iiiirliiiiiKii^.^Znt,.!^,

NiST

AlllDt PUBLICATIONS

NIST Technical Note 1446

Estimating Reduced Fire Risk Resulting From An

Improved Mattress Flammability Standard

Thomas J. Ohlemiller

Richard G. Gann

I \JC3I

National Institute of Standards and Technology

' ">logy Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

NIST Technical Note 1446

Estimating Reduced Fire Risk Resulting From An

Improved Mattress Flammability Standard

Thomas J. Ohlemiller

Richard G. Gann

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8664

August 2002

jSJCTOFcq

Kh.

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretaryfor Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Technical Note 1446

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

Tech. Note 1446

79 pages (August 2002)

CODEN: NTNOEF

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington: 2002

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington. DC 20402-9325
Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 8

Experimental Materials 9

Mattress/Foundation Sets 9

Bedclothes 10

Ignition Surrogates 10

Experimental Methods and Their Rationale 1

1

Open Hood Tests 11

Room Tests 13

Cone Calorimeter Characterization of Surrogate Materials 16

Results and Discussion 16

Heat Release Rate 16

Lateral Reach of the Flames 19

Radiant Heat Fluxes to the Surroundings 20

Ignitability of the Surrogate Materials 22

Predicted Reach for Piloted Radiative Ignition 23

Fraction of Room at Risk for Piloted Ignition 26

Piloted vs Non-piloted Ignition 30

Heat and Smoke Transport Calculations 32

Summary and Conclusions 37

Acknowledgments 39

References 40

APPENDIX 1 76

Thermal Ignition Models for Surrogate Materials 76

APPENDIX 2 78

Estimates of Fuel Package Contributions in M3 and M5 Bed Fires 78
Estimating Reduced Fire Risk

Resulting From An Improved Mattress Flammability Standard

T. J. Ohlemiller and R. G. Gann

Abstract

This study addresses the hazards posed by bed fires of varied sizes in an effort to relate potential

fire size reduction to decreased risk of bed fire fatalities. For this purpose, a "bed" refers to a

mattress, a foundation and bedclothes. There are three hazards: (1) the potential for a bed fire, by

itself, to cause flashover in a bedroom; (2) the probability that a bed fire will ignite additional

objects in the same room as a result of the fire's radiated heat; possibly leading to flashover and

(3) the heat and toxic gas threat, in the room of fire origin and beyond, due to the bed fire alone.

To address the first two issues, twin and king-size beds of three designs (always using the same

bedclothes) were burned in duplicate both under an open hood and in a room. The three designs

(termed Ml, M3 and M5, consistent with previous usage) produced widely different peak heat

release rates; open hood peaks ranged from 160 kW (M3 twin fire) to 3850 kW (Ml king fire).

The radiant heat flux distribution around the fires was measured using up to two arrays of five

flux gages each. These radiant flux reach data were translated into piloted ignition reach

outward from the edge of the burning bed by means of ignitability results for seven materials.

These materials are viewed as surrogates for the surfaces of other potentially significant

combustible objects such as chairs or drapes which, if ignited by the bed fire, could push the

room to a flashover condition. The results were then cast into a form that should be related to the

probability of ignition in the overall population of bedrooms, i.e., the fraction of the room area (beyond the bed) that is at risk of piloted ignition of a second object by a bed fire. This fraction

is strongly influenced by the size of the bed fire and of the size of the room. Both Ml and M5

fires are inferred to present substantial threats of second object ignition. The threat for an M3

fire is localized to the bed periphery but could be problematical in small bedrooms. To address

the third hazard, heat and toxic gases, CFAST was run using the measured heat release rate curves from the room tests as input. This program predicts the spread of hot, toxic smoke in the

room of fire origin and beyond. Here the context was a single story house consisting of four

monitored spaces. The Ml and M5 fires presented a substantial lethal threat due to heat

exposure in the room of fire origin and some spaces beyond. The M3 fire (consisting mainly of

the bedclothes with little contribution from the mattress/foundation) was substantially less

threatening but not innocuous, especially with a king size bed. Minimizing the occurrence of

flashover and its attendant fatalities would require limiting the heat release rate peak from a mattress/foundation to less than that of an M5 fire. Localizing the fire to the bed would save

significantly more lives but would require limiting the mattress/foundation heat release rate to near zero as with the M3 design. Even this case presents some threat of heat lethality away from

the bed (in addition to the localized threat) since the bedclothes set used here yielded a 400 kW

fire atop a king-size M3 mattress. Overall the study suggests that beds with fire performance

similar to the M3 design would achieve very significant reduction in fire risk. Since the

bedclothes contributed the bulk of the heat release seen with the M3 beds, further reduction in

fire fatalities would probably have to address the bedclothes flammability as well.
Executive Summary

Fire risk is the melding of the probability that a type of fire will occur and the magnitude of the

losses (hazard) from those fires. The risk of a harmful bed (i.e., a mattress, a foundation and

bedclothes) fire is a function of the probabilities that:

• the bed will be ignited,

• the bed burning alone will lead to harm to people and/or property, and

• the fire will spread from the bed to other combustibles, with the combined fire leading to

significant further harm to people and/or property.

The estimates developed here are couched in terms of the reduction in risk attendant on ignition

of mattresses having lesser flammability than those currently in residential use.

The estimation model is based on the following concepts:

• Assuming the frequency of ignition and the flammability properties of bedclothes are unchanged, future mattresses will continue to be ignited with the same frequency as current mattresses. This is a conservative statement, since some measures to reduce

mattress fire growth rates could also reduce susceptibility to a given ignition source.

• The severity of the consequences of bed fires is related to the ultimate extent of the fires. About two-thirds of bed fire fatalities occur in the room of origin, with the victims split

evenly between being "intimate with ignition" and "not intimate but in room of fire origin." Bed fires that lead to flashover account for about two-thirds of the total bed fire

fatalities, which represent nearly all the deaths that occur outside the room of fire origin

and about half those that occur within.

• Thus, elimination of flashover as a result of reduced bed fire size could save about one

third of the -500 annual bed fire victims in the United States. o Flashover elimination may also save a comparable number of victims within the

room of origin, but this is less clear. o An additional substantial fraction of deaths might be eliminated if the fire were

confined to the bed itself.

• There is a critical heat release rate that determines whether a room fire will proceed to flashover. Staying below this value can be accomplished by reducing the heat release

rate of the bed and/or by reducing the capability of the burning bed to ignite other

combustibles.

• Ignition of additional items by a burning bed will either be by direct flame impingement

(contiguous items) or by fire-generated thermal radiation (separated items). This remote,

radiative ignition is characterized by a maximum piloted ignition reach from the burning

bed; this reach depends on the nature of the remote item being ignited and the radiant

energy generated by the burning bed.

• There is in real life a distribution of locations (distances from the bed) of these additional

items in bedrooms. Generally, a smaller maximum piloted ignition reach will encompass
a smaller fraction of these potential combustibles. Since the distribution of locations is unknown, a more quantitative statement regarding risk reduction is not possible.

Data from the burning of three mattress designs (Ml, M3, M5) in both twin and king size were

used to develop the risk reduction estimates. Ml is the design most like current residential

mattresses and produces a relatively high heat release rate. M3 is an experimental design that

normally yields very little heat release rate when exposed to burning bedding. M5 is an

experimental design that yields an intermediate level of heat release rate. The study leads to the following inferences regarding the potential for

a bed fire to lead to flashover:

• For ordinary-size bedrooms, a peak heat release rate larger than about 1000 kW will lead

to flashover.

• A mattress/foundation set that generates over 500 kW could lead to flashover, since the

bedclothes used with that set could contribute up to 400 kW (king size bedclothes

assembly in a room environment). Combined, such a bed fire could generate upwards of

900 kW. Secondary ignition of contiguous items, normally present, could readily push

the fire over the flashover limit.

• The potential for flashover from a burning king bed in the size of room typical for that

bed size may be higher than for a twin bed in its smaller size room. Thus, for a given

mattress design, the fire behavior of larger size units needs to be considered in estimating

risk reduction.

With regard to the potential for a bed fire to ignite remote object(s) in

the same room:

• Twin and king-size beds of the three designs (always using the same bedclothes) were

burned under an open hood and in a room. The three designs produced widely different

peak heat release rates. Open hood peaks ranged from 160 kW (M3 twin fire) to 3850

kW (Ml king fire). Inside a room the values generally tended to be higher; even the M3

king showed a heat release rate boost from the room environment.

• From each test, the measured radiant heat flux distribution around the fire was translated

into a piloted ignition reach outward from the edge of the burning bed by means of

ignitability results for seven materials. (Piloted ignition implies the presence of a "hot

spot" to ignite flammable gases evolving from an object.) The ignitability behavior

measured in the Cone Calorimeter was translated into ignition reach by means of an

ignition model calibrated with the Cone data.

• The piloted ignition reach for a typical fabric (representing the surface of a second,

remote object in the room) was then converted into the fraction of the room area (beyond

the bed) that is at risk of piloted ignition of such a second object. This fraction is significantly influenced by the size of the bed fire and the size of the room; the

dimensions of the second object also matter for smaller rooms. Both Ml and M5 fires
•

present substantial threats of second object ignition. The threat for an M3 fire is localized

to the bed periphery but could be problematical in small bedrooms.

The risk of second item ignition is higher for more susceptible "targets" and/or those nearer the burning bed. Fabric-like objects (upholstered chairs, a second bed, draperies)

are at risk of ignition down to incident heat fluxes of about 1 kW/m ; such flux levels can be experienced far from the burning bed. Wooden objects require higher heat fluxes

for ignition and are therefore at lesser risk at the same distance from a burning bed. As

the radiant ignition reach from the burning bed decreases, the risk of a larger fire decreases substantially.

M3 fires have an at-risk area for piloted ignition that largely overlaps the actual flame

reach of the bed fire so ignition is highly likely only very near the bed. This is mainly a problem in a small room where any second object is very near the bed.

In addition to second item ignition threat, the heat and toxic gas

threats were assessed, in the room of fire origin and beyond, due to

the bed fire alone.

• Using the measured heat release rate curves from the room tests as input, CFAST was

used to predict the spread of hot, toxic (CO) smoke in the room of fire origin and

throughout a single story house consisting of four spaces.

• The largest size bed is the best choice for modeling the effect of mattress design on life safety threat. Increasing the size of the bed leads to a significant increase in the heat and

smoke generated. Even though larger beds are generally in larger rooms, the effect of

room floor area has a much smaller effect on the time to hazardous conditions.

• The Ml and M5 fires were shown to present substantial life safety threats due to heat

exposure in the room of fire origin and in some spaces beyond. The M3 fire (consisting

mainly of the bedclothes with little contribution from the mattress/foundation) was

substantially less threatening but not innocuous, especially with a king size bed that

yielded a 400 kW fire. This study leads to the following overall conclusions as regards

reduction in bed fire fatalities:

• Elimination of flashover calls for keeping the peak heat release rate from a bed fire in a

typical room (with other contents present) below 1 000 kW. Doing so could reduce by

one-third, and probably more, the annual number of victims of bed fires. For bedclothes

such as those used in this study, assuring this calls for lowering the heat release rate behavior of a mattress/foundation substantially below that given by an M5 design

because of the combined threats of remote object ignition and heat lethality implicit in an M5 size fire. • A further decrease in peak heat release rate from the mattress/foundation could be

expected to reduce the radius for remote object ignition and mitigate the generation of

lethal conditions, thereby lowering further the number of fire fatalities. There is a limit to
this benefit, since the ignition reach becomes dominated by the burning of bedclothes on

the side of the bed. In addition, the still-large total heat release rate from the bed fire continues to produce untenable temperatures in the fire room and possibly beyond.

• Confining a bed fire to the immediate periphery of the bed could reduce the number of

victims by perhaps two-thirds and possibly more. For bedclothes such as those used in

this study, achieving this requires limiting the mattress/foundation heat release rate to near zero, as in the M3 case. The full benefit of this improvement may require some

limitation on the bedclothes, since a king size bedclothes set of the type used here alone

yielded 400 kW (atop an M3 bed) in a room environment. The threats that remain for

such a case are those of burns to occupants of the bed and heat in the upper layer gases

that reach down to a height that agile adults could probably avoid but others may not.

Overall the study suggests that beds with fire performance similar to the M3 design would

achieve very significant reduction in fire risk. Since the bedclothes contributed the bulk of the

heat release seen with the M3 beds, further reduction in fire fatalities would probably have to address the bedclothes flammability as well.
Introduction

The present report is part of a project entitled "Assessing Potential Hazard Reduction for Bed

Fires," sponsored by the Sleep Products Safety Council. Earlier work [1] on bed fires looked at the interaction between burning bedclothes (usually ignited first in real fires incidents) and the

mattress/foundation beneath them. That work assessed the heat flux patterns imposed on a mattress by burning bedclothes and developed a gas-fired burner set that mimicked this

exposure. The burner is a reproducible tool for assessing more fire resistant mattress/foundation

designs.

The goal of the present effort is to quantify, to the extent possible, the change in fire risk that

results from changes in the fire intensity of a bed, i.e., a mattress, a foundation and a set of

bedclothes (e.g., mattress pad, sheets, pillow and pillowcase, blanket and comforter). The

bedclothes combination used here was fixed; the mattress/foundation design was varied so that

fires of varying size resulted. One design is representative of currently marketed residential

beds; the other two designs are experimental. The hazard from the fires is assessed here, first, in

terms of their direct and indirect threat of producing flashover in the room of fire origin and

second, in terms of the heat and carbon monoxide hazard in the fire room and beyond.

Flashover is the point in a room fire at which radiant heat from the hot smoke accumulating in

the upper portions of the room ignites all flammable materials within the room. The resultant

generalized burning condition results in an abrupt transition to oxygen supply-limited

combustion of the various fuel gases and a large increase in the fraction of gases turned into

carbon monoxide. These hot, toxic gases leave the room and pose a very serious threat to occupants elsewhere in the building. Overall, nearly 60 % of the fire deaths in the United States occur in rooms other than the ones in which the fires started [2].

Of particular interest here, however, are statistics for fires in which a bed is the first item ignited, as shown in Table 1 [3]. There is a significantly different distribution of fire death localities than

that noted above. About two thirds of the fatalities result from fires that proceed beyond the

room of fire origin (flashover). Their locations are roughly evenly divided between inside that

room and outside it. About two thirds of the fatalities occur within the room of fire origin, half

intimate with the bed and half elsewhere in the room [4].

The figures suggest that elimination of flashover as a result of reduced bed fire size could

potentially save about one third of the approximately 500 annual bed fire victims in the United

States. Flashover elimination may also save up to a roughly comparable number of victims

within the room of fire origin (though this cannot be stated with as much certainty). The results

suggest that an additional substantial fraction could be eliminated if the bed fire were confined to the bed itself.

l

The available fire statistics do not directly reveal the cause of death and how, within the room of origin, it relates to proximity to the fire. In particular, the reach of toxic gases is greater than that of an ignition threat. This makes it difficult to state with any certainty that , for example, confining the fire to the bed would also confine the victims to
There is another, related incentive to limiting the fire size on the bed: this is the only way to greatly lessen the chances that it will spread to other items in the room of fire origin. Such

spread is a potential pathway to room flashover even if the bed fire alone is incapable of causing

this. In addition, for sub-flashover fires, one can expect that the threat to room occupants (and

those beyond) is reduced if the fire size is reduced. The results reported below demonstrate this

for a limited set of scenarios.

Given the above considerations, we infer that, in assessing the hazards presented by bed fires, it

is important to focus on both the size of fire (i.e., heat release rate) that results from the flaming

ignition of a bed assembly (bedclothes, mattress, foundation) and the ignition threat that such a

fire poses to its immediate surroundings. Since one cannot control the nature of adjacent objects

in a bedroom, and some of these objects (e.g., upholstered chairs) can create a fire large enough

for the combined fires to yield flashover, the ultimate goal may be to confine any bed fire to the

bed itself. This implies minimizing the "ignition reach" of the bed fire. Ignition reach is the

farthest distance from the edge of the bed at which a fire on the bed could ignite other objects.

The present study addresses the two related issues of bed fire size and the ignition reach of that

fire. Beds based on three mattress/foundation designs and two sizes (twin and king size) were

burned in two separate conditions, under an open hood and in a room. The three designs allowed

a wide variation in peak heat release rate. In all cases the beds were covered with the same

bedclothes (Combination #4 from Ref. 1 : a mattress pad, two sheets, a blanket, comforter and

pillow(s)). The ignition mode was the same in all cases: a match-size flame applied to the

bottom of the hanging bedclothes. The heat release rate of the bed fire was measured by oxygen

consumption calorimetry. Arrays of heat flux gages were used to characterize the reach of

radiant heat away from the burning bed. To put these flux data into a quantitative reference

frame, the ignitability behavior of a set of seven surrogate ignition materials was characterized

using the NIST Cone Calorimeter. These seven materials were surrogates for the types of

objects that might be found in a bedroom. Simple ignition models were fit to these ignition delay

time data (as a function of incident radiant flux) and the models were then used to predict the

maximum distance from the bed fire for which piloted ignition of the surrogate ignition materials

could occur. This allows calculation of the relation between fire size, room size and the fraction

of room area where other object ignition might occur. The measured heat release rate results are projected into other room conditions using the heat and smoke transport model CFAST to assess

the reach of heat and toxic gas threats to occupants in the room of fire origin and beyond. The

results, viewed in light of the fire statistics quoted above, have implications for the potential

savings in life attendant on reduction in peak bed fire size.

Experimental Materials

Mattress/Foundation Sets

The three bed designs were nominally the same as three used in Ref. 1 ; Table 2, derived from

Ref. 1, gives their construction details. Design Ml is representative of the products currently on

the bed. However, the production rate of heat and toxic gases is proportional to the heat release rate of the fire so

that shrinking the fire intensity (heat release rate) implies a reduction in the those threats throughout the room.
the market for residential use. Designs M3 and M5 are experimental designs incorporating

certain technologies that decrease the heat release rate in a fire; their marketability is not

established.

Figure 1, also from Ref. 1, shows the locations of the various materials and components in the

mattress and foundation. Note that the present test series also included king size

mattress/foundation sets. These sets had the same nominal construction as the twins except that

the foundation of a king set consisted of side-by-side twin size foundations. This

compartmentalized the space beneath the king size mattress, interposing two contiguous

foundation side wall structures beneath the longitudinal centerline of the bed. This appeared to slow fire spread in the foundation for some designs.

Note that while the materials used in the construction of these beds were nominally the same as was used in Ref. 1 , there have been some indications, in related work, of batch-to-batch

variability and thus one should not assume that the behavior here will be identical to that

reported in Ref. 1 for the same mattress/foundation design.

Bedclothes

The bedclothes set was similar to set #4 used in Ref. 1 . The mattress pad was of a distinctly

different design here, however, consisting of a one-piece polyester/cotton pad (with no enclosing

shell) which wrapped fully around the top and sides of the mattress (and a small, peripheral

portion of the mattress bottom). Atop this was a fitted sheet and then a flat sheet, both 50/50

polyester/cotton. An acrylic blanket was placed on top of the sheets and a comforter formed the

topmost layer. The comforter was filled with polyester fiberfill that was encased within a polyester/cotton shell. The pillow (two, in the case of the king size beds) was filled with

polyester fiberfill and had a polyester/cotton shell as well as a polyester/cotton pillowcase. All

of these materials were from different batches than those used in Ref. 1 but no striking

differences in fire behavior were evident.

The bedclothes were placed on the mattress with attention paid to removal of wrinkles and to reproducible positioning. The covers, up to and including the blanket (not the comforter), were

folded under the foot end of the mattress using "hospital corners." The head end covers were

folded back 0.42 m (16.5 in) evenly over the width of the bed leaving space for the pillow(s) and

yielding a doubled section of covers approximately this width adjacent to the pillow. The two

pillows used on a king-size mattress were each centered on their respective sides of the bed and,

as a consequence, did not touch in the middle of the bed.

Ignition Surrogates

The seven materials used as surrogates for other objects are listed in Table 3, along with the type

of object for which they substitute. Note that the list is plausibly representative but not even

remotely exhaustive, especially in the area of fabrics, which can vary widely in fiber composition

and weight. The approach implicit in some choices is that an object such as a chair could be

ignited by an item of clothing or a newspaper laying on it, possibly more easily than it might be

10
ignited directly. It is, of course, the larger objects, having a large heat release rate potential,

which pose a real threat of supplementing the bed fire to a point at or beyond room flashover.

Experimental Methods and Their Rationale

Open Hood Tests

The fire tests were all conducted in NIST's newly operational 6 meter heat release rate calorimeter. This facility is intended to measure the heat release rate of fires up to about 4 MW.

The hood inlet is a 6 m (20 ft) square located 4.6 m (15 ft) above the floor. A fiberglass skirt

draped downward from the hood lip effectively lowers its inlet to 3.05 m (10 ft) above the floor,

assuring that the plume from relatively small fires is captured fully and properly measured. The

skirt also provides extra volume to assure plume capture if a fire should temporarily exceed the

nominal 4 MW rating of the hood . In the present tests, which ranged in peak heat release rate from under 200 kW to about 4 Vi MW, there was no loss of the smoke plume at any time, nor any

appreciable build-up of smoke in the hood volume.

Heat release rate is measured by oxygen consumption calorimetry (which requires full capture of

the fire plume). This type of calorimetry has an inherent uncertainty of ± 5%, when applied to mixed organic materials like those here, due to this amount of variability in the heat evolved per

unit mass of oxygen consumed. This system was repeatedly calibrated before and during the

tests series, using carefully measured flows of natural gas, with fires as large as 2 MW. The 95

% confidence limits on the calibration data add only about ± 0.5 % to the ± 5 % inherent

uncertainty. Zero drift correction uncertainties are typically less than ± 1 % for fires of a few

hundred kW or greater. System noise, coupled with inherent fire variability, limits the accuracy

of reading sharp heat release rate peaks (as it does in any heat release rate system). Accuracy of

reading a brief heat release rate peak is comparable to the level of system noise in the peak but a complete analysis of this is not yet available.

The beds were placed on top of a scale to obtain a record of sample weight as a function of time

during the fire. Skirts were placed around the scale periphery to minimize any aerodynamic

lifting effects by the incoming air. A point of interest is the correlation between the maximum

rate of weight loss and the peak heat release rate. In Ref. 1, these two were shown to correlate

reasonably well.

In addition to heat release rate, the tests were intended to develop information on the distances

from a bed fire at which various objects might be ignited by that fire. The ignition threat is twofold. Very close objects will be contacted by flames from the bed and will likely be ignited

rather quickly since flame contact fluxes are of the order of

30 kW/m or more. More distant objects see a radiant heat flux that decreases with distance

from the fire. Radiant heat is capable of causing ignition directly but this requires relatively high

2 Such smoke build-up in the hood volume implies some time-smearing of the heat release peak which causes it. Thus the peak is somewhat flattened during this build-up. This is preferable to smoke spillover from the hood since such spillage causes an indeterminate error in the heat release peak. Note that tests run in a room have a similar peak smoothing effect due to the re-circulation which occurs in the smoke layer beneath the ceiling.

11
fluxes (discussed below). Lesser fluxes can still yield ignition if the hot gases evolving from the

surface of an object are subjected to a "pilot heat source." In a room fire, there is an unknown

probability of the presence of a pilot source (discussed further below).

The radiant flux seen at any distance from a fire is a function of the size of that fire, which is changing with time. In the case of the smallest fires addressed here, which involved little more

than the bedclothes, the fire was also moving over the bed surface. Thus it is necessary to have

some means of radiant flux measurement that can be moved during a test if desired. Figure 2b

shows one of two heat flux gage arrays assembled for this purpose. The array is based on a framework that rides on a set of four wheels. Medtherm 6 mm dia, Schmidt-Boelter, watercooled heat flux gages were held at the top end of telescoping tubes to allow variable height

placement above the floor. These gages have a nearly 180° field of view and a maximum flux

rating of 1 00 kW/m" . According to the manufacturer, these gages have a response time of less

than 0.2 s. The gage support tubes were in turn attached to holders that could be moved along an

axis perpendicular to the bed edge. Water inlet tubes and drains were run up to the gages

directly behind the supporting telescoping tubes. The dimensions of all of these parts were

minimized so as to reduce the shadowing inherent in placing flux gages, more or less in line, at varying distances from a radiant source. Corrections were made to all of the heat flux data for

these shadowing effects. The corrections, which depended on gage spacing and on fire size,

amounted to as much as 20 % for the rearmost gage in an array.

For the bed fire tests directly under the open hood, two flux gage arrays were used. Both used

the same arrangement of five gages each, all oriented horizontally, facing toward the bed. Three

of these gages were set at the same height (typically, but not always, at the top height of the

mattress), more or less in a straight line perpendicular to the edge of the bed. At the middistance location, two additional gages were placed, typically (but not always) at ± 1 5 cm above

and below the main line gage. These allowed some estimate of the effect of not having the main

line gages at the height where the radiant flux was a maximum. This implied correction for the

effect of height was typically 10% or less but note that this correction can still yield a flux value

which is less than the true maximum since there is not enough information to fix that maximum.

A typical initial placement of the arrays was to have one facing the folded-back covers on the

side of the bed being ignited. The other array faced the pillow on the head end of the bed. After

the pillow burning had passed its peak, that array was moved to a position opposite the foldedback covers on the side of the bed opposite the ignited side. This placement tended to catch what

appeared to be the most intensely radiating areas on the M3 beds, for which the bulk of the

material burning was the bedclothes. For the other two mattress/foundation designs, the

preferred placement for catching what appeared to be the most intense radiation was to place one

array at mid-length along the ignited side of the bed and the other array mid-way along the

opposite side. The array placements out from the edge of the bed and the spacings of the gages were initially estimated using the heat flux estimate procedures in NFPA 555 [5]. They were

then adjusted in accord with the results seen experimentally. The goal was to bracket heat fluxes

as low as 10 kW/m2 or less since this is in the range of the minimum flux for ignition of many of

Certain trade names and commercial products are mentioned in the text or identified in an illustration in order to specify adequately the experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does this imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

12
the surrogate ignition materials. This is roughly where the maximum reach of the fire exists for

piloted ignition of a given material.

As an additional check on the "radiative ignition reach" to be inferred from the heat flux results

measured here, one or two holders containing two horizontally-oriented samples of selected

surrogate ignition materials was placed near the burning bed. Each holder incorporated a single,

horizontally-oriented heat flux gage of the same type as was used in the arrays (see Figure 2a). It also included, over each sample, a thermocouple (chromel/alumel, 0.5 mm dia. sheath enclosing

the junction) as an indicator of possible ignition. There was no pilot source to assure ignition of

gasifying samples. Note that the intent in placing these samples (typically at the foot end or along one side) was not necessarily to confirm that it could ignite (though many did) but rather to confirm the model predictions below that piloted ignition was plausible. The small size of the

samples (ca. 7 cm x 1.9 cm; 2.75 in x 0.75 in) made non-piloted ignition, especially at lower

incident heat fluxes, improbable.

The open hood tests also included a simple system to measure flame reach out from the ignited

side of the bed (i.e., perpendicular to that side). A camcorder was placed well off the foot end of

the bed (more than 3 m) so that its line of sight was along the ignited side of the bed, about 60

cm above the floor. Offthe head end, on the same side of the bed, a "stripe board" was placed.

The board had black, vertical stripes every 7.6 cm (3 in). The camcorder saw the burning

process along the side of the bed silhouetted against the stripes on the board allowing a measure

of the apparent outward reach of the flames on the side of the bed. These apparent numbers were

corrected for the position of the flames along the line of sight using another camera view of the

fire. The camcorder data were reduced to give both the farthest flame reach lasting at least one

second and the farthest reach lasting one video frame (0.03 s). Room Tests

Half of the tests were done with the burning bed in a room environment and the single room door

was placed under the edge of the plume collection hood. The room was nominally 4.27 m x 4.27

m x 2.44 m high (14ftx 14ftx8ft high). It was constructed using ordinary steel wall studs and

was lined (all internal surfaces) with two layers of 1.27 cm (0.5 in) gypsum board. The lining

was not changed throughout the test series; this lead to some variation in room lining

contribution, as discussed below. The bed was placed, on top of a scale, at an angle with respect

to the room walls so as to keep it away from the walls and minimize their effect. See Fig. 3.

The room tests were intended to capture some of the effects that a fire enclosure brings. In

particular, such an enclosure captures the smoke plume from the fire leading to the build-up of a

hot gas layer under the ceiling whose depth depends on both the heat release rate, the smoke

plume entrainment rate and the room door opening dimensions. The hot gases radiate downward

toward the bed fire. This radiation, even when it is insufficient to ignite anything directly (as it does at the point of flashover) does preheat the upward facing portions of the bed and this can

accelerate fire spread on these surfaces. Note that a bed has more upward facing surface area per

13
unit of mass than does an item of furniture such as a chair or sofa and so is more susceptible to

this but the actual effect depends on the burning mechanism of a particular bed design4.

Flashover, in effect, extends the radiative reach of the fire to the room walls since radiation from

the hot smoke layer dominates the other object ignition process. This precludes a measure of the

increased reach the room causes in sub-flashover conditions. This is the reason the tests were

intended to remain in a sub-flashover condition. It should be noted that there is a continuum of

room interaction with a bed fire (or any type of fire). A very small fire in a very large room

yields only a minimally heated upper layer. This low temperature layer cannot emit enough

radiation to significantly affect the bed fire. As the bed fire becomes larger and the room

smaller, the smoke layer becomes hotter and thus a stronger radiator, accelerating the bed fire more strongly. The particular result for any given size depends both on the bed design and on

the room ventilation. Here we have obtained only a very limited measure of the room interaction

effects.

Another possible effect of a room enclosure is that the hot smoke layer will descend all the way

down to the point where part of the bed is immersed in it. The impact of this will depend on the

extent of immersion and the oxygen content of this smoke layer, which tends to decay as the fire grows. Decreased oxygen content will have little effect on the fire initially but as it drops, it can have a strong inhibiting effect. In the extreme, if the room door is nearly or fully closed, it can

put the fire out while leaving a very toxic atmosphere [6].

5 The present work focuses on fires

that do not become starved for oxygen except by a transition to flashover. Thus the principle

room effect is a possible radiative enhancement of the burning rate and heat release rate. Since

the goal was to get a measure of this enhancement (and its effect on the radiative ignition reach

of the fire short of flashover), an increase of the room door width was used to inhibit flashover

for the larger fires. This was successful except for the very largest fires.

The room door opening was defined by a fixed soffit height (2 m; 80 in) above the floor and a

pair of 1.27 cm (0.5 in) thick slabs of gypsum board that gave a varied-width opening in the

center of one side of the room. As noted above, the goal was to have the room impose a limited

amount of radiative enhancement of the bed fires, short of flashover. Room flashover has been

studied by a number of investigators who have offered correlations of the results in terms of heat

release rate and room ventilation (size of door opening). Ref. 7 includes a recent summary of

these correlations. It was used to construct Fig. 4 which shows an estimate of the heat release

rate required to cause flashover in a room as a function of the width of the door opening. The

figure indicates two difficulties here. First, one must know the heat release rate to pick a door

width. While the open hood results were available as a guide, there was no measure of how

much enhancement to expect from the room. Second, the available correlations have a large

amount of uncertainty in their predictive capability, as indicated by the range between the lower

limit and upper limit estimates. To avoid flashover as much as possible while still getting some

4 For some bed designs, the fire in the foundation is a critical forcing mechanism for greater mattress burning. The

foundation fire is shielded from any significant effect of radiation from a hot gas layer below the ceiling.

It is shown in Ref. 6 that the burning of less than 0.4 kg of material in a small, closed room (9 m

2 of floor area) can

lead to an incapacitating atmosphere in the room. This case could impose a severe limitation on allowable fire size

in the event of a closed door. The frequency of occurrence of such fires in the real world is unknown but this case must be kept in mind.

14
room effect on the fire, an attempt was made to stay close to the lower limit curve in estimating

required door width. Note that this led to some very wide door openings with the largest fires. Specifically, the door widths used were as follows:

Mattress

Design & Size Door Width (m)

M3 Twin 0.5

M3King 1.0

M5 Twin 1.5 M5King 1.5

Ml Twin 2.7

Ml King 2.7

For the tests done in the room, there was not sufficient space for two heat flux arrays. One array

was set up with 8 heat flux gages. In addition to the 5 gages arranged as above, each main line

gage holder also held a gage pointed directly upward to measure the heat flux coming down from

the combination of hot gases below the ceiling and the fire plume on the bed. During a room fire

test, the environment changes more than during a hood test since the hot gas layer could possibly

descend down to the level of one or more of the flux gages. At that point, the gage receives input

from both radiation and convection. This type of gage measures a "cold-wall" convective heat

flux that is only fully valid as a measure of what a heated item sees initially; it exaggerates the

convective flux thereafter. To check for this kind of effect, a separate vertically pointing flux

gage was placed in the room, near the portable array. This separate gage stand incorporated two

thermocouples (chromel/alumel, 36 gage wire, bare junction), one on each side protected from

direct fire radiation by a clean piece of aluminum foil. These were intended to give a reasonably

accurate estimate of the gas temperature at the height of the several flux gages. The results from

these thermocouples were used to estimate the convective inputs the gages were seeing in the

various room tests. Generally the convective flux was less than 1 kW/m , often a fraction of this, so no corrections of this type were made to the raw flux results reported here.

In the room tests, the flux array was placed on the ignited side of the bed, either near the folded- over covers (M3 beds) or midway along the side of the bed (other designs). It was not possible

to move it during a test since personnel could not remain in the room. In retrospect, this

placement on the ignited side may have missed some of the radiative reach enhancement for the

beds giving larger fires. This enhancement tended to manifest itself in an acceleration of the fire spread on the covers on top of the bed and resulted in a larger fire on the side opposite the ignited

side. Thus it is likely that the radiative ignition reach on the unmeasured side was greater than

that recorded here (for the cases where there was an appreciable room enhancement of the

burning). Since we ultimately declare cases with such substantial room enhancement to be

unacceptable, even without this effect, it does not affect the overall conclusions of the study.

15
One surrogate sample holder was used in the room tests. It was placed near the head end of the

bed, on the bed centerline. Lateral flame reach data could not be taken in the room but they

would not be expected to differ, on the ignited side, from the data measured under the open hood

since the flame behavior is dominated by localized phenomena.

The room tests also included two small thermocouple trees having three thermocouples each (30

gage chromel/alumel wire; bare junctions) to get a measure of the temperature of the hot smoke

layer. One tree was placed near (60 cm from) a rear corner of the room (away from the door)

and the other was placed near a front corner of the room (toward the door). Each array placed

the thermocouple junctions 15 cm (6 in), 38 cm (15 in) and 61 cm (24 in) down from the ceiling.

All of the tests were recorded from two angles using a pair of camcorders. The tests under the

hood were taped from the ignited side and from the foot end. The room tests required camera

placement outside the room. For the smallest fires, having the smallest door opening, the

cameras' views of the fires were severely truncated.

Cone Calorimeter Characterization of Surrogate Materials

Samples 10 cm (4 in) square were tested in air in a vertical orientation (with the rear surface

insulated by ceramic wool) from an incident radiant flux level of 65 kW/irf down to fluxes in the

range of 10 kW/m to 15 kW/m" to get an estimate of the minimum flux required for ignition.

For this characterization of ignitability, the normal spark igniter was placed above the sample to

act as a pilot. Thus as soon as an ignitable mixture was evolving from the sample surface, it was

caused to flame by the spark igniter. This is termed piloted ignition and it yields flaming ignition

all the way down to heat fluxes just sufficient to heat the sample surface to a point of rapid

degradation/gasification (required to get an ignitable gas phase air/fuel vapor mixture). Typically

this was in the 10 kW/m2 to 15 kW/m2 range, as indicated above.

Radiative ignition is somewhat unique in that the sample surface is (in the absence of a pilot heat

source) the hottest point in the near-surface region. This makes it difficult for the gases evolved

from the surface into a much cooler buoyant convection boundary layer to ignite spontaneously

(which is termed non-piloted ignition). The present samples require much higher radiant heat

fluxes to yield non-piloted ignition (in the absence of any, even very brief external spark). While

precise values were not measured, only the newsprint yielded non-piloted ignition at 35 kW/m ; all other materials had piloted ignition temperatures above this and the two wood samples6

required more than 50 kW/m2

. This issue of which minimum ignition flux, piloted or nonpiloted, is most pertinent to a room fire will be discussed further below.

Results and Discussion

Heat Release Rate

Non-piloted ignition of wood can occur at fluxes as low as 20 kW/m2 but this occurs via a glowing mechanism

which requires a longer time than is relevant to the present experiments [8].

16
Table 4 is a compilation of the peak heat release rate values obtained in duplicate tests of the two

sizes of bed for the three mattress/foundation designs, tested both under an open hood and in a room. If there were two distinct peaks in the heat release rate curve, the secondary peak is included in parentheses. Note that the largest of the two peaks sometimes is the earlier and

sometimes the later one. The higher peak data (only) are plotted in Figure 4. The footnotes to Table 4 indicate which of the room fire peaks had contributions from the burning of the paper on

various room surfaces. (Since the room was not re-lined during the test series, a given area made

a contribution only in one test.) Most of the cases of room surface involvement involved the

largest fires, as they neared or passed the point of flashover. The only unexpected case of a large

contribution is that of the first of the twin-size M5 beds. The fire was roughly at the 600 kW

level when the gypsum board paper on the ceiling (and an upper section of one wall) ignited (the

first test in which this happened) and yielded a brief (ca. 50 s at its half-height) but intense leap

to the nearly 1.7 MW level reported in Table 4. This points out the need to consider wall linings

(painted gypsum board and/or wallpapered gypsum board, not just wood paneling) as possible

second objects igniting in response to a bed fire.

These same mattress designs, in twin-size with nominally the same bedclothes, had been

measured previously under an open hood, using the facilities at an outside laboratory before the

N1ST facility was on-line [1]. The heat release rate peaks reported here for the largest fires (Ml

twin) are about double those reported previously. As noted above, the NIST facility was

carefully and repeatedly calibrated during this test series so confidence in these numbers is high;

there were no problems with smoke plume capture. At our request, the outside lab facility was

also calibrated daily during the NIST work there but their calibration was necessarily limited to

small test fires (150 kW). As was noted in Ref. 1, their hood tended not to capture all of the

smoke from a large fire such as that produced by an Ml mattress. It is impossible to quantify the

error that occurs when the entire plume is not captured but this is undoubtedly part of the source of the difference. We do have one additional piece of evidence, and that is the peak rate of mass

loss for the Ml twins, as measured in the two laboratories. It was shown in Ref. 1 that this

aspect of the sample mass behavior correlates rather well with the peak rate of heat release.

Examination of the peak mass loss rates from the two labs gives an average value of 0.1 1 kg/s in

the NIST Ml twin tests and an average value of 0.075 kg/s in the outside lab tests. The peak

heat release rate ratio was thus 2.2 while the peak mass loss ratio was about 1.5. This suggests

that there were possibly .two contributors to the observed difference in peak heat release rate: (1)

smoke spillover at the outside lab leading to about half of the observed difference and (2)

materials variability leading to the other half. Materials variability is not a concern in the present

study since it focuses on only the present set of data; this issue is discussed in a separate report

[9]-

Inspection of Table 4 and Figure 5 indicates a general tendency for the room environment to enhance the heat release rate peak, even in the absence of any contribution from the wall linings.

This is expected, of course, for the largest fires. It is worth noting, however, that there appears to be a significant room effect

7 even for the M3 king-size beds. Under the open hood these gave

peaks below 300 kW; in the room these gave peaks of about 400 kW. The peak upper layer

temperature readings for these M3 tests were in the 200 °C to 250 °C range yielding recorded

The limited number of replicates here makes it difficult to assert that there is a statistically significant effect but the

effect does appear to be real.

17
o 9 9 peak downward heat fluxes of 3 kW/m to 4 kW/m . This is a fairly low number (compared to the minimum flux for ignition) but, given enough time, it can raise the top surface temperature of

the comforter to somewhere in the range of 180 °C to 220 °C, accelerating flame spread over it by roughly a factor of two. This in turn leads to a larger area burning at any given time and a higher heat release rate. Evidently, this self-accelerating effect needs the larger dimensions (and

longer burning time) of the king size bed to be manifested here. A similar effect is seen with the

M5 beds. Note that it is the bedclothes (specifically the comforter) that are inferred to be at the core of this behavior here, since they are facing the upper layer radiation.

There is no fixed relationship between the peak heat release rate of a fire that a king size bed of a given design yields relative to the fire size from the twin bed . Under an open hood, the

differences are clearly design-dependent. For M5 it is not clear (in Fig. 5) that there is a size

effect; for Ml the effect is strong (but less than the factor of two difference in bed top area). In

the room, the bed size differences for M3 and M5 designs are more accentuated, presumably for

the reasons indicated above regarding radiative pre-heating of the top of the bed. For Ml the

size effect seems to be decreased but the room values are influenced in varying degrees by the

proximity to flashover (and its attendant oxygen supply limitations) plus wall/floor surface

contributions so that it is difficult to say anything definitive.

The nature of the bed fires tends to change as one mdves from the largest to the smallest.

• The Ml fires developed quickly and, at their peak, involved the whole bed, not greatly

unlike a pool fire, i.e., a (generally liquid fuel) fire on a horizontal surface where the

entire surface is flaming. A pool fire is the physical picture assumed in NFPA 555 in its rules for estimating the radiation versus distance from a burning object [5]. As the bed

fires get smaller, they tend to get more complex.

• The M5 beds actually tended to give two heat release peaks. The first occurred during a

fire spread stage and involved materials on a portion of the sides of the bed along with

most of the material on the top. After a lull in which the foundation got fully involved, a second, typically larger peak ensued in which the intense foundation burning forced more

complete burning of the mattress residue from the first peak. The physical picture is somewhat closer to a burning wood crib than a pool fire. • The M3 burns essentially involved a localized fire propagating over the bedclothes,

arrayed on the mattress top and sides. This last case is particularly disjointed in its connection between overall heat release rate and radiant heat flux to the surroundings.

Only that portion of the propagating fire near the edge of the bed contributed significantly

to the net radiant flux sent to nearby objects. Portions of the fire near the top center of

the bed, for example, were too far away to contribute much radiation (especially for the

8 There is radiative view factor from the hot smoke to the flux gage that plays a role here but it is difficult to estimate since the radiation comes from within the depth of the smoke layer. The gage was about 1 m from the edge

of the room. More central locations in the room (where the bed was) would have a higher radiative view factor and

therefore a somewhat higher radiant flux than that reported here.

If a bed fire were a simple spread process over a flammable material which burned for a time that is long compared

to the spread time, then the heat release rate peak would tend to double with the doubled bed top area in going from

twin to king size. Bed fires are not this simple, however. Material burn-out during spread occurs with some

designs and others exhibit much more complex spread in and among the various bed elements.

18
king size case). This should be borne in mind when considering the relation between

radiant flux reach and peak heat release rate.

The times to the heat release rate peaks are summarized in Table 5. Again, if there were two

reasonably distinct peaks, the time to the lesser of the two is in parentheses. The largest fires

(Ml designs) also yielded the earliest peaks. With the M5 king-size beds in the room, the earlier

peaks were nearly as severe as the later peaks which were plotted in Figure 5. The cause of the

separate peaks for the M5 design was noted above. The same observation regarding the relative

sizes of the two peaks holds also for the M3 twins. In this case the peaks were due to a combination of the pillow burning, along with the bed covers on top of the bed (earlier peak) or

to the flame fronts on the bedclothes converging on the bedclothes hanging from the side of the

bed opposite that ignited (later peak).

Lateral Reach of the Flames

This is of interest because the flames can heat adjacent items by direct contact or, if they flicker even very briefly through ignitable vapors from another object, can act as a pilot to ignite that

object. Recall that this was measured on the ignited side of the bed only and only under the open

hood. Table 6 summarizes the results in terms of two measures: maximum instantaneous reach

of the flames (1 video frame = 1/30 s) and maximum reach persisting for at least one second. In

both cases the reach is measured perpendicular to the side of the bed. The height above the floor

at which these maximum flame extents occurred was typically at mid-mattress level or above.

The data from Table 6 are plotted in Figure 6. Note that the flame reach values for the Ml and

M5 beds are substantially the same even though they burned quite differently. Also note that, for

any given design, the twin and king size beds gave very similar numbers (the twin values are the

first two columns in each group of columns in Fig. 6).

Since the M3 data are from the ignited side of the beds, there is no reason to expect a bed size

effect; this is too early in this particular type of fire for there to be any interaction between the

fire, spreading on the bedclothes, and the more remote portions of the bed. The four M3 data

points can thus be regarded as four samples of the maximum reach in four successive tests and,

for this design, they pertain essentially to the burning bedclothes (and, of course, might well be

different for other bedclothes combinations). The average of the four instantaneous reach values

was 20.4 cm with a standard deviation of 2.0 cm. The average one second reach was 15.8 cm

with a standard deviation of 1.6 cm. On the assumption that these values would, in a large

number of tests, follow a normal distribution with this standard deviation, then reach values can be expected to be as large as 26.4 cm (instantaneous reach) or 20.6 cm (one second reach) in less

than 1 % of such M3 bed fires [10].

For the M5 twin beds, there are three independent values for flame reach . The average

instantaneous flame reach for this case was 39.1 cm (s.d. = 5.2 cm); the average one second

reach was 31.4 cm (s.d. = 1.9 cm). These values imply a less than 1 % probability of an

instantaneous reach beyond 54 cm and of a one second reach beyond 37 cm.

The heat release rate data from the extra test here were lost due to a data system failure.

19
For the other bed fires there are only two replicates since it cannot be assumed that twin and king

data can be lumped together for these designs; the maxima may be occurring at differing stages

of the fire, depending on bed size. Since the main area of application of these data is with the

smaller fires, this is not a problem. Below, the flame reach data will be compared to the

radiative ignition reach.

Radiant Heat Fluxes to the Surroundings

Figure 7 shows an example of the type of results obtained from one of the flux arrays (five

gages); this is from the ignited side of an M3 king-size bed under the open hood. Note the

distances of the gages from the edge of the bed. The longitudinal placement of the array along

this side of the bed was several centimeters toward the foot end from the center of the folded

back portion of the bed covers. This distance along the side is roughly where the fluxes are expected to be a maximum for this mattress design since the longer burning of the doubled layers

of covers leads to an enlarged radiating area. (This consideration pertains mainly to the localized

flaming for M3 beds.)

Figure 7 shows the flux received by the five gages at three distances out from the edge of the

bed. The middle three gages were at the same distance from the bed but at three heights (+15

cm above and below the gage on the main line). At the time of ignition of the bottom, head end

corner of the bedclothes, the fire was too small to give a measurable flux to even the closest

gage. The flames spread up the covers on the side of the bed and then began to spread laterally on the doubled hanging covers (combination of flat sheet, blanket and comforter). This

increasing flame area backed by hot, degrading and charring materials, gave an increasing heat

flux seen by all of the gages; the flux, of course, decreased with the distance away from the fire. By about 100 s after ignition, the radiating area in front of the gage array reached a maximum

(for M3 fires at this location, about 0.4 m

2 including the visible plume above the side of the

bed). The noise in the heat flux signals was due to the rapidly changing flame configuration,

which was not uniform over the side of the bed. The gage array remains stationary throughout

this entire duration to record the flux history seen by a given set of locations in a plane normal to the edge of the bed11

. The flames, on the other hand, were propagating toward the foot end of

the bed on the hanging covers, toward the head end of the bed on the fitted sheet and across the

top of the bed. Because the M3 design incorporates an effective barrier material around the bulk

of the mattress and foundation, the initially burning material opposite the flux array (essentially

only the bedclothes layers) eventually burned out and the fluxes seen by the gages decayed as the

various radiating areas got further away from them. Note that for an M5 or Ml design, the

mattress gets involved and local burn-out is delayed. For those designs, the radiating area simply

kept growing larger and the heat fluxes to the surroundings increased accordingly until burn-out

of the whole bed intervened12

.

1

' In general, a flux array could not be moved to another location until the flames in front of it had died down so that a reasonably complete local history was obtained. Because of the relative timing of fire growth and fire spread for the materials studied here, along with other physical restrictions, this meant that the only practical movement was

for the other flux array, from the pillow area to the non-ignited side, folded-back cover region (and then only for M3

tests under the open hood).

12 The details are substantially more involved than this, especially with M5 designs that go through two peak

burning periods. More description of the burning processes can be found in Ref. 1

.

20
Figure 7 shows that the three gages at the middle distance from the bed did not record the same

peak flux values. This is a result of the gages having had differing view factors relative to the

radiating area on the bed. For a uniformly radiating area, the maximum view factor and

maximum flux would occur on a line perpendicular to the center of that radiating area. The

gages could not, of course, be placed on that centerline beforehand since there was no way to know where it would be. Thus the three gages were used to give an indication of the extent to which the mid-height gage underestimated the peak flux at its distance from the bed (along a line

perpendicular to the floor). For all of the test data, the mid-height, middle gage reading and the

other two gage readings (closer to and further from the bed) were corrected by the ratio of the

peak middle gage reading to the reading of the mid-height, middle gage (usually only on the

order of a 5 % correction). Note, as pointed out previously, this is a non-conservative correction,

i.e., it may be insufficient to capture the true maximum fluxes. However, the fact that the

correction was typically small

1 implies that its use in the manner applied here should not greatly

underestimate the true maximum flux.

As noted above, Fig. 7 shows that the data fluctuate due to specific, random variations during a given fire test. For use in the ignition model below, it is much easier to use a smooth curve that

approximates the experimental curve. Thus Gaussian curves were fitted to the data using a least- squares routine. Figure 8 shows an example of such a fit. Since the ignition model shows that

the results of interest (discussed below) occur at or just after the peak flux, this region of the curve was given more attention in the fitting process. When data at longer times (well past the

peak) were such that inclusion of them would have altered the fit in the peak region unfavorably,

they were omitted in the fit process. Not all of the fits could be done as well as that shown in

Fig. 8; in such cases the best fit was taken as that which would give conservative (i.e., greater)

results in the ignition reach calculations discussed below. Generally, goodness of fit was not a major factor in determining ignition reach.

As noted previously, the flux gage data also needed correction for the fact that the gages that were not closest to the bed fire had some shadowing by the gage(s) in front of them. The

corrections took into account the lateral dimensions of the gage holders and their support tubes, as projected onto the plane on the near side of the bed. The projected gage shadow area(s) were

assessed as a fraction of the fire area in that plane. One of the video cameras, placed behind the

gage array, was used to estimate the fire area at the time of the flux gage peak readings.

Corrections to the mid-height, middle gage were generally quite small ( < 3 % even for the worst

cases which corresponded to the smallest area fires) since only the front gage created any

shadowing. Corrections to the rear gage reading for shadowing could (slightly) exceed 20 % for

the smallest area fires since there were four gages in front of it. In general, all such corrections

decreased as the fire size at the flux peak increased. Since the correction process was quite time

consuming, the corrections were made only to the "worst case" radiant heat flux distributions,

i.e., those for which the radiant heat flux reach was greatest. This is in keeping with the use for

these data below to calculate the farthest distances at which piloted ignition of the surrogate

materials is possible.

13 Also relevant to this statement is the fact that the flames did not much exceed a factor of two above the gage

height, except in the Ml fires.

21
The information for making such corrections was available only for the ignited side of the bed

and only from tests outside of the room. In one or two cases of fires under the open hood where

the measured flux reach was greater on the side of the bed opposite that ignited, the corrections

applied were derived from the view on the ignited side of the bed. For tests in the room, an

appropriate video view of the fire size seen by the flux gage array was not available and so the

shadowing corrections used were derived from the fire size as seen under the open hood. All of

the room fire flux data there were from the ignited side of the bed only. Recall that in the room,

there was some indication that even for the M3 king-size beds, the fire was getting larger as it spread to the side away from the ignited side. The bigger fire implies a need for a smaller

shadowing correction but it also implies that the radiant flux reach was greater than that

measured on the ignited side. There is a tendency for these two sources of error to counter each

other but, it seems likely that the fire size effect, being more direct, is larger and that the radiant

flux reach values in the room are greater than those inferred from the available data. In this sense, the data should be utilized conservatively in assessing second item ignition. As will be

seen below, there are other issues that imply the piloted ignition data are, on balance,

conservative as a basis for assessing the threat these data imply.

The corrected peak flux versus distance will be used below to infer how far out from the bed the

most ignitable surrogate materials could be subject to piloted ignition. Figure 9 is an example of

the raw data for peak heat fluxes as read by the flux gage array and the data as corrected for the

effects of both shadowing and for height above the floor. The effect of the corrections and their

uncertainties, as described above, is put into perspective by a plot such as this.

The effect of these corrections on the maximum piloted ignition reach is modest, about a 5 cm

effect for the M3 case and about a 10 cm effect for the next bigger fires (M5). The most

ignitable material requires at least a heat flux in the neighborhood of 8 kW/m . At this flux

level, the corrections move the location of the reach of such a flux level outward only about 5

9 9 cm. If the minimum flux for ignition were as low as 6 kW/m , or if the curve near 8 kW/m had

the lower slope seen near 6 kW/m , then the effect of the corrections would be about a 10 cm

shift outward in the maximum piloted ignition reach for the material. Errors in the shadowing

and height corrections are expected to have a lesser effect. The underestimation of the radiant

flux reach in the room due to the fire getting bigger as it accelerated toward the other side of the

bed (pertinent mainly to the M3 king-size bed) could not be estimated, however.

Ignitability of the Surrogate Materials

The Cone Calorimeter data on piloted radiative ignition time versus incident heat flux for the seven surrogate materials are presented in Figures 10a to lOg. Note that the data are all for a constant level of heat flux, i.e., the exposure was initiated by the removal of a cover on front of

the sample face and that face saw a constant incident heat flux until it ignited. The flux seen by a second object in a real fire is time-dependent, as discussed above. For this reason, the Cone data

cannot be used directly here to estimate the reach of piloted ignition.

As expected, all of the ignitability curves are shaped similarly, in a qualitative sense. At high

incident heat fluxes ignition occurred rapidly. As the flux was reduced to lower levels, a longer

time was needed for the sample surface to reach a temperature required for it to generate an

ignitable gas mixture in the space adjacent to the surface. Finally, as the flux was lowered, in

22
successive experiments, each with a new sample, to still lower levels, it was no longer possible

for that flux to raise the sample surface temperature to the level required to generate the ignitable

mixture of degradation gases and no ignition occurred. This temperature level depends on the

chemical composition of the sample (and, secondarily, on the rate of heat loss from the front

surface of the sample). For most of the fabric samples, the other parameter that determines the

ignition delay time is the amount of heat required to raise that specific material at its given

thickness per degree of temperature rise. This is termed its thermal inertia.

14 For the thicker

materials (terry cloth and the two wood samples), it is thermal conductivity rather than thickness

which sets the value of thermal inertia. The terry cloth, with its open physical structure, also

needs to have its radiation penetrability described.

The quantitative values for the effective ignition temperature and thermal inertia (shown on the

plots) vary significantly but not dramatically among the various materials. The only surprise in

Fig. 1 is the high effective ignition temperature for newsprint, considering that its chemistry is similar to the cotton cloth

15

. Evidently, the paper is so thin that at low heat fluxes it loses so much reactable material during heat up that it has not got enough remaining to yield an ignitable

gas mixture. If so, this material departs appreciably from the implicit assumptions in the ignition

model. Nevertheless, the model appears to be able to describe the ignition behavior quite

adequately for the present purpose.

Predicted Reach for Piloted Radiative Ignition

The ignition behavior of these materials can be described quantitatively by a simple thermal

model of piloted ignition that includes those parameters just mentioned. The model accounts for

the incoming radiation, the thermal inertia of the material and heat losses from the front by

radiation and buoyant convection (the same losses from the back can also be included if desired).

The model, which differs in details for thin and thick materials, is summarized in Appendix 1 ; it

is essentially similar to thermal ignition models that have been used in the fire literature for

decades. As piloted ignition models, these assume that ignition follows instantly when the

sample surface reaches its ignition temperature. In the Cone Calorimeter, a spark source is present in the evolved gas plume to assure that this is the case. Since the model is non-linear via

the surface radiation losses, it requires computer solution, as described in Appendix 1

.

The first application of the thermal ignition model was made to deduce the parameter values

needed to get a good quantitative fit of the model to the Cone ignition data. This was done

essentially by trial and error but with some literature procedures (and experimental convective

heat loss coefficient measurements) as guidelines, especially for a first estimate of the ignition

temperature. The final fitting was guided by the observation that the thermal inertia most

influences the high flux ignition data and the ignition temperature most influences the low flux

data. The fitted curves are included in Fig. 1 and the inferred model parameter values are listed

14 In Fig. 10, the inferred ignition temperature is denoted as Tlgn. and is reported in °C: thermal inertia is denoted as "Thermm" and is reported in m-k-s units; in-depth absorption coefficient (Fig. lOe) is denoted as "Alpha" and is reported in cm'

1

. 15 In contrast to the behavior noted here for a single flat sheet of newsprint, crumpled newsprint behaves differently.

It is often used as a flashover indicator in room fires where the crumpled mass ignites spontaneously (no pilot

needed) at a flux of about 20 kW/m2

. Its behavior in that situation suggests that it would undergo piloted ignition at a lower incident flux.

23
on the graph for each material. It is evident that the thermal model can give quite a reasonable

description of the observed Cone ignition behavior.

The second application of the model was to calculate the farthest distance from a given bed fire

at which piloted ignition of a given surrogate material can possibly occur (via any pilot source

available in the fire room, not necessarily the flames on the bed itself

16

). This defines the threat

radius of a fire for second item ignition of specific materials. Since a major goal of this study is to define the fire conditions that make second item ignition improbable, this is a key outcome. It will provide a measure of the area fraction of any given room that is at risk of piloted ignition of

a second object for the three bed designs studied here.

This second application used the inferred parameters for each material and the Gaussian fits to the measured radiant flux vs time from the bed fires. It is again trial and error in nature but now

one is iterating to find the farthest distance from the edge of the bed at which the model predicts

the ignition temperature of a particular surrogate can just be reached. This is referred to here as the "piloted ignition reach" of the bed fire. Actually, the model only predicts the lowest heat

flux at which piloted ignition can occur, given the Gaussian-approximation to the measured

dependence on time for a chosen bed fire. The assessment of that minimum flux is narrowed to within 0.2 kW/m by iterating the model. The corrected curve of flux vs. distance from the bed

(e.g.. Fig. 9) is then used to obtain the maximum distance from the edge of the bed to which this

minimum radiant flux for piloted ignition corresponds.

When applying the model in this second stage, the application is intended to mimic the

conditions seen in a growing room fire scenario. Thus it is necessary to be explicit about the

heat loss conditions assumed since they affect the results. All of the surrogate materials

represent objects that could have a substantial vertical dimension on the side facing the bed fire. The cooling of a vertical surface by upward, buoyant air flow, goes through a minimum at about

60 cm (2 ft) up from the bottom edge of the surface as the boundary layer goes from laminar to turbulent [11]. Since ignition is a localized phenomenon, there will be a tendency for ignition to occur first at this height since the heat losses there are less (given equal incident radiant flux

intensity vs height). This minimum is not a very large effect (30 %) but in the general spirit here

of being conservative (i.e., plausibly worst case) as to the ignition threat, this minimum

convective loss coefficient has been assumed to apply in all cases.

The issue of whether there will be any significant heat losses from the backside of the surrogate

material is explicitly dependent on the assumed scenario. Rear losses slow the heating of a

material. (Like front surface losses, they dump some of the incoming radiant heat to the air.)

Thus, rear losses can shorten the maximum piloted ignition reach of the material. Here the wood

materials are assumed to be vertical parts of furniture or wall paneling. One expects that some

convective and radiative loss would normally be present on the rear surface of these components.

Here it has been assumed that the front and rear surfaces are subject to the same convective and

radiative loss conditions for the two wood materials. The various fabrics might be exposed in

differing sets of circumstances. Upholstery fabric normally covers polyurethane foam or polyester fiber, two low density, insulating materials. Thus, for this application, the two

materials in Table 3 that are upholstery surrogates are modeled as having no rear heat losses.

The use of this conservative definition for the potential ignition reach of a bed fire is considered further below.

24
One of the materials is also listed as a drapery surrogate; in this application there may be equal

losses from front and back surfaces (though a lining could decrease the rear losses). The terry

cloth, newsprint and clothing weight materials were included as materials that could be draped

over a chair or other larger object, providing a large ignition source to it. Such draped materials

would tend to have minimal rear surface heat losses. For most of the fabrics, then, the no rear

loss condition is assumed. The 1 00 % cotton fabric has been run through the maximum piloted

ignition reach prediction process both with and without rear heat losses (of the same magnitude

as the front surface losses) to illustrate the impact of this scenario factor.

Table 7 summarizes the predicted results for the maximum reach, from the edge of the bed, of

piloted ignition for the seven surrogate materials and different experimental bed fires. Several

points should be noted first.

The M3 mattress/foundation design was run with radiant flux distribution results from

three different tests and the predictions of maximum reach were all about the same

(50 cm).

In general, the flux array results to be used here have been taken as those with the

maximum reach as seen in the original peak flux versus distance plots (analogous to

Fig. 9).

Potentially, a broader peak with a somewhat lower maximum flux value at a given

distance from the bed could have yielded a larger reach for ignition. These M3 results

indicate that peak width and peak height trade-offs yielded little change in maximum

piloted ignition reach.

All of the results used are from the ignited side of the bed (the only side from which

results were obtained inside the room). Most of the measured flux distribution results

from the opposite side of the bed were similar (and more difficult to correct for gage

shadowing).

None of the results are for the gage array placed at the head end, opposite the pillow. The

reach of the fires was less in this direction and, since the head end of a bed is usually

against a wall, less relevant to calculating maximum ignition reach.

Where the numbers are stated to be > the indicated value (i.e., for the Ml king-size bed test used

here), the results are from an essentially linear extrapolation of the measured peak flux versus

distance. For these tests the flux array was too close to record flux peaks lower than about 20

kW/m2

; a linear extrapolation underestimates the actual reach somewhat. 17 Where the numbers

are stated to be < the given value (for the two woods and the M3 king-size bed), an extrapolation

of the measured flux array results toward the bed was called for but was not done since the closer

distances were into the flame contact zone where convective ignition, not piloted radiative

ignition, is probably the controlling process.

The presence of rear surface heat losses does make a substantial difference in the maximum

ignition reach for the two fabrics examined with and without those losses. Thus, if either of

these fabrics were used as a drape material instead of an upholstery material, it would have to be

closer to the bed fire in order to be ignited by radiation.

This underestimate on this high end of the heat release rate behavior has no influence on deliberations regarding

acceptable heat release rate behavior near the low end.

25
The 100 % cotton fabric, treated as an upholstery fabric (i.e., with no rear surface heat losses)

gave the greatest ignition reach values for all three mattress/foundation designs. The maximum

piloted ignition reach for some of the other fabrics is really not much less, especially for the M3

bed cases. In contrast, the reach for the two wood materials is substantially less, as one might

expect, given the large differences in the energy required to get these denser, thicker materials

heated to the point of ignition.

As a reality check on the above predictions, the same computer program was also run using as input the measured flux-time results from the surrogate sample array holders in a few tests. Thus, for the newsprint and for the terry cloth fabric, the model predicted near ignition

conditions should have been achieved given the measured flux vs time seen at the location of

these sample holders during the bed fire. The samples did not actually ignite in any of these

comparisons but, in all cases, they were turned a medium to dark brown indicating that they were

in fact degrading and gasifying substantially. This is a semi-quantitative confirmation of the

model predictions of expected sample behavior. As was noted earlier, in the absence of a pilot

heat source, actual ignition was not to be expected in the present tests. Early room fire growth

experiments by Fang [12] demonstrated similar behavior.

Fraction of Room at Risk for Piloted Ignition

Real rooms may contain an indefinitely large variety of other objects arranged in an

indeterminate number of ways. While one could, in principle, calculate the fire growth behavior

among some set of chosen objects in a series of specific arrangements, there is no way to infer

from this what the average hazard in the nationwide population of bedrooms might be. In

particular, one would be very hard pressed to make credible quantitative predictions about how

much a given change in bed fire heat release rate peak would decrease the overall mortality of

bed fires when using a series of essentially arbitrary scenarios to make this inference (unless that

scenario list was very large). Here, a more modest but plausible approach is taken. The threat of

other object ignition (and, therefore, the threat of fire spread to significant other objects beyond

the bed) is assumed to be proportional to the fraction of the floor area of the room that is at risk

of piloted ignition. This implicitly assumes that all portions of the floor area present an equal

threat, which is a simplification - people tend to place more objects around the edges of rooms.

Nevertheless, it is plausible that minimizing this at-risk area fraction will reduce the threat of fire

I Q growth to other objects. There will always be fire scenarios that defeat this fire-spread

limitation. As was pointed out earlier, even a very small fire in a closed room could create incapacitating toxicity conditions there [6].

The use of the maximum piloted ignition reach of a bed fire as a measure of threat will be

reconsidered below. Also below, the calculated room-wide threats due to heat and toxic gases

will also be introduced as an aid in assessing the threat of fires of varying intensity (heat release

rate).

18 A corollary of this is that larger rooms are at a lesser risk of piloted ignition as a result of a bed fire. On average,

this also seems plausible since it allows a greater average spacing between objects. Of course, one could put more

objects in the room but one would have to maintain the same number of objects per unit floor area to fully defeat

this benefit.

26
In keeping with the trend of being conservative here, the 100 % cotton fabric (used as an

upholstery fabric, i.e., with no rear heat losses) is chosen as the material with which to calculate

the fraction of room floor area at risk of piloted ignition from an M3, M5 or Ml fire (see Table

7). Figure 11a shows an example of this concept. The chosen illustration is for a twin bed in a 3

mx3m(10ftxl0ft) bedroom. The bed is placed with its head end against one wall and both

sides well-removed from the other walls. This is a plausible worst case placement. If the bed

were close to the wall on one long side, as well, it would eliminate some of the threatened area of

the room

19

. The dashed periphery around the bed in this particular illustration is the radius at risk of piloted ignition as a result of an M3 fire on the bed using the value shown in Table 7

(50 cm; ca 20 in).

The use of a constant value for risk radius around a bed (as in Fig. 1 1 a) is appropriate for M5 and

Ml mattresses (see below) but it is overly conservative for the M3 case. Fig. 1 lb is a more

realistic representation of the more complex situation presented by the M3 bed behavior. It also

introduces another complication pertinent to all bed designs, discussed below. The complex

shape of the dashed line around the area at-risk for piloted ignition by an M3 fire is a consequence of the fact that the fire essentially propagates on the bedclothes. The two large

radius areas are associated with the folded-back bed covers and both correspond to worst-case

measured reach values for the ignited side and opposite side of the bed. The lesser reach values on the remainder of the two sides and even smaller value on the foot end are inferred (not

measured) from the smaller burning areas, recorded on the videotapes, in these regions where the

bedclothes were single-layer (and where, at the foot end, everything but the comforter was

tucked in). One can show that the outward reach of any given radiant flux level is proportional

to the radiating (burning) area. The net result here is a decreased area of the room that is at-risk

of piloted ignition (as compared to Fig. 1 la). Note that the folded bedclothes could, in principle, occur anywhere (or nowhere) on the bed periphery.

20

The other complication in Fig. lib, common to all of the mattress fires, is suggested by the

position of the chair. The chair assumed here is 0.6 m x 0.6 m (2 ft x 2 ft). It is taken as an example of a real second item of potential significance in a bedroom fire. Other upholstered

items such as this present one of the largest potential heat release rate contributors to a bed fire and thus one of the biggest threats of pushing the room to flashover. In other words, ignition of

such items is especially to be avoided. The essential feature of significance in Fig. 1 lb is simply

the finite size of the chair. There is no room for the chair to be placed any further toward either

upper corner of the room (as viewed in Fig. lib) without having the chair overlap the at-risk

radius from the bed fire. This means that, for a second item this size, the at-risk area fraction of

the room is effectively enlarged. Note that the effect is worse in Fig. 11a where a chair this size

could only fit in the two lower corners of the room. In other words, the effect is worse for the

M5 and Ml fires since they have a constant at-risk radius (which is also larger). The effect

Placement of a bed near or against a wall wall have other effects of unknown net impact. In particular, the air supply to the burning bed will be one-sided and this could slow the burning process. On the other hand, the fire plume will entrain less air, leading to a hotter upper layer and more radiative feedback from this layer, tending to accelerate the burning. A gypsum board wall surface also can be expected to ignite, creating an additional, brief but

intense heat release rate and more feedback of heat to the top of the bed. The argument here also implies that the threat radius is dependent on the width of the folded-back covers and on

the specific set of bed clothes.

27
abruptly disappears as soon as the room is enlarged and the space between the at-risk radius and

the room wall exceeds the chair depth.

A non-conservative element not included in Figure 1 lb is the room effect on fire size alluded to previously. For M3 designs, only the king-size bed seemed to exhibit an accelerated fire growth

in the room environment (Fig. 5). As mentioned previously, this could have resulted in a greater

radiative ignition reach on the side opposite the ignited side of the bed. The same heat release

rate enhancement effect is present for M5 king-size beds, but is, again, not accounted for here

since we have no quantitative estimate of it. The situation for M5 twin beds is ambiguous since one case ignited the ceiling gypsum board (suggesting considerable room enhancement) but its replicate gave no enhancement of heat release relative to the tests in the open hood.

There is another non-conservative element in Fig. lib, the lack of accounting for other

flammable objects immediately adjacent to the bed as normally used in a bedroom. If there were

a bed stand on one side of the bed (at the head end), this would qualify, under the rules of NFPA

555, as part of the "fuel package" forming the primary fire." That is, it would be assumed that

everything in the primary fuel package burns as a direct result of the initiation of the bed fire since such adjacent objects are within the flame reach of the bed fire. A bed stand, being most

likely made of wood, would tend to burn more slowly than the bedding but its mode of behavior

would be highly dependent on the nature of its materials and any items on top of it. When it did burn, it would create its own radius of piloted ignition risk extending out from its borders;

thus near it, the piloted ignition radius is larger than in Fig. 1 lb. For the specific case of that

Figure, this would overlap the at-risk area posed by the chair, but this overlap does not hold in

general. Fuel package issues are discussed further in Appendix 2.

With the preceding caveats and assumptions in mind, it is of interest to see how the size of the

room is estimated to affect the floor area fraction at risk of piloted ignition from a given fire. The picture in Fig. 1 lb is used in this estimate, i.e., a chair of the size shown there is the assumed

second item. Calculations are also made for a second object that is vanishingly thin to eliminate

this second object size effect (drapery or wall paneling approach this limiting behavior). In doing this calculation, we make no distinction in the maximum reach results between twin and

king-size beds since the available data do not suggest such a distinction can be made. The

calculation of room size effect on at-risk fraction is simple. For a given bed fire and thin second

object, the at-risk area remains constant (area within the maximum reach border for the 100%

cotton cloth, bed area excluded) and the room area (minus bed area) is varied.

Area Fraction At Risk = ( Area Inside Piloted Ign. Boundary - Bed Area )

( Room Area - Bed Area )

21 Also to be included in the "fuel package" is anything under the bed, especially carpeting, any head board on the bed and anything, including contiguous drapes or the paper on the gypsum board, at the head end of the bed. These

can extend the flaming ignition threat radius and, to the extent that they boost the peak overall heat release rate, they

tend to push the maximum piloted ignition threat radius outward also.

22 Heavy wood construction would likely lead to slower involvement and a lack of synchronization between the bed

fire and the bed stand fire. In such cases the two items do not become an additive threat.

28
Basically this looks at the area in the room that is available for the placement of second items

and finds the fraction of that area which is at risk for piloted ignition by the bed fire. When the

bed fire's at-risk border will not permit a chair to be inserted in an area, that area is added to the

total at-risk area to illustrate this effect.

The absolute area at-risk is also pertinent to the overall threat of a bed fire. Thus, while an M3

and an M5 fire could each be reduced to the same small at-risk area fraction by suitable choices

of room sizes, the M5 fire would still pose the greater absolute risk.

Calculated at-risk area fractions for M3 and M5 bed fires are shown in Fig. 12. Since the bed size

affects the result, there are two separate graphs for twin and king-size beds (though, again, the

same maximum ignition reach value is used here for both bed sizes). For each size of mattress

design there are two branches to each curve, one for the vanishingly thin second object and

another for the chair, sized as above, being the second object. The Figure indicates that an M5

fire threatens piloted ignition in all or nearly all rooms, even those that are on the large end of the

spectrum shown. The chair as a second object is probably especially relevant near the large end

of the room spectrum. For an M5 fire, a second object this size keeps the at-risk floor area

fraction high up to the largest rooms for which the calculations were done.

The M3 story in Fig. 12 is more complex. For large rooms the at-risk floor area fraction is small.

As Fig. lib shows, it is also (in all cases) localized around the bed periphery making it a threat

mainly to objects placed near the bed. However, as the room size decreases, the walls move

nearer the bed forcing any second objects to be more and more likely to be within this localized

threat radius. Ultimately, in the smallest rooms, an object the size of a chair has a high

probability of being close enough to the bed fire to be threatened by it. In the smallest rooms, it

is likely that an upholstered chair would not be the second object; some other item of bedroom

furniture such as a chest of drawers is more probable. If the second object is wood, the bed fire

threat radius shrinks and Fig. 12 exaggerates the risk. If the second object is a potentially high

heat release rate item (e.g., a thermoplastic object of a few kilograms mass) its relatively high

ignition resistance could be compromised by the presence of exposed clothing on or near it so

that the higher risk in Fig. 12 could still pertain. The highest at-risk values for king-size M3 beds

in the smallest rooms are unrealistic since such a bed barely fits into such rooms. Both the twin

and king M3 beds could still pose appreciable at-risk area fractions (30 % - 40 %) for situations

that do appear to be plausible (though how common, we cannot assess). Note that this is for a bed fire that consists of little more than burning bedclothes. Bear in mind, however, this result is inferred from the maximum reach of the bed fire for piloted ignition. This assumption is addressed further below.

Note that the real risk in the limit of large rooms would be greater if more objects are present,

increasing the chances that one or more is within the at-risk radius. It would be less than

indicated if the number of objects tended to stay constant and they were kept near the room

periphery, further from the bed.

It is pertinent, at this point to inquire as to whether there is anything exceptional about the

ignitability of the 100 % cotton fabric used here to define the area fractions in Fig. 12. Reference

to various literature sources [Refs. 6, 13, 14] on upholstery fabric ignition behavior indicates that

29
it is unexceptional. If one were to use the ignition reach results in Table 7 for the 38 % PE/ 62 %

cotton fabric instead of the 100 % cotton result, all of the area fractions in Fig. 12 for the twin

bed would decrease only about 20 % from the indicated values; the percentage decrease is the

same for the king-size beds. Again, the real world contains a large spectrum of materials of

varied composition and weight that might be found in bedrooms. Some will be more ignitable

than our examples here, some less. The best that can be hoped for here is reasonably

representative materials and a realization that, because of the inherent unknowns, the results are best applied conservatively.

Piloted vs Non-piloted Ignition

Recall that this distinction depends on whether there is an energy source (a pilot) present in the

plume of polymer degradation gases emitted by the heated second object that can ignite those

gases . Note that piloted ignition values for radiant ignition reach from the edge of the bed have

been emphasized throughout this report. These were derived from the Cone Calorimeter ignition

tests and correspond approximately to the distance at which the minimum flux for piloted

ignition is reached. This is also one of the conservative assumptions that went into Figure 12.

As indicated above in the discussion of the Cone Calorimeter results, non-piloted radiative

ignition requires a substantially greater incident heat flux than does piloted ignition. The

difference is so great that the M3 and M5 non-piloted ignition reach values tend to pull back

inside the flame reach peripheries reported in Table 6 for these beds. Thus, if one chose nonpiloted ignition as the determinant of risk radius around a bed, the values in Table 6, or their

estimated outer limits in the text above would take over to determine the area fraction at risk. The process would then be one of radiative heating (plus some flame heating) from the bed fire followed by ignition of the gases from the second object by momentary flames licking out from

the bed fire. Figure 1 3 shows the calculated at-risk area fractions for M3 and M5 twin beds

based on outward reach of the bed fire flames alone; the curves are for the case of a vanishingly

thin second object; a finite-sized second object will boost the at-risk area fraction for both

mattress designs in small rooms (more so for M5 than for M3). Figure 14 combines and re-plots

the M3 twin and M5 twin results to more clearly show the effects of the two different estimates

of ignition reach on the at-risk area fraction of a room. Again, the two reach estimates are based on (1) piloted ignition of second object gases by flickering flames from the bed fire or (2) piloted

ignition by any heat source that can reach out to the maximum distance at which flammable

gases are being generated as a result of radiation from the bed fire.

The difference in the two estimates for M5 bed fires is considerable: the at-risk area fraction

increases by a factor of four in the large room limit if one goes from bed flame piloting to piloting by any source that may (or may not) happen to be present out to the approximate

location of the minimum flux for ignition. The effect for M3 twin beds is minimal; the boundary

!3 The pilot needs to be present where the concentration of gases is within the flammable limits. This implies a probable heated object size dependence for the requisite proximity between the pilot and the heated surface but there

is no experimental information on this dependence available.

30
in Fig. 1 lb is already near the flame reach limit over much of the bed periphery24

. Note that there

will still be a sharply increased at-risk area fraction on the small room end of the M3 and M5

flame reach curves in Fig. 13 and 14 for a chair-sized second object. The shape will differ from

that in Fig. 12 for M3, for example, since the M3 flame reach does not exhibit the outward

"humps" shown in Fig. lib.

Figure 14 implies there is no ambiguity in the at-risk area fraction for M3 beds. Thus the

discussion above about the potentially significant threat of M3 bed fires in small rooms still pertains. Further perspective on the hazards of such fires is provided below from the CFAST

calculations of heat and toxic gas threats.

Figure 14 implies that there is a considerable ambiguity about at-risk area fraction for the M5

beds, however, and choosing between the two M5 curves in that Figure requires information that

is lacking. The issue is whether real bedroom fires tend to provide the requisite heat source

(pilot) to the plumes of flammable gases emitted from objects all the way out to the distances at which ignition is, in principle, possible. The flammable gases are there out to these distances.

Thus the situation is poised for ignition but it may not occur if a flammable part of the gas plume

does not meet an energy source.

There are factors at work in a real fire that make the M5 picture presented by Fig. 1 3 too

optimistic in as much as piloted ignition could occur further out than the indicated bed fire flame

reach. Thus the bed fire plume itself tends to induce a flow in the room that pulls the second

object gas plume toward the bed fire. Furthermore, "fuel package" items, as discussed above,

tend to take the flames outward from the bed fire toward the second object. These could include,

in addition to the bed stand discussed above, fire spread on the wall surface at the head of the bed

and fire spread on carpeting below the bed. Both flame spread processes are under the influence

of the radiation field from the bed fire and so go further, faster as the bed fire becomes larger.

Radiation from these items adds to that from the bed fire to enhance the gasification rate from

the second object, increasing its ignitable plume volume and, therefore, the probability of its ignition. Another possible effect comes from any minor objects between the bed fire and a

potentially major heat release rate producer such as a chair. Ignition of the minor object is insignificant in itself but provides a potential pilot source closer to the major second object,

increasing the chances of ignition of its gas plume. Also, some materials (especially cellulosics)

shed glowing char fragments into a fire plume. These can recirculate into the flammable gas

plume from the second object and serve as the requisite pilot for ignition.

25 Finally, since the

flux onto the second object falls off with its distance from the bed fire, the rate of gasification

from its surface will fall off with distance. This implies any turbulent plume of ignitable gases

will remain within the flammable limit for a longer distance if it originates closer to the fire; thus

closer gas plumes tend to provide larger targets for glowing char fragments or any other hot

spot

26

. The general trend then is for ignition to be less probable as one moves, in Fig. 14, from

24 The area fractions are very similar but the actual areas threatened differ significantly. The bed fire flame reach is estimated to be constant around the bed periphery. For piloted ignition from any source. Fig. 1 lb shows the boundary of the at-risk area is irregular.

25 Some mattress designs based on the use of barriers undergo abrupt internal deflagrations within the mattress volume [1]. This could cause a substantial, though very brief, increase in flame reach and other disruptions.

26 Large area targets at any distance provide larger flammable gas plumes off of surfaces generally parallel to an

edge of the bed.

31
the M5 line defined by bed fire flame piloting toward the line defined by "piloted ignition from

any source". The probability is essentially one just inside the lower line and it goes to zero just

above the upper line. The shape of the probability variation in-between cannot be determined

with the available information.

All that can be established with reasonable certainty is that an M5 fire has the potential to ignite

second objects throughout much of the volume of even fairly large rooms. For an M3 fire, the

at-risk area for second item ignition is mainly confined to the immediate area around the bed and

this poses a substantial fire spread threat only in a room so small as to force other objects into

this relatively narrow threatened zone.

There appears to be no readily accessible information on the actual mechanisms of flame

initiation on second items within furnished rooms. Even the most extensively instrumented

bedroom fire tests on record [15, 16] provided no direct information on how a second item

actually gets ignited though they revealed the controlling roles of direct plume radiation and hot

smoke layer radiation. (Smoke obscuration can make the identification of actual flame initiation sources a real challenge.) It should be apparent from the preceding paragraphs that there are a

large number of chance elements to the second item ignition process. Pinning down the

probabilities in a definitive manner would require a very extensive experimental study.The

nature of the M3 fires was such as to only weakly couple overall heat release rate to the second

item ignition threat. This was a result of the bulk of the heat release being on top of the bed

while the portion of the fire most likely to ignite other objects was that on the bedclothes hanging

over the side of the bed. The procedures in NFPA 555 miss this sort of complexity. Heat release

rate is, however, a good measure of heat and toxic gas threat generated by any size of fire. Even

an M3 fire can produce non-local hazards through the movement of its smoke. This issue has

been investigated, as described below.

Heat and Smoke Transport Calculations

CFAST (Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport model) is a NIST-developed program for

assessing the transport of heat and smoke from specified fires in multi-room buildings [17]. It takes advantage of the fact that hot smoke from a fire rises to form a fairly distinct and wellmixed layer that tends to flow throughout a multi-room building like a lighter-than-air fluid. The

bulk of the toxic gas threat is contained in this hot smoke layer

27

. Direct exposure to the hot

smoke layer also poses a burn injury threat but that can extend below the layer as well by

radiation. Here CFAST is a tool for supplementing the information developed above on the

threat of second item ignition by a bed fire. It also provides an approximate way in which to assess how different room conditions (sizes, door opening) would affect the implications of the

results.

The toxicity and burn injury threats are not localized around the bed fire in the same way as is the ignition threat. The hot smoke first fills the space below the bedroom ceiling down to the

soffit of the doorway. It then begins to spill out into the hallway outside. The smoke volume

The only toxicant included here was CO. HCN was included in one calculation since it is produced by the burning of polyurethane but, in this case, it shortened the times to incapacitation due to gas inhalation by only a few

percent.

32
generated by a fire depends on its heat release rate and air entrainment rate; thus the smoke layer

usually fills the room of fire origin to well below the doorway soffit level and has plenty of

driving force to move down a hallway and spill upward into upper portions of any other rooms

open to the hallway. There is some mixing with cool air as the smoke moves in this manner,

plus the movement requires time. Thus the threat posed by the smoke tends to arrive in other

rooms later and is generally less severe than in the bedroom of origin. Nevertheless, a fire can be

fatal in remote rooms, especially if the original room goes to flashover, strongly boosting the

carbon monoxide production there.

In the present calculations, a simple but plausible room layout is assumed for illustrative

purposes. A single floor of a house is considered. It is divided into four spaces: (1) the bedroom

where the experimentally-measured fires are to be placed, (2) a hallway immediately outside the

bedroom doorway, (3) a second, passive bedroom across the hallway and (4) a large space off the

end of the hallway representing the rest of the house. The total floor area of the house is 109 m

(ca. 1200 ft ) and this is kept constant when the bedroom sizes are changed below. There are no window openings to the outside of the building and there is no ventilation system circulating

air among the rooms.

Note that CFAST does not contain a fire growth model for beds. It uses as input the

experimentally-measured heat release rates (and carbon monoxide generation rates) as a function

of time for the various bed fires. Since a room can influence (via radiation feedback from the hot

smoke layer) the fire growth process, the input curves used here are those from the measured

room fires. However, recall that the doorway to the experimental room was deliberately varied

in width in order to avoid flashover, if possible. Thus the experimental room fire data do not

necessarily contain the full heat release rate enhancing effects that the rooms assumed here might

produce and the input data do not change in response to differing room conditions for a fixed

mattress design. Thus while room size and doorway opening effects can be explored here, the

model is not fully accounting for the altered fire growth behavior that might accompany these

variations. This is not expected to substantially influence any qualitative conclusions inferred

from the modeling.

Another model limitation occurs when the air flow into the bedroom is insufficient to sustain the

fire as specified (e.g., the room has flashed over or the door is nearly closed). The fire continues

at the specified rate but some of the fuel gases generated burn outside the bedroom where they

encounter more air (a realistic phenomenon). In reality the rate of burning of the bed would be

altered in such circumstances (differently with a flashed over room versus a nearly closed door).

This limitation to the modeling does not come into play for most cases of interest here, except for

the first case discussed, which is at the extreme high end of fire intensity.

As an example of a CFAST prediction, the first case examined is that due to an Ml twin bed fire in a 3.66 m x 3.66 m (12 ft by 12ft) bedroom with the door wide open. Reference to Tables 4

and 5 shows that this design gave fast, very intense fires; the case used here gave a heat release

rate peak ofjust under 3 MW in less than six minutes. In the experimental room (4.27 m x 4.27

!8 There is a weak generalized venting from the upper and lower layers in all of the spaces representing the leakiness of walls. It prevents a pressure build-up as the average gas temperature increases. This leakiness has minimal effect on the results.

33
m; 2 .7 m wide doorway) this fire reached very near flashover, in spite of the very large

doorway. Here it flashed over the room of fire origin at 320 s after ignition.

Figure 15a shows the consequences of such a fire in the room of fire origin; Fig. 15 b shows the

result in the nearby, second bedroom (also having an open door). Note that the temperature

(Kelvins) and carbon monoxide volume fraction (ppm) scales differ between Figs. 15a and 15b.

The hallway and other space (remainder of house) are not shown. An interesting inference from

the hallway upper layer temperature history is that a smoke detector there would have gone off

after about 150s to 160 s after the fire was initiated in the bedroom (based on a temperature

correlation for smoke detector activation [18]). This is less than 3 min before the fire reaches

flashover.

Fig 15 shows the conditions in the smoke layer and the height above the floor of the bottom of

that layer. Note that in the fire room (and, also, in much of the rest of the house) the smoke layer

descends close to the floor. It would be difficult to evade this smoke layer by crawling beneath it unless one escapes quickly before it descends. In the bedroom where the fire is, the smoke layer

temperature peaks at about 1200 K (ca. 930 °C) and the carbon monoxide level goes over 0.9 %

volume fraction (9000 ppm by volume)29

. In the bedroom with the fire, incapacitation ° of any

person present occurs by 200 s after the fire is initiated as a consequence of the heat exposure;

carbon monoxide incapacitation would follow only after another 60 s. Elsewhere in the house,

incapacitation occurs over the next 90 s, always due to heat rather than to the accumulated CO

dose. Fatal conditions are reached anywhere from 20 s to 70 s after incapacitation, depending on

the room. This is a reference case away from which the improved mattress designs are expected

to move.

The primary cases of interest here are the M5 and M3 fires since we are looking to obtain

supplementary information on the hazards of smaller fires, in addition to the second object

ignition threat discussed above. Flashover is no longer the hazard as long as nothing else ignites

(as assumed here), but heat and/or carbon monoxide may be serious threats.

Appendix 2 contains estimates of the potential contributions to M3 and M5 fires from

immediately adjacent items in a bed fire, such as carpeting beneath the bed. For an M3 fire, the

contributions tend to be fairly small. For an M5 fire they may be appreciable. These

contributions are not added on here for the CFAST calculations but they should be borne in

mind.

The calculations require some assumption about the behavior of a person with regard to the

smoke layer, since, in general, it does not descend as far as that in the Ml fire

31

. The

assumptions here in this regard are the same as in Ref. 21. The principal assumption is that

occupants breathe the cleaner, lower air when this is possible without crawling. Thus if the layer

29 For reference, 0.3 % volume fraction (3000 ppm by volume) of CO will cause unconsciousness in 10 min. and 0.9 % volume fraction (9000 ppm by volume) in about 3 min [19].

30 By the criterion adopted in the latest draft of ISO Document 13571 on fire hazard analysis [20].

31 Layer height depends on fire height above the floor, fire plume entrainment rate and door opening. M3 fires are more extended than a typical pool-like fire usually assumed and can be expected to entrain more for this reason, lowering layer height. By putting the model fire at floor level, this is compensated for and the predicted layer height

is comparable to that seen experimentally.

34
height is above 1.5 m, lower layer values for heat and gas exposures are used, since occupants

could breathe the lower layer gases while standing. If the layer height is between 1 and 1.5 m,

the upper layer values of exposure are used as long as the upper layer temperature is below 50

°C, otherwise, the lower layer values are used. This assumes that occupants breathe upper layer

gases (which do contain oxygen) when they are not too hot; otherwise they bend down to obtain

cooler air. If the layer height drops below 1 m, the upper layer exposures are used since it is difficult to bend this low and move rapidly at the same time. Some occupants might crawl and

this would lessen the gas and convective heat exposures but this cannot be assumed to be true in

general. Thus the assumption here is conservative.

Table 8a summarizes the base case fire conditions (3.66 m x 3.66 m room with door wide open)

modeled here and their consequences; Table 8b summarizes the results of some variations about

the base case.

Examination of the M5 results in Table 8a leads to the conclusion that a bed fire this size is very

threatening. In the room of fire origin, the M5 twin bed fire by itself can cause incapacitation by

heat 9-1/2 min after ignition and death in 10 min. Similar conditions follow in the hallway (not

shown), in the second bedroom and then throughout the house (lethal by 1270 s). Recall that this

size fire puts a large fraction of the room of origin at risk of piloted ignition. This size fire also is likely to be significantly supplemented by burning of immediately adjacent items forming the

"fuel package", as discussed in Appendix 2. The fuel package materials, particularly carpeting

beneath and near the bed periphery, can boost the peak heat release rate by 25% or more for this

size fire, increasing its chances of igniting still more materials in the room as well as assuring

lethality in lesser times than those calculated here. The same mattress design, in king size, in the

same room (admittedly somewhat unlikely given the room size but physically quite possible),

threatens lethality (due again to heat) throughout the entire house in about half the times that the

twin size M5 bed fire causes.

This focuses the discussion on the M3 fires. Table 8b shows four variations on the last case in

Table 8a, i.e., the M3 king fire. The first two cases in Table 8b show that the effect of the

bedroom size (with all other parameters being equal ) is small in terms of the percentage change

it causes in the times to incapacitation and death. The larger bedroom is probably of greater

interest. It yields a time to death due to heat about 1 0% longer than for the base case bedroom.

The second bedroom does not reach lethal conditions but the hallway (not shown) does (in 610

s). Note that any variations in room feedback on the fire (burning rate enhancement due to radiation from the hot smoke layer) are not included here because there is no information on this

available. The experimental fire data put into the model are for a 4.27 m by 4.27 m (14 ft x 14

ft) room with aim (39.4 in) doorway opening so they lay between the nominal case and the

larger room.

An important implication of the preceding relative insensitivity to room size of the times to toxicity and heat impact end points is that a mattress design is best judged by its worst case size,

i.e., king size. The heat hazard of the bigger fire this largest bed size brings is not much

alleviated by the fact that the larger bed will typically be found in a larger room. Recall also that

32 A king size bed is unlikely ever to be put in the small bedroom but the point is to illustrate the potential for room

size effects on a fixed fire.

35
there were indications in the room fire tests that the radiant ignition reach of an M3 king size bed

fire is likely greater (on the side away from the igniter) than that of an M3 twin but no

quantitative measures of this effect were obtained.

Table 8b also shows the effect of decreasing the door opening from that in the base case, again

with the M3 king fire. This has the effect of slowing air flow into the fire room and also slowing

the flow of smoke out. At some point it causes the fire to become air starved, ultimately

changing the net formation rate of carbon monoxide drastically but this last effect is chemical

kinetic in nature and is not included in CFAST. Since again, the fire is not allowed in the model

to change its fuel gasification rate as a result of these room effects, the model result is more

suggestive of the trend to be expected, particularly in the case of a 10% door opening. The trend

is what one would expect from the observation that exchange with the other rooms is slowed.

That is, the conditions in the fire room become lethal sooner but the conditions elsewhere in the

house take longer to reach lethality or do not reach it at all. Incapacitation is reached in some of

the spaces beyond the fire room and now it is sometimes due to carbon monoxide rather than

heat.

The picture of the M3 fires that emerges from the CFAST cases is that of a marginal situation.

The twin bed fires in the base case conditions are incapacitating in some spaces but not lethal

anywhere. They could be expected to become more threatening in the room of fire origin if the

door were not fully open. The king size bed fires (at approximately twice the peak heat release

rate) are lethal in some spaces, particularly the room of fire origin, but are often non-lethal in the

bulk of the house assumed here.

Note that this study has not assumed that fire victims will make an effort to escape, but rather has

looked at the exposures that ensue from staying in place. The M3 fires tend to yield minimum

smoke layer heights of 0.7 m to 1 m in most spaces which does permit escape by squatting or crawling. This also tends to be above the height of a person sleeping in the burning bed; an unconscious person thus would tend not to be exposed to the convective heat and toxic gases of

the fire (but, of course, he could be burned directly by the fire). Adults with normal agility might

well escape but the infirm might not. Children who remain crouched down but in place may also

escape. These smaller fires also give a few more minutes (as compared to an Ml fire) to achieve

escape before the incapacitation that might ensue from breathing the smoke layer.

Overall the CFAST study indicates that even reducing bed fires to the size of an M3 fire does not

guarantee that injuries and fatalities can be limited to only that fraction of bed fire statistics in

which victims were "intimate with the fire" (see Table 1 and the discussion of it in the

Introduction)33

. Heat and toxic gases reach out from the bed fire to threaten the entire room of

fire origin and sometimes the space beyond. The ignition reach estimates above also indicate

some persisting threat that other major objects in a bedroom, if close to the bed, will be ignited

by an M3 fire, possibly leading to a much larger fire. However, there is a major decrease in

threat level compared to the Ml fire discussed above. The threat of second object ignition is reduced from a certainty (although not even necessary to cause flashover in many Ml fires) to a small (but unquantifiable in the real world) chance with an M3 fire. Thus the threat of flashover

33 The argument here follows a similar line to that in Ref. 22 with regard to potential reductions in the victims of

upholstered furniture fires as one makes various possible changes to that product.

36
from an M3 fire should be very low, ensuing only in cases where a major object like an

upholstered chair or a heavy drapery is close enough to the bed fire to be ignited. In most M3

fire cases the bed fire will be supplemented only by the minor enhancements estimated in

Appendix 2 and the resulting threats should be comparable to those calculated from CFAST.

Table 1 indicates that 2/3 of the victims of these types of fires are associated with the occurrence of flashover. By making flashover a much less likely event, M3 size fires should eliminate a

substantial fraction of these fatalities. For the remaining 1/3 of victims associated with fires

confined to the room of origin (Table 1), the relatively high smoke layer height accompanying an M3 size fire should permit a good fraction of them to escape. The implication is that M3 fires

would make major but uneven reductions in the number of fatalities in all of the categories in

Table 1 . Presumably the least reduction would be in victims in the room of fire origin and

"intimate with the fire," especially if they were unconscious and not rousable by the fire itself.

Since an M3 fire has a minimal (perhaps 1 % to 15 %) heat release rate contribution from the

mattress itself, any further significant improvements would have to come from a decrease in the

fire contribution from the bedclothes. Fires with an M3 mattress/foundation and a different

bedclothes set could be less or more threatening than those studied here. The radiant ignition

reach of what is essentially a bedclothes fire, like that of the M3 fire here, is, for most of the bed

periphery, primarily dependent on the burning area, at any given moment, of materials on the

side of the bed34

. This area is decreased by any factor that tends to make the bedclothes burning

duration shorter. This could include changes in the composition or in total thickness.

Ultimately, however, the minimum ignition reach on the side of the bed is determined by the

reach of flames there. The factors influencing this have not been studied.

Time to peak heat release rate has been reported here (Table 5) but, to this point, there has been no discussion of its relevance. It is apparent that it can be relevant. A very rapid rise (a few

minutes) to the peak heat release rate leaves little time for (a) fire discovery, (b) reporting of the

fire and (c) fire department reaction. At the opposite extreme, a fire that grows very slowly (20

to 30 min to go from ignition to peak) so as to allow an extended period for these ameliorative

steps clearly has a lesser probability of causing casualties in many, though not all cases. It is not possible to be more quantitative about the benefits to be gained by slowing the time to the

peak to intermediate levels between these extremes. This is because the time between ignition

and fire department notification is unknown and may be widely variable [29]. It is not sufficient

to gather data on fire department response times as a reference time which time to peak heat

release rate must exceed. Thus this issue is not quantified at the present state of knowledge.

Summary and Conclusions

This study has produced a means for estimating the risk reduction from bed fires that can be

achieved by reducing the intensity of the burning bed. This involves reducing the heat release

rate of the bed (and thus the associated production of heat and toxic smoke) and/or reducing the

34 The ignition reach from the head end of an M3 bed is mainly a result of the pillow fire.

35 A fire with an extended smoldering stage could be one exception to this statement. Slowly developing flaming

fires involving asleep or unconscious building occupants may not be less lethal, especially if no working smoke

detector is present.

37
fraction of the bedroom in which other combustibles are susceptible to ignition by the burning

bed.

The threat posed by a bed fire to its surroundings was assessed by two approaches. The first involved measurement of the heat release rates from and the radiant flux fields around burning

beds of three designs of widely differing fire behavior. Measurements done both under an open

hood and in a room show that, in general, the room environment enhances the heat release rate; it may also enhance the radiant flux fields. The second approach used the measured heat release curves in the context of CFAST to determine the spread of hot, toxic smoke within the room of

fire origin and beyond.

The radiant flux results were put into a useful context by defining their tendency to ignite the

types of objects that might be found in a bedroom. Seven surrogate materials were characterized

with regard to ignitability using the Cone Calorimeter. These data permitted the estimate, via a

calibrated ignition model, of the distance from the edge of a bed fire (of any of the sizes and

designs measured) at which radiant heat was just able to ignite the surrogate materials (given the

presence of a pilot heat source). This defined a threatened area around each bed fire. These data were then used to calculate the fraction of the room floor area beyond the bed that was at risk of

piloted ignition. This at-risk area fraction is the best available measure of the probability, across

the spectrum of real-world bedrooms, that another flammable object could be ignited secondarily

by the bed fire. The surrogate material of most interest was a 1 00% cotton cloth as a representative of such second objects as upholstered chairs and drapery. It is such potentially

major secondary fire producers that are of main interest in as much as their ignition is definitely

to be avoided.

It was already known that a burning bed assembly of conventional composition (here represented

by design Ml) puts essentially the whole room, almost regardless of size, at risk, since such fires are large enough to cause flashover in most plausible bedrooms. Thus the real focus was on the

smaller fires from designs M5 and M3, which produced progressively lower burning intensities.

The M5 fires were found to pose a piloted ignition risk (to the 1 00% cotton fabric) over the

majority of the floor area of even fairly large bedrooms. Piloted ignition poses a conservative

risk criterion since a pilot source may not always be present. For M5 fires, however, this at-risk

fraction was so large as to strongly imply that an M5 fire is unacceptable. For M3 fires,

essentially only the bedclothes burn and the peripheral region at risk for piloted ignition is reduced to an area quite similar, over most of the bed periphery, to the area at risk of piloting by

the bed fire flames themselves. The area fraction at risk of either type of ignition tends to be

small unless the proximity of the bedroom walls forces any object of substantial size to be close

to the bed. This part of the study raises some cautions about M3 fires primarily in bedrooms that are a rather snug fit for the bed.

The CFAST calculations for the M5-size fires predicted that the build-up of heat and CO (in the

upper smoke layer) in various spaces in a model house would be lethal within a few minutes of

ignition. This could happen even faster, since the M5-size fire was shown to have the potential

to ignite adjacent materials such as carpets and even remote furnishings. The M3 fire, which is due primarily to the bedclothes, was marginal in its threat to house occupants. It could cause

38
incapacitating and even lethal conditions but it does this with a smoke layer that tends to stay

fairly high off the floor, offering a possible means of escape to many potential victims. This

threat is best represented by the performance of the king size version of the bed set.

The worst case M3 fire seen here (400 kW peak heat release rate in a room environment) should

have a minimal chance to cause flashover in the real-world spectrum of bedrooms because both

the rate of heat release from the bed and the risk of igniting additional objects are low. This

implies the potential for a one-third reduction in fire fatalities, i.e., those outside the room of fire origin. . Furthermore, since an M3 fire should, in most cases, be confined to the bed, there is a

possibility of eliminating a substantial fraction of fatalities occurring in the room of origin but

away from the bed. More quantitative estimates of the risk reduction due to lowering the rate of

heat release and the at-risk fraction of room floor area is hindered by lack of information on such

factors as:

• the distributions of types and locations of combustibles in bedrooms,

• the presence of ignition sources other than the flames from the burning bed, and

• the distribution of types of bedclothes sets in use and their conformations at the time of

the fire.

Overall the study suggests that beds with fire performance similar to the M3 design would

achieve very significant reduction in fire risk. Since the bedclothes contributed the bulk of the

heat release seen with the M3 beds, further reduction in fire fatalities would probably have to address the bedclothes flammability as well.

Acknowledgments

This work was sponsored by the Sleep Products Safety Council. The authors would like to acknowledge valuable discussions with Mr. Richard Peacock. John Demarest ran the CFAST

calculations. Gary Roadarmel, Rik Johnson, Roy McLane, Dave Stroup, Lauren DeLauter and

Randy Shields were all very helpful in getting the NIST heat release rate facility up and running

for these tests. Roy McLane built the flux gage arrays; Randy Shields set them up and calibrated

the gages. Randy Shields performed the very tedious measurements of lateral flame reach.

39
References

1) Ohlemiller, T., Shields, J., McLane, R., and Gann, R. "Flammability Assessment

Methodology for Mattresses," National Institute of Standards and Technology NISTIR

6497, June, 2000

2) Hall, J., "Patterns of Fire Casualties in Home Fires by Age and Sex," National Fire

Protection Association, Quincy, MA, June, 1 999

3) Hall, J., personal communication to Patricia Martin, Sleep Products Safety Council,

October 15,2001

4) Hall, J., "Home Fires Starting with Mattresses or Bedding; Patterns, Trends and Their

Implications for Strategies," presentation to the Consumer Products Safety Commission,

February 4, 1998

5) National Fire Protection Association, "Guide on Methods for Evaluating Flashover

Potential," NFPA 555, Quincy MA, 1996

6) Sundstrom, B., CBUF: Fire Safety of Upholstered Furniture - the final report on the

CBUF research programme, ' Interscience Communications, London (1996) , p. 61

7) Peacock, R., Reneke, P., Bukowski, R. and Babrauskas, V., "Defining Flashover foe Fire

Hazard Calculations," Fire Safety Journal 32 (1999), 331-345

8) Quintiere, J., University of Maryland, private communication, 3/2001

9) Ohlemiller, T., "Mini-Matt Flammability and Its Relation to Full-Scale Mattress

Behavior," report in preparation

10)Lindgren, B. and McElrath, G, Introduction to Probability and Statistics, MacMillan,

New York (1959), p. 103

ll)Roshenow, W. and Choi, H., Heat, Mass and Momentum Transfer, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1961) Chapters 7 and 8

12) Fang, J., "Measurements of the Behavior of Incidental Fires in a Compartment,"

National Bureau of Standards NBSIR 75-679, March, 1975

13) Babrauskas, V. and Krasny, J., "Fire Behavior of Upholstered Furniture," National

Bureau of Standards Monograph 173, Nov., 1985

14) Denize, H., "The Combustion Behavior of Upholstered Furniture Materials in New

Zealand," University of Canterbury Report 2000/4, 2000

15)Modak, A. (ed.), "The Third Full-Scale Bedroom Fire Test of the Home Fire Project (July

30, 1975) Vol. II - Analysis of the Results

16) Emmons, H., "Home Fire: Viewed as a Scientific System," Society of Fire Protection

Engineers SFPE Annual Seminar, SFPE TR 77-05 (1977)

17) Peacock, R., Forney, G., Reneke, P., and Portier, R. and Jones, W. " CFAST, the

Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport", National Institute of

Standards and Technology Technical Note 1299, February 1993

18) Bukowski, R. and Averill, J., "Methods for Predicting Smoke Detector Activation,"

Proceedings of a symposium entitled Fire Suppression and Detection Research, Research

and Practice: Bridging the Gap, Orlando, FL, 1998, National Fire Protection Research

Foundation, Quincy, MA

19) Purser, D., "Toxicity Assessment of Combustion Products," Chapter 8, Section 2. SFPE

Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,

MA, 1995, p. 2-89

40
20)ISO/TS 13571, "Life Threat from Fires — Guidance on the Estimation of Time Available

for Escape Using Fire Data, 2002.

21)Gann, R., Averill, J., Butler, K., Jones, W., Mulholland, G., Neviaser, J., Ohlemiller, T.,

Peacock, R., Reneke, P., and Hall, J., "International Study of the Sublethal Effects of Fire

Smoke on Survivability and Health (SEFS): Phase 1 Final Report, National Institute of

Standards and Technology NIST Technical Note 1439, August, 2001

22) Hall, J., "Targeting Upholstered Furniture Fires," NFPA Journal, March/April 2001, p. 57

23)Mowrer, F., "The Effect of Blistering on the Ignition and Flammability of Painted

Gypsum Wallboard," Proceedings of Fire and Materials 2001, Interscience

Communications, London, 2001, p. 197

24) Hoglander, K. and Sundstrom, B., "Design Fires for Preflashover Fires. Characteristic

Heat Release Rates of Building Contents," SP Swedish National Testing and Research

Institute, SP Report 1 997:36 ( 1 998)

25)Kashiwagi, T., "Experimental Observation of Flame Spread Characteristics Over

Selected Carpets," JFF/Consumer Product Flammability, Vol.1 (December, 1974), P. 367

26) Hirschler, M., "Smoke and Heat Release and Ignitability as Measures of Fire Hazard

from Burning Carpet Tiles," Fire Safety Journal, 18(1 992) p. 305

27) Babrauskas, V., "Burning Rates," Chapter 1, Section 3, SFPE Handbook, op. cit., 28) Lawson, J., Walton, W. and Twilley, W., "Fire Performance of Furnishings as Measured

in the NBS Furniture Calorimeter," National Bureau of Standards NBSIR 83-2787,

January, 1984

Hall, J., National Fire Protection Association, private communication, March, 2002

41
TABLE 1 Average Statistics (1994-98) for Fatal Home Fires

Beginning with Ignition of Mattress or Bedding

Percent of Total

Flames Beyond Room of Fire Origin (Flashover)

Victim in room of origin 37.3

Victim outside room of origin 29.2

Victim location unclassified 0.5

Total for this fire size 67.0

Flames Confined to Room of Fire Origin (Not Flashover)

Victim in room of origin 27.6

Victim outside room of origin 4.9

Victim location unclassified 0.5

Total for this fire size 33.0

All Fire Extents Combined

Victim in room of origin 64.9

Victim outside room of origin 34.1

Victim location unclassified 1.0

Total 100.0

42
TABLE 2

Component Materials in Mattress Designs

(Refer to Figure 1 for Component Locations)

MATTRESS

1 MATTRESS 3 MATTRESS 5

Ticking Std. Damask Combined

fabric/barrier

MVSS 302 damask

Quilt 19 mm (3/4 in)

std. PU foam

(19.2 kg/m3

, 1.2 lb/ft

3 ) in

quilt

Same as Mattress

#1

19 mm (3/4 in) TB

117PUfoamin

quilt

Topper Pad 25.4 mm (1 in)

std. PU foam

(19.2 kg/m3

, 1.2 lb/ft

3)

Same as Mattress

#1

12.7 mm (0.5 in)

TB 117PUfoam

(19.2 kg/m3

, 1.2

lb/ft

3

) over 1.1 kg/m2 (3.5 oz/ft

2

) boric acid treated

cotton batt

Insulator Thermo-plastic

Mesh Pad

Thermo-plastic

Mesh Pad

Thermo-plastic

Mesh Pad

Spring Unit Twin

Innerspring

Twin Innerspring Twin Innerspring

Mattress

Border

6 mm (1/4 in)

std. PU foam

(19.2 kg/m3

, 1.2 lb/ft

3

) under std. Damask

Same as Mattress

#1

Boric acid treated

cotton batt under

MVSS 302 damask

Thread Standard Combustion

modified

Standard

Foundation

Border

Same as mattress

Same as mattress Same as mattress

Foundation

Top Pad

0.62 kg/m2 (2

oz/ft

2

) polyester fiber

jpad

0.62 kg/m2 (2

oz/ft

2

) polyester

fiber pad

0.62 kg/m2 (2

oz/ft

2

) polyester

fiber pad

43
TABLE 3

Materials Used as Surrogates for Other Ignitable Objects in a Room

Material Weight or Thickness Surrogate for

Sheet of newsprint 48g/m2 (1.4oz/yd2

) Newspaper or loose papers

65% PE36/ 35% Cotton

fabric

144 g/m2 (4.3 oz/yd2

) Shirt, blouse, dress

38% PE / 62% Cotton

fabric

275g/m2 (8.1 oz/yd2

) Upholstered chair, drapery

PE/Cotton terrycloth 303 g/m2 (8.9 oz/yd

2

) Towel, bathrobe

100% Cotton fabric 410 g/m2 (12.1 oz/yd2

) Upholstered chair, drapery

Birch veneer plywood 3.2 mm (1/8 in) Wall paneling, side panel of

bookcase, nightstand,

dresser

Pine board 12.7 mm (1/2 in) Front panel of wood

furniture items

PE is polyester

44
TABLE 4

Summary of Peak Heat Release Rate Results

(Parenthetic numbers are secondary peaks)

Mattress/Foundation

Design Bed Size Test Location

Peak Heat Release

Rate (kW/m2

) M3 Twin Open Hood 160,(155)

a (4 (165), 187

M3 King 24037

Li a 290

M5 Twin (230), 655

44 u

(255), 595

M5 King 775, (660)

a a 620

Ml Twin 2275

44 44 2310

Ml King 3370

" 44 3850

M3 Twin Room (140), 150

44 it (130), 190

M3 King 390

ti 44 42038 M5 Twin (300), 167039

44 a

(225), 540

M5 King (880), 955

44 tc (700), 815

Ml Twin 38504U

44 « 2995

Ml King 346541

44 44 462042

37 The foundation of this test sample ignited on its interior leading, 29 min after this peak , to a second peak of 750

kW

18 This test also yielded foundation ignition about 4 min after the peak reported here. The fire was suppressed with water before it could grow by more than 100 kW.

!9 This test had a strong peak, with a half-height time width about 50 s, due to ignition of the paper on the gypsum

board, mainly on the ceiling but also on a portion of one wall. Without this contribution, it appears that the peak

from the bed alone would have been approximately 600 kW.

40 This test also had some contribution from paper on the gypsum board, some on the floor, indicating flashover was

occurring. The fire was suppressed with water at or just below its peak.

41 Suppressed with water, probably below its peak HRR, as flames emerged from the door, indicating flashover was

occurring.

" This is the peak value as the room began to yield flames out the door but before any other visible surfaces ignited.

45
TABLE 5

Summary of Time to Peak Heat Release Rate

(Parenthetic numbers are secondary peaks)

Mattress/Foundation

Design Bed Size Test Location

Time from

Ignition to Peak

(s)

M3 Twin Open Hood ca. 390, (ca. 710)

66 a a

(ca. 360), ca. 660

M3 King a 640

66 a 66 380

M5 Twin "

(405), 715

a a 46 (420), 880

M5 King 66 700,(1240)

a, u 66 1160

Ml Twin " 400

66 a 66 435

Ml King 66 370

H 46 66 305

M3 Twin Room (490), 680

66 66 66 (430), 710

M3 King 66 550

a 66 66 525

M5 Twin "

(600), 915

66 66 " (420), 1140

M5 King " (445), 970

" cc 66 465,(1165)

Ml Twin 66 365

a (e 66 350

Ml King 66 305

a. 66 66 335

46
TABLE 6

Maximum Reach of Flames on Ignited Side of Bed

(For Tests Under Open Hood)

Mattress/Foundation

Design Bed Size

Maximum

Instantaneous Reach (cm)

Maximum One

Second Reach

(cm)

M3 Twin 20.8 15.7

44 it 23.1 18.0

M3 King 17.5 13.5

44 k

20.3 16.0

M5 Twin 32.5 30.5

44 44 39.6 29.7

44 44 45.2 34.0

M5 King 41.1 32.8

u a 49.0 40.9

Ml Twin 40.6 31.0

44 44 37.8 28.4

Ml King 47.0 34.0

44 44 34.5 30.5

47
OX) ©'-

s_3

aa3

# ©

*s

o

s

_©

'3

OX) a

fa £

© ^

cv

OX) a

faS

o

u

fa

«

OSS

3

s

cu

i- fin

Pine Board <

18

(Rear

Losses) 22

(Rear

Losses)

>142

(Rear

Losses)

Birch Veneer Plywood <18

(Rear

Losses) 51

(Rear

Losses) >

165

(Rear

Losses)

100 %

Cotton o

in OOin 31

(Rear

Losses) o

in 80

(Rear

Losses) o

CM

Al

190

(Rear

Losses)

timeters)

pt

as

noted)

PE/Cotton Terry

Cloth Ti- 40

(Rear

Losses) o

in

Al

lues

are

in

cen

e

heat

losses

exce

38%

PE/

62%

Cotton ro 12

(Rear

Losses) in

38

(Rear

Losses) O

Al

160

(Rear

Losses)

(All

reach

va

(No

rear

surfac fa a sa fr eN S ^ W O

SO

in O

Al

*Ca<*>

cv z

*—

<

OOS

Al

Radiant

Flux

Data

From

Open

Hood

Ignited

Side

Room

Ignited

Side

Room

Ignited

Side

Room

Ignited

Side

Room

Ignited

Side

Room

Ignited

Side

Hood

Ignited

Side

Hood

Ignited

Side

Mattress/ Foundation Design

eH

m

00e

CO

00 00 00g

in

00c

in

00c

00e

5

00

o

a.
S3 00

Qos

055 « o i- •c s

*- o

"5

C

S3 aj © -o

W3 -** V 93

w

a .a < .© <a hH **" J3 ^ WD e a

.2 5 « 2 s » J *

S3 UH

faU

Time

to

Death

by

Heat

(s) o oo ©oo

rn

O oo o1-- om oCM

dod

CDdod ooo

<Ddod

Time

to

Death

by

CO(s)

O

O

CO

CDdod o

in oCN

CN

CDdod ooin

CDGOdCDdodCDdod

CDdod

<Ddod

Time

to

Incapacitation

by

Heat

(s) o O00 oCN

CO om o

in ooo om o CDdoc om o orin

Time

to

Incapacitation

by

CO

(s)

Ooco o<*

dod o oCOo

<Ddod oOn

co o CDCod

doc O

in

CDdod

Door Opening

©o • o i o - oo - ©o J o 3

Room

in

House 8.8 S-i [t.

<D PQ

COsoosPQ

s-

.s£

<D 8.8

CD PQ

CNBoo5-

CD PQ

8.8 *-< [t.

<D PQ soo

T3

ID 03

8.8

0) PQ

CN£oo

-o

<D DQ

8.S J-i rr.

ID OQ

CN£oos- -o

<D PQ

Fire

Room

Size

m(ft)

m >—

X X

^O CN

VO

—

rn i * - * - - 5 - * 3 -

Second Object

Participation

CDdo - 3 5CDdo -CDdo -CDdo -<Ddo -

Mattress

Design

and

Size s * - >H

in s

00d

in2 3 dHm ^

00d2 s

as
Qi

OS u

1/1 05so

£t

03

i/l a# o

*** .2

*C

OS >a

00

UJ

hJ eo

"s

jw

75UHU

Time

to

Death

by

Heat

(s) o

in coc oCO coc oTi- en o

os

Om coc

Time

to

Death

by

CO(s)

Coc

<L> coc coc0)coc o

in

0)co oIT) TT coc

Time

to

Incapacitation

by

Heat

(s) oCO oSO or-- os© oSO o

OS

O coc

Time

to

Incapacitation

by

CO

(s) o00

0)coc ovo coc O coc Om oo

Door

Opening (%) s- o - s- o - s- - s- O -

Room

in

House

Bedroom 1

(Fire) £oo

CQ

Bedroom 1

(Fire) £oo

T3

CQ

aooJ-l T3D

CQ £ooJ-l T3

0> CQ £oo

T3

CQ £oo

0) CQ

Fire

Room

Size

m(ft)

4.57x5.49 (15x18) 5

2.44 x

3.05

(8x10) s 3.66x3.66 (12x12) 3 3.66x3.66 (12x12) -

Second Object

Participation o - co s o - co s

Mattress

Design

and

Size

00c2 300c2 -00c -

00

S3 2m - o
BLANK PAGE

51
.TICKING

SEWN

SEAM

TICKING

BACKED BY

THIN

CUSHIONING

LAYER

SEWN

SEAM

TICKING

BACKED BY

THIN

CUSHIONING

LAYER

WOOD BASE

MATTRESS

FOUNDATION

Figure 1

.

Cross-sectional view of mattress and

foundation structure (not to fixed scale).

52
.. *:,--' VfSarjfi;;

Figure 2a. Surrogate sample holder with newsprint on left and 100 % cotton fabric

(actual color dark green) on right. Thermocouple for sample ignition

detection just visible above sample on right. Hole beneath central (empty)

sample holder slot is for heat flux gage. Assembly is held on a pole at height

of top of mattress at selected location relative to edge of bed.

53
I j Sift-^; ?

':- ''PI- --r'-

: --— 'tlSlPI >5*||p^ji

Figure 2b. Overall view of flux gage array in the configuration used in the room fire

tests. Five horizontal- looking gages and three upward-looking gages are at the tops of the foil-covered support posts. All heat sensitive portions of the

array are covered with aluminum foil. As shown here, a fire to be measured

would be on the left; the cooling water lines and drains, as well as the signal

wires are seen bundled on the right.

54
Thermocouple

Tree

Surrogate

Sample

Holder

Upward-Looking

Flux Gage

With

°

Thermocouples

Thermocouple

Tree

Variable Width Doorway

Figure 3. Layout of bed and instrumentation for fire tests in 4.27 m x 4.27 m

(14 ft x 14 ft) room. King size arrangement used same scale and similar

placement of test items

55
6000

CD>o

-Cw

CO

CO oro

CO

CO

or

*-• CO X

D

TO |US

LU

5500 :

5000 : 4500 : 4000 :

3500 :

3000 :

2500 -_

2000

1500

1000 9

500

0.0

Estimates of Flashover Requirements

For 4.3 m (14 ft) square

(2m, 80 in, high doorway)

I—i—i—i» i i i—i—i—i i—i

i—i—i—i

Based on Models and Data in Peacock, et al, FSJ 32 (1999), p. 331

(Ref. 6)

-i 1

1 1 rUpper Limit

Lower Limit

-i—i—i—i—i—i

r -i—i—i—i—i

<—i—i—i—r0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Door Width (m)

2.5 3.0

Figure 4. Lower and upper limits of heat release rate needed to cause flashover in a room

4.3 m (14 ft) square, as a function of doorway width

56
Eoo

a:

T3Oa3oCoo

</> +*

</> <DooXcoaOocoo3

"DCoo

0) *»

eno>

(2UU/MH) ^ey 8SB9|9y jbsh >)Bad

N

CO

"OC

COc

COoQ

CO

CO

i_

CD N

COac

COC

to

CD Q

(/} to

cd

L_

•4-J

•4-" (0 Eooc

COoOI

i_CD T3C

toCD

co a:

CD

CO

CO

a)CD a:

*-> CO

CD X

CO

CD Q-co

co "C

COQ.EoO

in

CD

i—

(ZW/M>l) 9*eu 9SB9|ay jbbh >|B9d

57
oCO o o o

CO oCN (luo) ipeay aiueu

(AE

"D

CO QQ

LL »*-

«*- o o a> f "D o

co CO

<D o

Of 0)

*•• E c 3 O) E c X

CO o o

CO

O

in o oCO oCNJ c

03c

D)

COCD

O

Q CD CO

CO s

CI) 13

1— *2

O

03 3; CD

«^.

DO

-OCO

Q.

l_

Q.

co -D £ <D

CD CD

Li-'S

M— ... Or2

CO

3R

or 3 N E&3 —

CO E F

"DC

CD

Maxi Fro

D) . CO CD OQ

CO D)

COm Ll

CD

(LUO) L|0B8y aUUB|J

58
O

OX

c

o

a

O

• cMM

CO

CD

o

o

<

oo

CO

o

o

o

oCDo

tooo

oo

en

o

oCNO

O

CO

0)E

E

o

E

c

o

CO

0)

>

o

•> eo X Q0

ZJ i ££

CD m

%%*

^- i_ o

O <» 3

£ x •— UjU- °>

O LO CO

(Zw/M>l) xny jb8H jueipey jueppui

59
00>»

x

X H

O co

(U 00

o o

c O 3

-

. 1 j 1 1 , !

' I

' i, 1 ! I |

„..^="' .^--< ;'

-

: .y'.

-'

: -

..-5" ^ : *-u_c

CD

' v " "w

- CO - '& . ; 3

-

CD (3

1

: -

; "^...^ - /

! v

'<r^- <t /

\

- ^^..... /

; ;^/. : -

- K : " Xv

-v

: "

- \\ :

'

\ % | \"|;

'

- \ | "

-

"

- \%.

1 , , , j , :

, , 1 , , , , i i i i i 4;

o

in

in

o

o

in

o

in

oo

o

in

CO

o

oCO

o

in

CN

X

3

CD

E

oi_

<*-CD

CD 2 2

i °

Li- ra

"co Q

c

CDE

c

a>E

(D CO

C

g

o

a:

-*: CD

CD CL

i i_CD

oCM in m

CD3

o

c

CD

CO

CO3

CD O

CO

CD3

O)

U-

<DN

"55 ca sz

Q.

E

LU

CD

CD O

(2W/m>0 xny jbgh }ue|pey lueppui

60
20

15

3

CD

Q> X

10

CO

CD a- 5

A090601 Test 8 M3 King Under Hood

Flux to Gage Array from Igniting Bed Covers

1 1 i i

Data Corrected for Shadowing

and Gage Height

Raw Flux Data

-i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r -<—

20 40 60 80

Distance From Edge of Bed (cm)

100

Figure 9. Example of raw and corrected data for peak incident heat flux as a function

of distance from the edge of the bed. M3 king.

61
100% Cotton Fabric, 410 g/rrf

200

150 -

E

Q> Q

c

o

c

50 -

T

jgn = 304 C, Thermin = 1 .88 MKS

i i i

i i i i

i i i i ii

i i i i

i

i i i i

i -i—|—i—i—

i i i i 10-l 11

1 1 r- 20 30 —i

40

-i—i—i—i—i—i—-i—i—i i 50 60 70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10a. Comparison of Cone ignition data(triangles) and ignition model (black dots)

using indicated values of ignition temperature and thermal inertia; cotton fabric

62
38% Polyester / 62% Cotton Upholstery Fabric, 275 g/rrV

Tinign = 373 C Thermin = 0.941 MKS

80

70 -

60

CO

'***'•' CDE 50

h->»

ro 40

CD Q

c

o 30

**c

O)

20 -

10 -

i i

i i

i

i i—i—i

i

i i i i

i

i i i i i—i i i

i

i

i—i—i i 10I I

I II I I I I I

I I I I

I 20 30 40 50 60 70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10b. Comparison of Cone ignition data (triangles) and ignition model (black dots)

using indicated values of ignition temperature and thermal inertia; medium weight

polyester/cotton blend

63
65% Polyester / 35% Cotton Fabric, 144 g/rrV

70

60 -

w, 50 -

<DE

i- 40

>>

0)c

o

30

§) 20

10 -

T

ign = 370 C, Thermin = 0.643 MKS

i—'—

-i 1 11 i i i | i 1 1 1—

|

1—1 1 1

1 r

| ii 1 i | i i i i | i i i i I

i 1 i i | i i i—i- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10c. Comparison of Cone ignition data (triangles) and ignition model (black dots)

using indicated values of ignition temperature and thermal inertia; light weight

polyester / cotton blend

64
Newsprint

T

jgn = 429 C, Thermin = 0.275 MKS

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10d. Comparison of Cone ignition data (triangles) and Ignition model (black dots)

using indicated values of ignition temperature and thermal inertia;

single sheet of newsprint having uniform fine black printing

65
ign

400 i

i i

Terry Cloth Fabric

T =300C Thermin= 0.0245 MKS Alpha = 6 cm"

1

300

CO

CDE

•2 200

<D Q

c

o

Oi

100

A

I I

1 10

i i i—i i i

i

i i i i

i

i i i i

i

i i ii

i

f ^T i i i—i | i 20 30 40 50 60 70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10e. Comparison of Cone Ignition data (triangles) and ignition model (black dots)

using indicated values for ignition temperature, thermal inertia and in-depth

absorption coefficient; terry cloth fabric

66
3 mm Thick Plywood Panel with Birch Veneer

T

ign = 310 C Thermin = 0.525 MKS

4UU -

A

I 1 1

1

1 I i 1 1 1 r—I

1 r 1 1 1

ijr

300 - -

CDE •

5k

" CO

CD Q

200 - : c

o

"E 100 - -

A —

- i i i

i i i i ii

i i— 1 i i 1

1

1 1- t —1

1 1 1 T—T " |1 i i i 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10f. Comparison of Cone ignition data (triangles) and ignition model (black dots)

using indicated values of ignition temperature and thermal inertia;

3 mm (1/8 in) thick plywood with birch veneer

67
Solid Pine Wood, 12.7 mm Thick

800

600 -

0)E

-2? 400

<D Q

c

o

'c 200

Tinn ign = 317 C Thermin = 0.525 MKS

1 "t ' I I I \ m '"t I 1 "' I" 1

70

Incident Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Figure 10g. Comparison of Cone ignition data (triangles) and ignition mode! (black dots)

using indicated values of ignition temperature and thermal inertia;

solid pine wood, 12.7 mm (1/2 in) thick

68
Twin Bed

Vs.

/ Area At-Risk of Piloted Ignition /

/

Figure 1 la. Area of a 3.05 m x 3.05 m (10 ft x 10 ft) room at risk of piloted ignition from

an M3 fire if ignition threat radius (for 100% cotton fabric) is equal around

bed. Area available for second object placement is room area minus bed

area.

69
//

~T

/

/

\

\ \\

\

K

^ Twin Bed

Chair

r

/

Area At-Risk of Piloted Ignition I

Figure 1 lb. Area of a 3.05 m x 3.05 m (10 ft x 10 ft) room at risk of piloted ignition

from an M3 fire if ignition threat radius (for 100% cotton fabric) is varied

around bed in accord with area burning on sides. Chair is 0.61 m x 0.61 m

(2 ft x 2 ft) and cannot be placed any closer to upper room corner without

overlapping area at-risk for piloted ignition.

70
CO

CDCO

"CJ

C

CD

O

m T3 D) CD ||(D O

T3

CD CO

tuooy

U 91- xfsi

ujooy

HZIXM21,

ujooy

U01XM01

uuooy

y

g

x

y 9 . —

i—

COo -1—I- coo i

in

CM Eoo

a:

CO

CO . <n %-

CM

cl oo

uoj)!u6| pejoiicj jo ^siy iv

eajv Joo|j aiqeijBAv

p uojpejj

wooy

H81 XW&L

uiboy

ujooy

WZ/xyZl.

uiooy

U(Hxy<H

ST uiooy

y

g

x

y 9

rooCOoCM . o Eoo

a:o

CO

CD <i-oo

u.

75o

ro

w "o o £ Z cd « c c ro o

roro-Q-o. E ro .2 ra

•2 (D (0 T3

Q.DXD d) o ro c

•2, Z o

§-^ o ^ a> c ro co > c

«- ^ ® £E ro

a) OT E

ro a> ^

ro o o

ro-^H

2>£ =

ro

_ co ^ g ro ° •= (D q= C -^ _ := ro 8 -2 ^ «- O c

"61.5 o ° o ^ ro°

c\i c

O)

CD "r

JJ O) "O i_ O

ro

O CO ^_ "O

ro

L. r»

CD O)

ro c E js; CO

«fcf !c a> +jo roCO oCD

.*—

n

ro

r o i c hro **

CO *-» T3 c

CD E

(0

CD 3 k_ E

Q.

X CD

roE <:

COo

COo ©

CMd od

uoi}iu6| pejond jo >|Si^j jv

B8JV J00|J 8|qB|IBAV JO UOjJOBJ

J

71
CO

CD

o

o

IS

O -o o o

CD O

< CO

o

^*

c3

CO

i_ LL

Twin Bed

Bed Centered on One Wall

1.0

0.8 -

0.6 -

0.4 -

0.2 -

0.0

At-Risk Area Based on

Flame Reach From Edge of Bed

M5 Design

M3

Design

i i i—

r

i—'

i- 10 15 20 25 30 35

Room Area (m2

)

Figure 13. Fraction of available room floor area at risk of piloted ignition when at-risk area

is based on flame reach from edge of bed; M3 and M5 fires; reach values assumed

are at the <1% probability end of the instantaneous flame flicker values;

no ignition target properties assumed.

72
CO

CDC

=i!*^c

cd o

"O

0) m

(0

a)c

O

IsI- -o

CO a> 2 CD *—

»

c

0) o

T3

CO m

E

o

o

a:

o

o

LL

o

uo!}iu6| joefqo puooas JO >|S.iy jv

B9jy wooy eiqei.iBAV jo uoijoejj

LUOoyu8i.xu8l

mooyygtxygi.

Luooyy3i.xu3i,

wooh y (H * y (H

tuooy y 8 x y 8

—reod—

r~

(D

c>

E

o

o

OHH—o

CO

CO D

»£CD "

D C

° i

o£$2

CO CO

CDCO ^lo* ~ <d :§

c «

CD E£CD 71 • o E "c

CO o <D

CD ^ C

o o o

C ° CD O <" J- O CD CD ° E r? w ra cd ^ CD o

° -o c

<6f 8

> o H>

CD .!= O

CD "O CD lis Ode

CO »,_ it

it OLU

LL

uo!Jiu6| joafqo puroag jo >|S!y IV B8JV uiooy aiqeiiBAV jo uoipbjj

73
E

Q.

a. O

O

\—a>Q.

Q.

12000

10000 -

200 400 600 800

Time (s)

1000 1200 1400

1400

200 400 600 800

Time (s)

1000 1200 1400

200 400 600 800

Time (s)

1000 1200 1400

Figure 15a. CFAST calculated results for fire room with an Ml twin bed fire; 3.66 m by

3.66 m (12 ft by 12 ft) room with a fully open door. Top graph, ppm of CO

in upper layer; middle graph, temperature of upper layer gases; lower graph,

height of base of upper layer.

74
6000

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (s)

600

200 400 600 800

Time (s)

1000 1200 1400

200 400 600 800

Time (s)

1000 1200 1400

Figure 15b. CFAST results for second, equal-sized bedroom off common hallway with an Ml twin bed fire in first bedroom; 3.66 m by 3.66 m (12 ft by 12 ft ) room with fully open door. Top graph, ppm of CO in upper layer; middle

graph, temperature of upper layer gases; lower graph, height of base of

upper layer.

75
APPENDIX 1

Thermal Ignition Models for Surrogate Materials

The basic assumption of a thermal ignition model is that (piloted) ignition of the heated surface

of an object occurs as soon as its surface reaches a critical temperature denoted as Tlgn . This is, of course, an approximation. It simulates the typically very strong Arrhenius temperature

dependence of the surface material degradation/gasification reactions by means of a step

function. The real surface temperature at which ignition occurs tends to be a weakly increasing

function of incident heat flux; this dependence is ignored to achieve the simplicity of a thermal

model.

With material chemistry thus reduced to an effective ignition temperature, it remains only to correctly describe the heat-up of the material surface to this temperature. Real materials are not

necessarily simple in their heat up since this can involve temperature-dependent thermal

properties and such additional heat sinks as phase changes. In general, the detailed make-up of a material is not known, so one cannot go to a handbook for the properties. Here that issue is bypassed by fitting the model to the piloted ignition data from the Cone Calorimeter, thereby

deriving effective values for the model parameters.

A thermally-thin material is one which has no significant temperature gradients through its depth. The rate of heating of such a material, as a consequence of a radiant flux incident on one

surface, can be described by the following heat balance equation for unit area of the material.

{pCOdTldt = qrad -

h

com (T -T^)- sa(T4 - T^b ) (1)

where p is the density of the material, C is its heat capacity, £ is the thickness of the material, T

is its temperature, t is time, qrad is the absorbed radiant heat flux (implicit absorptivity is unity),

hconv is the convective cooling coefficient for the vertically oriented sample face, Tamb is the

temperature of the surroundings (room temperature), 8 is the radiant emissivity of the sample

surface (taken as 0.95) and a is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The convective heat loss

coefficient is a linear function of temperature, based on experiments with an inert sample in the

Cone Calorimeter. The equation as written describes a material having losses from one surface

only. If it has heat losses from both front and back surfaces (by convection and radiation), the

last two terms in the above equation get multiplied by a factor of two.

This equation requires numerical solution due to the non-linear radiation loss term. A program

was written to solve the equation using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta explicit algorithm, marching

forward in time, starting with the sample at room temperature and stopping when Tjgn was

reached. The program was checked against simple cases for which exact solutions are possible.

To apply the model in predicting ignition reach from a bed fire, one must first determine the

effective values of the product (pC I ) and Tign for a given material. Here these were inferred by

matching Cone Calorimeter data for ignition time versus heat flux. This was a trial and error process that started with estimates of Tlgn from the minimum flux for ignition of the material in

76
the Cone Calorimeter and for (pC t ) from handbook values of similar materials. The high flux

solutions were most sensitive to the effective thermal property group and the low flux solutions were most sensitive to the value of Tlgn . It was possible to get reasonably good matches between

predicted and experimental Cone Calorimeter (constant incident heat flux) ignition behavior for

all of the thin materials by this procedure. Using these values in the model, the ignition behavior

for that material in a room fire was predicted by replacing the constant flux with the Gaussianapproximated, time-dependent incident radiant flux coming from a bed fire. Again, trial and

error was necessary to find the minimum incident peak flux which could just cause ignition of a given material. The measured flux vs. distance data for a given bed fire then allowed this to be

turned into a maximum value for piloted ignition reach for that material from the specific

burning bed. The characteristic times of the material heating and of the Gaussian flux variation were such that the sample surface temperature was tightly coupled to the time-dependent

incident flux and ignition tended to occur at or just after the flux reached its peak in time.

Three of the ignition surrogate materials could not be described as thermally-thin (two wood

samples and the terry cloth toweling). These required a more general model of the heat-up

process that accounted for energy penetration in depth. This model is as follows.

(pC)dT Idt = kd2 T/dt 2 +aq exp(-ox) (2)

At the front surface of the sample, a heat balance gives

(<7 ) = £<r(Ts< - Tlh ) + hcom, (Ts - Tamb ) - k(dT I dx) s (3)

and a similar condition can be applied to the back or it can be assumed to be adiabatic. Here a is the in-depth absorption coefficient of the incident radiation, x is the distance into the material

depth from its heated surface, k is the thermal conductivity of the material and Ts is the

temperature of the surface of the material. In Eq (3) the incident flux qo is in parentheses

because it does not appear in this surface boundary condition if the radiation is absorbed in-depth

according to the last term in Eq. (2). Only the toweling requires some description of in-depth

absorption since it has a very open structure. For the two wooden materials, the incident

radiation is assumed to be absorbed at the sample surface.

This partial differential equation was solved using a Fortran program provided by K. McGrattan

of NIST/BFRL. The program has been used by the author for several years and is extensively

validated. Effective thermal properties were obtained in essentially the same way as for the

thermally thin model. Usage to predict maximum ignition reach from a bed fire is also the same

as above.

77
APPENDIX 2

Estimates of Fuel Package Contributions in M3 and M5 Bed Fires

NFPA 555 defines a "fuel package" as a group of items so close together as to act as one (via

continuous flame spread) if one item in the package is ignited [5]. Here an estimate is made of

the implications of this idea for the two bed fires of primary interest, M3 and M5.

The first point to recognize is that identical physical set-ups will not lead to identical

contributions to the bed fire from adjacent objects. Involvement of even immediately adjacent

objects is a function of the intensity and behavior of the bed fire itself.

Three adjacent objects are expected to be present in a substantial fraction of bed fires: (1) painted

gypsum board on the wall, at least at the head end of the bed, (2) carpeting below the bed and (3)

a bed stand on one side of the head end of the bed.

Wall Board. Painted gypsum board would be exposed to the pillow fire at the head of the bed.

Mowrer [23] showed that wall board with two coats of paint will ignite in 60-80 s at 35 kW/m . In the tests here, the heat flux to a gage 13 cm from the head end edge of the bed reached 20

9 9 kW/m but the peak was very brief, staying above 1 kW/m for about 1 00 s. Thus it appears

that it would not ignite the wall board unless the flames laid directly on it (which is possible).

Inspection of the fire plume on the pillow suggests that even if extended by wall contact, flame

contact would ignite only 0.1 to 0.2 m (1 to 2 ft ). Mowrer reports heat release rate curves that

9 9 lasted about 20 s and peaked at about 100 kW/m (at an incident flux of 35 kW/m ). Given an

9 9 average flux of 50 kW/m , the wall board would add 5 to 10 kW/m for 20 s. On a king-size bed

the two pillows would give two such peaks well-separated in time. This is a brief perturbation to an M3 fire. An M5 fire might, at its much larger peak, ignite some further area around that

ignited earlier by the pillow but that would again be a minor perturbation to the bed fire heat

release rate

44

. If, instead of wallboard, there was thin wooden paneling on the wall (or a comparable headboard on the bed) the result could be larger but the frequency of such

occurrences is probably less since such paneling is less frequently used.

Carpet. Carpeting is a potentially much larger contributor

45

. For an M3 fire, however, there is

little radiation reaching out and down to force this potential heat release into reality. Using data on carpet flame spread as a function of incident heat flux and pre-heat time in Ref. 25, one can, with some difficulty, infer that a carpet strip on the order of 1 5 cm in width will burn around the

periphery of an M3 fire. This is a consequence of ignition by flaming melt drip material from

the bedclothes followed by 100-200 s of irradiation from the burning bedclothes on the side of

the bed. Hirschler [26] reports heat release rate data for nylon carpet tiles at radiant fluxes higher

44 Recall, however, one room test here gave ignition of much of the ceiling gypsum board and caused a very large,

though brief, heat release rate excursion. Presumably this threat exists with any M5 fire in the real world. The

brevity of the peak should preclude its leading to flashover in most cases, unless there was some very readily ignited material laying horizontally in the room.

45 Ref. 24 reports room fire tests with gas burners in a ISO 9705 type of stepped burner heat release rate that caused

polypropylene carpets to burn very rapidly, yielding hundreds of kW in heat release rate.

78
than are likely to be seen on a carpet in an M3 fire. Extrapolating his time-averaged heat release

rate to a lower average flux of ca. 15 kW/m2 and assuming about 10% of the peripheral strip is burning at any given time yields an estimated heat release rate contribution from carpeting of 5-

10 kW/m . This could easily be off by a factor of two but even if the actual heat release rate is two times larger it is still only 10% of that due to the bed fire.

The interaction between an M5 fire and carpeting is significantly different. It will begin like that

in the M3 fire, yielding a somewhat wider peripheral strip of burning carpeting because the

burning area on the side of the bed is somewhat wider and thus radiated farther. This is still a minimal supplement to the larger early heat release rate of an M5 fire. However, as the

foundation of this design begins to burn, it becomes a strong radiator to the space below the bed.

(In the tests here it always ignited the paper on the gypsum board beneath the bed.) This fire in

the foundation tends to propagate longitudinally along the bed over a period of 4 min to 5 min,

involving roughly % to 1/3 of the area at any given time. Here the radiant flux incident on the

carpet would be substantially higher due to a large radiating area with a relatively large view

factor. There are indications in these tests that the flux can spontaneously ignite the wood at the

base of the foundation, implying a flux there greater than 40 kW/m . The flux to the floor would

be somewhat lower so Hirschler's data at 30 kW/m2 is extrapolated roughly to 35 kW/m2. If one

third of the carpet beneath a twin bed is burning at one time the heat release rate contribution

becomes greater than 200 kW. This is an appreciable boost to the second peak values shown in

Table 4 for M5 fires. There would also be some further (though lesser) possible contribution

during the bed's second heat release rate peak due to the increased radiative reach of the fire pushing the peripheral carpet fire further outward from the bed.

Bed Stand. A bed stand is an ill-defined piece of furniture, being, probably, quite variable in the

real world. A search of the literature on the heat release rate of real objects has turned up no data

in which such an object was burned in isolation. Ref. 27 gives empirical formulas for calculating

the peak heat release rates from wood cribs and from stacks of wood pallets. Both give

improbably large numbers for a wooden object the size of a bed stand, probably because a bed

stand will not have the internal radiative transfer that boosts the burning rate of those objects.

Ref. 28 reports data for a large bookcase (30 kg) constructed from 1.3 cm (0.5 in) thick plywood

exposed to a 50 kW gas flame for 200 s. This object burned only during the flame exposure,

probably because of the thickness of the wood and the relatively short time of exposure. The

exposure time of a bed stand to a bed fire would be longer than this for an M5 fire and

comparable for an M3 fire. The net result would depend on the thickness of the wood and the

possible presence of other objects (e.g., a clock radio with a thermoplastic case) placed on top of

the bed stand. Intuition suggests a plausible number to be of the order of 50 kW during the peak

burning of the bed fire. That would be an insignificant supplement to an M5 fire but a marginally significant boost to an M3 fire.

79

^^amt^mmam