Information Office, NASA (1973)

.

[19] Jin, T., Visibility through fire smoke, part 2, Report of the Fire Research Institute

of Japan, No. 33, 31-48 (1971). Part 5, Report of Fire Research Institute of Japan,

No. 42, 12-18 (1975).

[20] Jin, T., Visibility through fire smoke, main reports on production, movement and control

of smoke in buildings, pp. 100-153, Japanese Association of Fire Science and Engineering

(1974)

.

[21] Berl, W. G. and Halpin, B. M. , Human fatalities from unwanted fires, The Johns Hopkins

University/Applied Physics Laboratory, prepared for the Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSGCR-7 9-168, (Dec 1978).

[22] Kimmerle, G., Aspects and methodology for the evaluation of toxicological parameters

during fire exposure, Journal of Fire and Flammability/Combustion Toxicology, Vol. 1,

4-41 (Feb. 1974).

[23] Pryor, A. J. and Yuill, C. H., Mass fire life hazard, prepared for the Office of Civil

Defense under Contract N228 (62479) 68665, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio,

TX (1966)

.

[24] Steward, R. D., et al. Experimental human exposure to high concentrations of carbon

monoxide. Architectural Environmental Health, Vol. 26, 1-7 (Jan 1973).

[25] Parker, J. E., Jr. and West, V. R., Bioastronautics data book, NASA SP-3006, Chapter

II, Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA (1973)

.

[26] Alarie, Y. and Zullo, P. , Predicting carboxyhemoglobin for different patterns of carbon

monoxide exposure. Industrial Health Foundrtion Symposium on Carbon Monoxide, pp 18-46,

Pittsburgh, PA (1974).

[27] Stewart, R. D. , The effect of carbon monoxide on man, J. of Fire and Flamm./ Combustion

Toxicology, Vol. 1, 167-176 (1974).

[28] Claudy, W. D., Respiratory hazards of the fire service. National Fire Protection

Association, Boston, MA (1957)

.

[29] Kung, H.C., Haines, D. M. , and Greene, R. E., Jr., Development of low-cost residential

sprinkler protection, prepared for the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, Factory Mutual Research, Norwood, MA (Feb 1978).

22
[30] Babrauskas, V., Combustion of mattresses exposed to flaming Ignition sources, part 1 full-scale tests and hazard analysis, Nat. Bur. Stand, (U.S.), NBSIR 77-1290, (Sept

1977).

[31] Full-scale fire tests in a nursing home patient room, Report No. 7463, June 1975,

American Health Care Assn., Washington, D.C.

23
s

SYMBOLS • THERMOCOUPLE-GAS

O THERMOCOUPLE-SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER *© GAS PROBE V VELOCITY PROBE | SMOKE METER LIGHT PATH

LOAD CELL © DETECTORS © TELL-TALE SPRINKLERS ® PENDANT SPRINKLER © HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER

* PLACED AT SIDEWALL SPRINKLER WHEN USED

N

** INSTALLED IN WATER DISTRIBUTION

TESTS ONLY

Figure 1. Burn room floor plan—mattress series

24
• THERMOCOUPLE-GAS

O THERMOCOUPLE-SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER ©• GAS PROBE V VELOCITY PROBE

| SMOKE METER LIGHT PATH ^LOAD CELL ® DETECTORS

0TELL-TALE SPRINKLERS ©PENDANT SPRINKLER ©HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER

* PLACED AT SIDEWALL SPRINKLER WHEN USED

Figure 2. Burn room elevation—mattress series

SUPPLY

:x:

25
E

3.35

EXHAUST :r:

4.22

06

AIR CIRCULATOR

01

-053.54,56

SUPPLY ;:x

-WARDROBE

303

37

O 07,08,09* ©

@•00

•V63 (d)

80

m 11,12,13,14, 15,16,17

05 w

«oi • oi

• oi

70,71,72,73 }

04 10,18,19,20,21, ^0* 22,23,24,25, _ 26,33,42

51,52,55, 60,61,62,64, 56,57,59 55

• 01

SYMBOLS • THERMOCOUPLE-GAS O THERMOCOUPLE-SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER •O GAS PROBE V VELOCITY PROBE | SMOKE METER LIGHT PATH ® DETECTORS ©TELL-TALE SPRINKLERS © PENDANT SPRINKLER © HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER

* PLACED AT SIDEWALL SPRINKLER WHEN USED

1.07-

ALL DIMENSIONS IN METERS

Figure 3. Burn room floor plan—wardrobe series

26
63

• THERMOCOUPLE-GAS 0 THERMOCOUPLE-SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER

•6- GAS PROBE V VELOCITY PROBE 1 SMOKE METER LIGHT PATH

(5) DETECTORS ©TELL-TALE SPRINKLERS ®PENDANT SPRINKLER ©HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER

* PLACED AT SIDEWALL SPRINKLERS WHEN USED

Figure 4. Burn room elevation—wardrobe series

27
o

v

0

1 z o •* < x >*ox8

>t * dS

I

28

Figure

5.

Corridor

and

lobby

floor

plan
•• £•

t o

3 * o

5: * o 2

j £ > * o x

• > • O

COA

(N <P coO n

igvfegtfj w • ••• • • • - « • *> « K «

^ t * * * •

s s s s

• • ••• »rT«...TT.

I I _J L.

29

Figure

6.

Corridor

and

lobby

elevation
30

Figure

7.

Sprinkler

system

plan

view
LOAD

CELL

31

Figure

8.

Load

cell

suspension

for

mattress

and

bedding
CEILING

32

Figure

9.

Privacy

curtain

details
SPRINKLER

DISTRIBUTION

TEST eoouGMG

PQ

<U

J-i G

•H

fa

33

HORIZONTAL

SIDE

WALL

SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER

DISTRIBUTION

TEST

34

Figure

11.

Burn

room

doorway

elevation
Q

£

Ul

I

CS

i

CM

II •CS

CLCO

35

Figure

12.

Sprinkler

distribution—

Figure

13.

Sprinkler

distributionprivacy

curtain

in

place

no

privacy

curtain
36

Figure

14.

Model

two

patient

room
7

LT3 I

37

Figure

15.

Typical

distribution

for

standard

sprinkler
IIgo c

•H -H P3 ro

X>

0)

G

H £ *c

•Hu

ChU1

•HuV

CO

G EoM C 4-1 H

>i

H 4->

G

h * G (tJ O G

>it4 O

(0 VO >H T3

D.

U

G

co an)

TJM

tu i—i c

r4u

<uuG

tr •H

CO

tie

CM

II •CD

CO IGOH

4-1 GA 'O HO

4->

T3

>4

CD iHg

•HM

G

O

H CJ

W (fl

H

H 4->

M

M

G

G -H O O

04 >i CO OG O > CD H T3 an c

!fl 04

G

vo

a)oG

O' •H

&4

38
QJ a 44 £ G o

icO G

rl -H

-PP <D 43 e

o

u

-H-i G

H >1

05 (0 (d 4J £

M rd P

O C

•H

>iO <N

f0 rH >

•H *0

ft P C

C/5 ftfd

•H

+J

'd

>h

0) rH

44GH

O

CDP

P

Cr> •H

Ct-i

u

<u G rH O G d -H

>H G Dj •H -H 05 4J3^E 43 0

•H «. >H U G «*h

4-> -H

05 (d >1 •h -P (d 'd >h £

P <d p o

a) G

rH >1-H

44 O

G fd CTl •H >

>H -H -d

ft H G

co ft <d

00

<uu

p

d>

•rH
.042 .030 .028

1

1

1

1

I

1 — 1 15” -*

1 ^SPRINKLER

|'''"'5” DOWN FROM

.053 .035 .022

.044 .038 .025

.049 .057 .035

.054 .030 .026

.042 .038 .033

.037 .035 .033

x = .038 g/min-ft 2

cry = .0093

| DEFLECTOR

1

1

1

SPRINKLER A (G = 27 g/min)

Figure 20. Sprinkler distribution—privacy curtain, 8 in down and

15 in away from sprinkler

40
41

Figure

21.

Minimum

vertical

clearances,

sprinkler

deflector

to

top

of
C9

CS

cc o

42

Figure

22.

Sprinkler

distribution

—

Figure

23.

Sprinkler

distributionprivacy

curtain

6

in

from

privacy

curtain

9

in

from
0.30

S

s

S

u>

CM

<Mdd> NOUV4UN30NOO

o ( o < U5 < o

o

lO

CO

(M

UN33U3d) N0U.VU1N30NOD

43

Figure

24.

Carbon

monoxide

concentrations

(test

N-37)
Test

Sprnk

Act.

Time

“J

572

(J 030) 3dfUVd3dN3i

CM N CM CM CM

O

8 K

S 8

<0 030) 3UrUVM3dn3l"

8

44

Figure

25.

Center

of

ceiling

air

temperature
o o a

o2

N/ao) Nonvwnosao

45

Figure

26.

Smoke

obscuration

at

1.7

m

(5

ft

8

in)

level

in

doorway
w/oo) NouvunosBO

o

N

O w

jSjjj

</($ Nonvwnoseo

46

Figure

27.

Smoke

obscuration

at

1.5

m

(5

ft)

level

in

corridor
w/ao) NoiivynosBO

o

w M

n/ao) Nouvunoseo

o

o

47

Figure

28.

Smoke

obscuration

at

1.5

m

(5

ft)

level

in

lobby
600

(lN30U3dl N0I1VH1N33N03

48

Figure

29.

Carbon

monoxide

concentration--corridor
DOORWAY

SMOKE

OBSCURATION

=

.25

OD/m

(3„) 'dl/\l3i SV9 9NIH33

o

o

49

Figure

30.

Smoke

filling

rate

(test

N-37)
CORRIDOR

SMOKE

OBSCURATION

=

.25

OD/m

(Do) dlAI31 SV9 9NI3I33 H3IN33

•

o

-o

l u !) 1H9I3H V3HV XS31

50

Figure

31.

Smoke

filling

rate

(test

N-39)
w

51

Figure

32.

Wardrobe

construction

detail
(J 930) 3MrUW3*GU

I

i

52

Figure

33.

Center

of

ceiling

air

temperature,

wardrobe

fire

testscenter

ceiling

pendent
U 030) 3MniVM3dN3i

—I 1 1 I I I I I I—J I L

% 8 8 8 S 1

«

(0 930) 3*11*0*01

53

Figure

34.

Corridor

ceiling

temperature

1.5

m

(5

ft)

west

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
15000

<Wdd) NOUV&LN30NOO

UN33d3d) NOU.VM1N33NCO

o

l
SHOD !N30d3d

o

Io 8 8

SHOO iN30W3d

i

i

55

Figure

36.

COHB

at

adjacent

patient

level,

wardrobe

fire

tests

center

ceiling

pendent
<Wdd) N0UVJON30N00

(lN33tOd) N0IIVU1N33N03

56

Figure

37.

Carbon

monoxide

concentration

in

the

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
0HOD !N30b3d

o

10 R 8

SHOD iN3dV3d

57

Figure

38.

COHB

at

.92

m

(3

ft)

level

in

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
SPRNK

TEMP

ACT

TIME

w/ao) Nouvanosao

58

Figure

39.

Corridor

smoke

obscuration

4.6

m

(15

ft)

west

1.5

m

(5

ft)

level,

wardrobe

fire

tests

center

ceiling

pendent
Ois/MJDs/rua) xnu ivbh

59

Figure

40.

Heat

flux

—

adjacent

patient

level,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
(J 330) 3xrUVW3dHll

-i

i

- 8

I

60

Figure

41.

Center

of

ceiling

air

temperature,

wardrobe

fire

testshorizontal

sidewall

over

door
299

1I

I

L

I

I

I

L

1

1

—1

1

•

‘

1

03C

(d 030) 3drU.W3dNll

CM8

t r

CO 990) 3WUW3*Ol

61

Figure

42.

Corridor

ceiling

temperature

1.5

m

(5

ft)

west,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

horizontal

sidewall

over

door
(Wdd) NOLLVM1N30NOD

62

Figure

43.

Carbon

monoxide

concentrations

—

adjacent

patient

level

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

horizontal

sidewall

over

door
SHOD !N30d3d * &

flMOD lN30d3d im

+>

cn<u -p

<yu

•H

>4-1

<D 43OP

73P

fd5

<u

p > o

Q) o H 73

-p

p c a)

CD >

•h o p

fd i-h

f3< i—)

(d -P S d o

CD 73 O -H

rdw

•n

73 iH

(d (d U 43

CDpd

tr> •H

En

63
SPRNK

TEMP

ACT

TIME

(ddd) NOLLVM1N30NOO

S• 8• S• (iN3DM3d) N0U.VHLN33N03

64

Figure

45.

Carbon

monoxide

concentration

in

the

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

horizontal

sidewall

over

door
SHOO !N30d3d

R g

shoo iNaosad

i

65

Figure

46.

COHB

at

.92

m

(3

ft)

level

in

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

testshorizontal

sidewall

over

door
SPRNK

TEMP

ACT

TIME

(N/ao) Nouvanosao

o o o o

(M/00) NOUVMO3S0O

66

Figure

47.

Smoke

obscuration

at

1.7

m

(5

ft

8

in)

level

in

doorway

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

horizontal

sidewall

over

door
n/QO) Nouvanoseo

67

Figure

48.

Corridor

smoke

obscuration

4.6

m

(15

ft)

west

1.5

m

(5

ft)

level,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

horizontal

sidewall

over

door
OssAid-DS/ma) xnu iv3h

68

Figure

49.

Heat

flux

—

adjacent

patient

level,

wardrobe

fire

testshorizontal

sidewall

over

door
Figure 50. Sprinkler distribution—interior of wardrobes

69
SPRNK

TEMP

ACT

TIME

H

662

(J 030) 3iK\lvy3dW31

M CSJ CSJ eg <s Cnj r* a? m o «>4 eg eg

i/3 m m ^ 0^0

i—

r

i—

r

1—

r

«-

c

)

(/>«/> </></) [ lOtor*. ttDC §

) o

P

c

<D T3C

0)a

&>

- c

CD d) -H n P r-t 3 -H P d) fd o

u

d) u

Cu d> E -P

d) C

•P d)O

P i inQ

•H | (d w oi

o eg w

P

Cn w

G d) •H -P Ld

!

1 •iH d) 2

Center

of

ce

wardrobe

fir

o

*4 • *4 rH

Figure

5

8 1 g

s

(3 330) 3WrUW3dPI3Li

8

o

U9 a

70
(iNdd) NOI1VM1N33NOO

o o

o o o o o

o o o o o

1 1 L_ 1 1 gQ

S

o o o

O U5 Q

(I!G0»3el) N011VHW3DN00

71

Figure

52.

Carbon

monoxide

concentrations

—

adjacent

patient

level,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
SPRNK

TEMP

ACT

T1

(fldd) N0UVU1N33N03

o o

o o o

o o o

(iN33N3d) N0U.VHIK3DN00

72

Figure

53.

Carbon

monoxide

concentration

in

the

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
SHOO !N30d3d

£ £

SHOO iN3dU9d

73

Figure

54.

COHB

at

adjacent

patient

level,

wardrobe

fire

testscenter

ceiling

pendent
SPRNK

TEMP

ACT

TIME

SHOO lN30H3d

o

10 om

o

CM 2 02

§§ 882 ° WOO INSOtQd

74

Figure

55.

COHB

at

.92

m

(3

ft)

level

in

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
1112

(J 030) 3Ur\iVti3dN31

pc©

T3c©

cucr> - c © -H

>4 1—I P *H

4-J

©

©O

U©

U

Ck©

4->

©o

>4 I •H I P W

4J

tji

M

C

©

H +J

•H

©

© P U *Hm

M-t

©

•QOu

4-) T3 C U © © u S

vo

ID©up

tr> •H

&4

75
662

(J 030) 3Umva3dN31

76

Figure

57.

Corridor

ceiling

temperature

1.5

m

(5

ft)

west

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
20000

(Wdd) NOUVH1N33NOO

g

o

o

o o o

(iN30U3d) N01LVH1K30NC0

77

Figure

58.

Carbon

monoxide

concentration

in

the

lobby,

wardrobe

fire

tests

—

center

ceiling

pendent
Table

1.

Summary

of

fire

tests o

cj63

4-1 3

Sm co

S-i 0) rH

ftB

•rlB

&J

CO I3> CJ 3

•rl

O TO

4J rl

O

O

B S <

<D0 /-> •H CO H ^B

•H

O 0

ft 0) r-v 0 b ft 3 3 o H ft 3o

iH 0) MH N

tH *H

J-l CO o

GOB 3

COBo

ft

B

01 BBOBc

0) oB CO B3 O O rH = +

>H

a I—I o(M

in

m

CM

•a

0) T)3 rH

0)

B

cj o XW 0 ft

CU CU *4 4J T) O CO CU g Sm cu co o

co

X

ft rH <U

B

O

B £ B co 43 CUB B £ o b o 3 £ S* co 3

CU ft B *rl £ CO H

CU

CU •h

b

B

O

43 -O

O£CO

0)B£ bo

-a

•HBBoo

ft

CU ft ft

cu a;

0)o o

ft

COa)B

ftuo

ftHBBO

CJ

B

iH

Sm 3

rH CO B CU O B

ft 0)

<u

a

ft 3

CU CO

BBB

ft

ft

CU ft

CU0)

CJX

CU

m

H

m

CU 03 •rl ft •a

CU 1 0 B

a

CO CO •H

O rH CJ

03 03B

B 03 rHO O P CM Pm

co CO COB CU

a

m

B 4-> 4J oo cd

B J2 ii o rH rH B m CU E •3

•rl P P B CU 1 CJ rH P B (U B CO CO o S g •H cd i £ Cd d) a) iH o B 3 B CU o B H M B rH a cd B cd CO B cd B •H o 0 cd <U •H cu B Q) <D ft B B o S ft rH B B

CU CO i 6 C

B m-4

B CN o u 03 O cd 3 1 B rH CO CO CJ O O C II BOB CO CJ CO 0) 0) cu B OU

0)0 B 3 a)

coBo

ft

CO

CU

coBo

ft

CO

s-x B

id ftBBo

•H CJ

M-l

•rl

B

B 0) 60 &

•H

O

CO rH < S o m oo m o co o 00 CN m

co iH co CN CN

r- im

CM rH

t'' im

CM rH imCM

mi

O I iO I \C | H | rH i

CM 00

rH CO

CM CO

rH CO

m <r o mi- oo co CO rH rH

1-. r-' CM CM rH m i lO I rH I

CN CM 00

rH rH CO

II II CO H

CO

H

CO rH «< <! < <3 -M. iH rH

CN

g CN s CN

COMl

|M

CMOx£> rH

O

m rH |M vO N xO M*

r-- im im tM

CM CM CM CM O O O I cOcOcO I H rH H j

CM CM CM CM

rH I c < < c < C

co oo oo

m

r

— o

OO sfM xO OO

O

H

co r- m ix

nn

cm e-J CM CM

H CM CM CM e

eiw

ft I 64

OOOOO

O I g xO Xfl xO Xfl xo xo j H rH rl rH rH rH rH

C4

ft

coO CM CM CM CM CM CN < X i II B cd B B <u X 3 rH CO 5 CO a) 0) o « 3 1 H3 g O •rl O B CJ (U 3 1 co o u H CN B O u iH B •H O X X 3 M • rx rH • *s i—1 1 w O ft g B H B CU B CJ <u I'M 3 o O B oo Q 4J 4-» ?l « •rl PQ

CD cdB cd CO Mt 3 O Ml to

m CO CO 60 60 60O

B

O

B

(U

B

B •HB

B E>x >x 1 to 1 B •3 1 rH i cd cd

U

BBB ft 3 ft

O

B cd 3 B 3 -H i—1cd

g rHg 3 iH

g

B

g IH 4-J cd •H •H •rl

B iH

CJaOm s in

B

B

B rH rH rH S B S B

<B -o CO CO H3 cu

B XB 3 4H

B

B in 3 in "O

H •H •rl •rl 3 B 3 3 o cu ,3 B £ rH •H O O •rl O 3 O o a o a rH a) ON 0) 3 3 3 & 3 5 > B O B O O B o B B CJ •H 4J m 4J > U CJ CJ CJ •H B cd CU £ £ •3 B B co B >n B cd cd o n B P B

cd > <u

B CU CO 3 3 B 3 •H 3 rH * rH 42 • • « O ft

O

CU •rl ft

B ft cu ^0 0 3 _0 3 •rl 0 3 B 3 P o P oo CO £ £ •2 ft CJ ft <3

ft

B o B

OB

O ft ft o ft 60 ft 0 m 0 Ml cd 0 0 0 CJ CJ

cu o 0 CJ 0 £ O o 3 a 3 o o 3 •H 3 •H 1 •H i rH

O o o <1 o

ft <3 CO •" CO

B

O

B ft o ft CJB ft CO ft cog COg IH CJ o CJ ft CJ ft

CO CO CO CO CO 3 3 3 3 3 CO 3 3 3 3 3 3 o o o CU O 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a) 3 3 3 3 3 3 g g g >4 g >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 IH >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4

B

<U

B

rH tH ft B B ft

•rl CO B

ft rH

CO rH

Cd

B & B CU

Cd ft

ft *rl B co

<u ft rH

cd ft B B B

cd

O

ft

N

B -H

cd

B

B o

CO EC

ft &

co co

co ECOB

cu -d 3 B B B cd CU ft PH & PH & PH g PH PH PH g g g PH i ft PH PH PH PH PH cd So CO - CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 1 CO CO CO CO CO CO E cu •H H CO ft CO ft CO ft CO CO CO ft ft ft CO I CO CO CO CO CO CO rH •U

60B

•H

BB 3B

T3

Q) • • - • • g - - _ • g

cj

r

T3nd P

PQ

4J

hH PQ

oo c* o CN in

CJ

00 CTx o rH CN com

N 00

g

OX o 3

ft

W • cn CO co <r Ml Ml

mmm inm

mm

m inm xo tu 3 o i 1 1 i i i 1 i 1 i i 1 i i i I l i i I I 3 H g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g ft

Hs

cu £O 3 B £ 13

x-3 £ CO rl B B £ co a 3 O & &• a O g

78
00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Table 2. List of instrumentation

Thermocouples

Center of room, 0.05 m from ceiling

Ceiling air, average of 8 TC's, 0.05 m from ceiling

Wastebasket plume, average of 9 TC's (0.30 m circle)

ceiling

On E wall, 1.82 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

On N wall, 2.12 m from W wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

On W wall, 1.82 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

on S wall, 2.12 m from W wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

Time constant disc (9.0 sec)*

Time constant disc (14.4 sec)*

Time constant disc (21.5 sec)*

At doorway centerline, 0.05 m below top

0.05 m from

3.25 m from E wall. 1.68 m from S wall. 0.05 m from ceiling

3.25 m from E wall. 1.68 m from S wall, 0.15 m from ceiling

3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall. 0.31 m from ceiling

3.25 m from E wall. 1.68 m from S wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from s wall. 0.91 m from ceiling

3.25 m from E wall. 1.68 m from s wall, 1.22 m from ceiling

3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from s wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

At doorway centerline.

At doorway centerline.

At doorway centerline.

At doorway centerline,

At doorway centerline.

At doorway centerline.

At doorway centerline.

At doorway centerline.

1.19 m below top

1.63 m below top

0.13 m below top

0.30 m below top

0.66 m below top

1.02 m below top

1.37 m below top

1.91 m below top

0.13 m from ceiling

0.13 m from ceiling

0.91 m from ceiling

0.13 m from ceiling

0.13 m from ceiling

0.05 m from ceiling

Corridor station B,

Corridor station C,

Corridor station A,

Corridor station D,

Corridor station E,

Corridor station C,

At doorway centerline, 0.48 m below top

Corridor station C, 0.46 m from ceiling

Corridor station C,

Corridor station C,

Room center, 0.05 m

Corridor station E,

Corridor station E,

Corridor station E,

Corridor station D,

0.76 m from ceiling

1.07 m from ceiling

from ceiling

0.81 m from ceiling

1.42 m from ceiling

2.03 m from ceiling

0.05 m from ceiling

At doorway centerline, 0.84 m below top

Corridor station D, 0.46 m from ceiling

Corridor station D,

Corridor station D,

Corridor station D,

Corridor station D,

0.76 m from ceiling

1.07 m from ceiling

1.37 m from ceiling

1.68 m from ceiling

Thermocouples

Corridor station D, 1.98 m from ceiling

Load Cell

Load cell - 500 lb.

79
Table 2. List of instrumentation (cont.)

Gas Concentration Probes*

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

79

85

86

87

88

Carbon monoxide, at doorway centerline, 1.95 m below top.

Analyzer Range: 0 to 5.0%

Carbon dioxide, at doorway centerline, 1.95 m below top.

Analyzer Range: 0 to 5%

Carbon monoxide, 1.12 m from W wall, 0.36 m from S wall, 0.89 m

from floor. Analyzer Range: 0 to 5.0%

Carbon dioxide, 1.12 m from W wall, 0.36 m from S wall, 0.89 m

from floor. Analyzer Range: 0 to 20%

Carbon monoxide at doorway centerline, 0.51 m below top.

Analyzer Range: 0 to 5%

Carbon dioxide, at doorway centerline, 0.51 m below top.

Analyzer Range: 0 to 20%

Oxygen, at doorway centerline, 1.95 m below top. Analyzer

Range: 0 to 21%

Oxygen, 1.12 m from W wall, 0.36 m from S wall, 0.89 m from

floor. Analyzer Range: 0 to 21%

Oxygen, at doorway centerline, 0.51 m below top. Analyzer

Range: 0 to 21%

Carbon monoxide, lobby, 1.55 m from E wall, 3.58 m from

S wall. Analyzer Range: 0 to 2.0%

Carbon monoxide, corridor station E, 0.05 m

0 to 10%

corridor station E, 0.91 m

0 to 1.0%

corridor station E, 1.42

0 to 1.0%

corridor station E, 2.03 m from ceiling.

0 to 1.0%

Analyzer Range:

Carbon monoxide.

Analyzer Range:

Carbon monoxide.

Analyzer Range:

Carbon monoxide,

Analyzer Range:

from ceiling,

from ceiling,

m from ceiling.

*Precision: (1.0% of full scale)

Velocity Probes

60 At doorway centerline, 0.13 m below top

61 At doorway centerline, 0.30 m below top

62 At doorway centerline, 0.66 m below top

63 Room center, 0.13 m from ceiling

64 At doorway centerline, 1.37 m below top

65 At doorway centerline, 1.91 m below top

66 Corridor station E, 2.03 m from ceiling

67 Corridor station E, 1.42 m from ceiling

68 Corridor station E, 0.81 m from ceiling

69 Corridor station E, 0.13 m from ceiling

Number Smoke Meters

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

82

83

84

Horizontal in doorway, 0.13 m below

Horizontal in doorway, 0.30 m below

Horizontal in doorway, 0.66 m below

Horizontal in doorway, 1.02 m below

Horizontal, corridor station E, 1.42

Horizontal, corridor station E, 1.52

Horizontal, corridor station D, 0.06

Horizontal, corridor station D, 0.91

Horizontal, corridor station E, 0.06

Horizontal, corridor station E, 2.03

Horizontal, lobby station F, 0.91 m

Horizontal, corridor station B, 0.06

top (1.219 m light

top (1.219 m light

top (1.219 m light

top (1.219 m light m from ceiling (1. m from ceiling (1. m from ceiling (1. m from ceiling (1. m from ceiling (1. m from ceiling (1.

from ceiling (1.219 m from ceiling (1.

path)

path)

path)

path)

219 m light path)

219 m light path)

219 m light path)

219 m light path)

219 m light path)

219 m light path) m light path)

219 m light path)

)

80
Table 2. List of instrumentation (cont.)

Heat Flux Meters

80 Total heat flux meter, facing up, 1.12 m from W wall, 1.19 m

from S wall, 0.74 m from floor; range to 23 W/cm2 (20 BTU/ft 2 /sec)

81 Total heat flux meter, facing horizontally toward burn-room, on doorway centerline, 2.44 m N from doorway, 1.02 m from floor;

range to 5.7 W/cm2 (5 BTU/ft2 /sec)

Detector Board

At ceiling, 1.52 m from W wall, 1.80 m from S wall

At ceiling, corridor center, 5.10 m E from doorway center

At ceiling, corridor center, 5.10 m W from doorway center

Tell-Tale Sprinklers

At ceiling, 1.92 m from W wall, 1.22 m from S wall

81
Table

3.

Mattress

and

bedding

technical

data

Weight Innerspring CM)

ON

CO

CD rH

u 43

4= •H

00 44 oc vO

•H co pi

CD 3 ^

5£ -S0ooH

rH 4= ^ cfl 00 0£

m

•u •H pi r—l o d) 'w' H t£

CO /^N

CO e

cd

d

d 'H r44 rH O • •H o XH

CDN

•H 4=

d S

C/3 44 •H

00 co d m o

0) •

r-J CM

Vw'

d 0

4= •H u O'

<Js 00

•H co • 3 oV-/

0> CM

"O o o i u £

a)d oo

CO

d

d

CO 4= -H

a) 4-1 >4 n CL) CL

4-J

H CO 4J 3 H

cd 0) s r-) 3 O 3

Pm

W

S3

rd

O

O vD

O

O

cd 00 oc St v£> o vD rH O' vO

4-J •H 44 • • • • • • • o QJ 'w' o o rH o o o o H

/-s CM oo

m o o o m

H 0 o CM o CO 00 CM

CL ^ rH rH CM 1 On) rH iH

oc • • 1 • • • 44 o o o o o o ^ /^N

4-J ro *H 0 m o m

mmm

CO \ r- CM 1 1-" O' d oo

cd 44 Q

m

m i m rm

CO

COd) /'“N <r CM 00 o <r rH d 0 rH CM CO 1 St rH CM

44 0 • • • 1 • • • O

•H o o o o o o

CD c TJ o •H

•H

M

4J

H V4 o

a) CD CD rH

CO * 4-J #» 4Jd 4= o a co d CO n) O

d

CL o <d o CD rC rH o 0 4-J >, 44 Sh 4-J 4-J o 4-1 i-H 4-J rH a) d 4J

C_>d o o o o )m

d •H o o CJ Pm o Pm 3 O > o

4J >, 44 4J S'? S'? S'? S'? rH 44 rH S'? o O O id <r O O o o o m m 00 rH Pm C_> Pm m

4=

4J T3 ON O' O' rH

•r4 v£> i£> vD iD

ai

t3 • • • • • • o CM CM o O o 0

O'

X

4=

44

Xx

xX

X

CO CO CM CO co

00 o 00 O' in

m

m

d • • • • • • a) rH 1—1

rH o o o

.J

uo

oo 4-J d u

•H !m CD 60 rH CD 4J a) d rH > o CO •H 0 U •H O Cm cd X) CD <v MM a PH o

T3 4-1 0) 1 1 0) H 4= CO nj £ ? S

CQ CO 4-J cd o O o s cu CD rH iH rH

cd 3 IM rH rH rH H 4= CL •H •H i-t O CO CO Pm Pm Pm

82
Table 4. Simulated clothing technical data

Item Length & Width

(m)

Fabric Type Composition

(%)

Weight

g/m2

Night Shirt 1.02 x 0.38 knit jersey 65 polyester

35 cotton

164.3

T-Shirt 0.76 x 0.38 knit jersey 65 polyester

35 cotton

164.3

Robe 0.56 x 1.35 terry cloth 16 polyester

84 cotton

342.0

Shirt 0.51 x 1.22 kettle cloth 50 polyester

50 cotton

161.8

Dress 0.61 x 2.03 kettle cloth 50 polyester

50 cotton

161.8

Pants 0.79 x 1.02 double knit 100 polyester 245.1

Table 5. Fire load for sprinkler tests

Test No. Clothing Load (lbs) Wardrobe (lbs)

Before After Before After Loss

Total Loss

N-48* 6.22 0 134 102 32 38.22

N-49* 7.36 0 134 124 10 17.36

N-53* 6.72 0 145.5 115 34 40.72

N-50** 6.23 0 148 140 ,8 14.23

N-51** 6.35 0 148 145 3 9.35

N-52** 6.68 0 149.5 147 2.5 9.18

N-54 6.77 0 145 Total 145

Loss

151.77

N-55* 8.90 0 134.5 99 35.5 44.40

N-56* 7.02 0 131 117 14 21.02

N-57* 7.15 0 133.5 84 49.5 56.65

N-58* 45.14 30 135 129 6 11.14

N-59*** 7.19 0 7.19

N-60*** 27.66 5 22.66

*Pendant sprinkler

&&Horizontal sidewall sprinkler

•k'k'k Noncombustible wardrobe

83
NBS-114A (REV. 9-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 2. Gov't Accession No. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80- 2097

naSpBi

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

FULL-SCALE FIRE TESTS WITH AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS

IN A PATIENT ROOM. PHASE II

3. Recipient's Accession No.

5. Publication Date July 1980

«. Performing Organization Code

.

.. 7. AUTHOR(S)

John G. O’Neill, Warren D. Hayes, Jr. and Richard H. Zile

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

10. Pro sct/1 757868

?“ 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, ZIP)

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Washington, D.C. 20201

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or leas factual summary of most si ghificant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) The Center for Fire Research conducted a series of full-scale fire tests in a patient

room and corridor arrangement to examine the use of automatic sprinklers in patient

rooms of health care facilities. This is a report of twenty-one (21) fire tests in

which either mattresses with bedding or clothing wardrobes served as the burning items.

Test results indicated that actuation of both pendant and horizontal sidewall

sprinklers in the patient room acted to cool and redistribute the combustion products ii the patient room and in the corridor away from the flowing sprinkler. This phenomena

resulted in total obscuration throughout the test area. It was demonstrated that the use of a fast response, (low thermal inertia) sprinkler resulted in significantly less

smoke obscuration in the mattress and bedding fires.

Sprinkler spray distribution measurements were made to develop criteria for the

position of privacy curtains with respect to the automatic sprinklers in the patient

room. Recommended installation criteria are provided.

Analysis of the test results indicated that the combustible clothing wardrobe fire

resulted in room flashover in a nonsprinklered test. In several tests with sprinklers,

flashover did not occur, however, estimated hazardous thresholds for carbon monoxide

were still exceeded in the test area. It was determined that the combustible con- struction of the wardrobe primarily contributed to the high concentrations of carbon monoxide.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Clothing wardrobes; health care facilities; hospitals; mattresses; smoke movement;

sprinkler systems.

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited

I 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[ J Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

(33 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

88

22. Price

$ 8.00

USCOMM-DC