Ref

AlllDl 7547MD

AlliaS M77bM

NBSIR 79-1915

Investigation of the Effects of

Heating and Air Conditioning on

the Performance of Smoke

Detectors in Mobile Homes

Richard W. Bukowski

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

October 1979

-QC

100

.056

79-1915

Prepared for: Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

Mltiitl- iweM *f tnwia.

DEC 1 2 !979

NBSIR 79-1915

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF

HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING ON

THE PERFORMANCE OF SMOKE

DETECTORS IN MOBILE HOMES

Richard W. Bukowaki

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standarde

Washington, O.C. 20234

October 1 979

Prepared for: Division of Energy, Buiiding Technoiogy and Standards

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Deveiopment

Washington, D.C. 20410

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kraps, Sacrata/y

Luther H. Hodgee, Jr.. C/ecfer S§er§tary

Jordan J. Baruch, Auiatant Saentary tor Seianea and Taehno/ogy

NATIONAL BUREAU OF BTANDARD8. Ernaat Ambler, Diraetor
3>!OM3 =10 JHT

83MOH 3Jia0«\^ Ml £a0103T30

i)l3wo>lu8 W bierlDiH

rloi 6939fl 911 ^ lot istnsD

yiotBiotlEj pfiiiO'jnijMil iR.'joifsM

abisbnetii to ogoiuS IsnoiteW

likESG? .3.0 /lori^niHfesW

;*biGbn6r8 bne YBolonrIosT gnibliuS ,ygi9nd io noisiviU

Jn9fnqol9V9Q nediU bns gniauoH to fnsmnBqsO 3.U

Ori^OS ,3.Q .notgnidgsW

ev€i lodotoO

; lot b*n«iasn*^

,8qei>l .M stmeuL 30fl3MM00 30 TM3MTI1A33a .8.1;

V'i6)ftAO«E ^obnV^ ..it .sagboH .H ior1tu.l

\uoVont\ottT bn& aon«\oE io\ YiataioeE )nel2Vz2fk ,r)ouis8 ,t nabiot

lotoaiiQ .leldmA taeni3 .8Q8AGI^AT8 30 UA3FIU8 JAMOITAI^
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES iv

Abstract 1

1. BACKGROUND 1

1.1 Current Requirements 1

1.2 Basis for Requirements 2 1.3 Limitations of Initial Work 2 1.4 Experimental Program Objectives 3 1 . 5 Approach 3

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 4

2.1 Description of Mobile Home 4 2.2 Fire Sources 5 2.2.1 Living Room Fires 5 2.2.2 Kitchen Fires 5 2.3 Detector Performance Evaluation Criteria 5 2.4 Instrumentation 6 2.4.1 Chair Tests 6 2.4.2 Kitchen Grease Fire Tests 7 2.5 Detectors 7 2.6 Weather Conditions 9

3. PROCEDURE 9

3.1 General 9

3 . 2 Experimental Procedure 9

4. RESULTS 10

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 10

5.1 Smoldering Ignition Chair Fires 10

5.2 Flaming Ignition Chair Fires 12

5.3 Kitchen Grease Fires 12

5.4 Performance of Smoke Detectors 13

5.5 Analog Gas Detectors 15

6. LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY 15

7. CONCLUSIONS 16

8 RECOMMENDATIONS 17

9. REFERENCES . . . 18

FIGURES 20

TABLES 27

APPENDIX A - GRAPHS OF REDUCED DATA FROM SUMMER TESTS A1

APPENDIX B - GRAPHS OF REDUCED DATA FROM WINTER TESTS B1

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Mobile home test unit, north and west exposures

(living room end) 20

Figure 2. Mobile home test unit showing south wall of

living room 21

Figure 3. Mobile home showing southern exposure of corridor

and bedroom end 22

Figure 4. Mobile home floor plan and instrumentation locations .... 23

Figure 5. Test detectors and boundary layer probe at front end of

corridor 24

Figure 6. Test detectors mounted in hallway extension at rear of corridor 25

Figure 7. Upholstered chair and wastebasket in test position

in living room 26

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Test variables 27

Table 2. Wastebasket and contents flaming fire ignition source ... 28

Table 3. Detector type and location 28

Table 4. Detector alarm times (sec) 29

Table 5. Detector average response time (min) 30

IV
INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF SMOKE DETECTORS IN MOBILE HOMES

Richard W. Bukowski

Abstract

Since its original promulgation in June 1976, the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Mobile

Home Construction and Safety Standard has required the

installation of at least one smoke detector to protect the

mobile home occupants. The location of the smoke detector

was based on earlier tests in a mobile home conducted by

NBS in 1976.

Because of the limited scope of the earlier NBS tests

and subsequent improvements in the design of smoke detectors

and the construction of mobile homes, a new series of tests

was conducted to evaluate the influences of the operation

of central forced-air heating and air conditioning systems

on the performance of smoke detectors representative of those

which are currently being installed. The tests were conducted

with upholstered chairs in smoldering and flaming fire modes,

representing key residential fire death scenarios. Tests

were conducted in both summer and winter weather conditions.

The effects of detector location (wall or ceiling and

position within the bedroom corridor) and the effects of

open and closed bedroom doors were also investigated.

The report concludes that, for the scenarios examined,

a properly functioning ionization or photoelectric smoke

detector mounted near the ceiling on the inside or outside

wall at the living room end of the corridor should provide

an alarm in sufficient time for occupant escape.

Key words; Detection time; detector location; fire tests;

gas detectors; kitchen fires; mobile homes; smoke detectors;

tenability limits; upholstered furniture.

1 . BACKGROUND

1.1 Current Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) promulgated

the Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards (FMHCSS) [1]^,

effective in June, 1976. Paragraph 280.208 of this standard requires that

"at least one smoke detector (which may be a single-station alarm device)

shall be installed in each mobile home to protect each separate bedroom

area". This paragraph further requires that the detector "be installed in

the hallway or space communicating with the bedroom area", specifically "in

the hallway between the living area and first bedroom. Mobile homes having

bedrooms separated by any one or combination of common use areas such as kitchen, dining room, living room, or family room (but not a bathroom or utility room), shall have at least two smoke detectors, one smoke detector

protecting each bedroom area." The standard also states that "smoke detectors

shall be installed on an interior wall of the mobile home. The top of the

^Numbers in brackets refer to the literature references listed at the end of

this paper.

1
detector shall be five to seven inches from the ceiling." These requirements

regarding installation location were based in part on initial work done by

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , Center for Fire Research (CFR) in

1976.

1.2 Basis for Requirements

This initial experimental work, sponsored and conducted by NBS [2], was reported in May of 1976. Some of the conclusions of that report were;

1. It appears as though the best general location for a smoke detector

is at the end of the corridor entering the common-use areas of the

home.

2. The effect of the HVAC circulating system was more significant

than anticipated prior to the study. In each case, the system

delayed the response of the smoke detectors regardless of location

within the corridor.

3 . In the tests conducted under summer conditions without air

conditioning, inside and outside wall mounted detectors were not

significantly different in response. However, unpublished test

data from another source [3] for tests conducted under winter

conditions indicated that detectors installed on interior walls

responded somewhat faster than those on exterior walls.

4. Relative performance in the case of ceiling versus wall installation

related primarily to the type of combustion. That is, smoldering

fires seem to be detected more easily by wall mounted detectors

and flaming fires by ceiling mounted detectors.

Since (at that time) some studies indicated a higher percentage of home

fires were initially smoldering and since inside wall mounted detectors were

at least equivalent in response and sometimes faster in response than other

locations, that report concluded that inside wall installation would seem

preferable.

1.3 Limitations of Initial Work

In order to provide basic technical guidelines for installation of

smoke detectors in time for the impending promulgation of the HUD standard

in June of 1976, the initial NBS study was somewhat limited in scope. For

example, all tests were performed under summer weather conditions. Therefore, the applicability of the report's conclusions under winter weather

conditions was uncertain (even though some winter data from an unpublished

source was considered when making conclusions) . Second, although experiments

were conducted under summer conditions, the mobile home used in the tests was not equipped with air conditioning. Third, only photoelectric type

smoke detectors were used in the study. The performance of ionization type

smoke detectors was not investigated under comparable conditions since, at

that time, the large majority of detectors being installed in mobile homes

were of the photoelectric type. Fourth, the types of fires used were of the

standard laboratory type; that is, cross-piled wood cribs in a smoldering

mode and a can of gasoline for flaming fires. The smoldering wood crib

fires produced gray/white smoke of larger relative particle size while the

gasoline fires resulted in black smoke of smaller relative particle size.

In addition to these limitations, the mobile home used in the initial

study was originally purchased by HUD for a disaster relief program.

Comparison of construction features in that mobile home with those required

under the current Federal Standard revealed differences in thermal insulation

2
which could significantly affect environmental conditions influencing smoke

detector response. Environmental conditions include temperature inversions

that can cause a weakly bouyant plume of smoke to fail to reach the detector.

A hypothesis made in the 1976 NBS study was that the poorer response of

ceiling mounted detectors to smoldering fires and the slower response of

outside wall moiinted detectors in the unpublished winter tests was at least

partially caused by temperature gradients at the inside surface of the

exterior wall and ceiling. This type of temperature gradient would be

created when the heat from the sun is conducted through the ceiling and

outside wall allowing these surfaces to become significantly warmer than the

interior air temperature. The resulting boundary layer condition may have

been accentuated in the previous studies due to the limited thermal insulation

in the ceiling and exterior walls. However, all mobile homes constructed

since the promulgation of the standard are required to have a minimum R-7

insulation in walls and floor and R-11 in ceilings. It was felt that the

additional insulation might have a significant effect in reducing any thermal

gradients which might affect detector performance.

1.4 Experimental Program Objectives

In order to expand upon the scope of the initial study, and to examine

the effects of improved construction requirements in the HUD standard on the

current smoke detector installation criteria, a follow-up study was conducted.

The major emphasis of this study was to (1) incorporate actual rather than

simulated ignition sources, (2) test both prevalent detector sensing modes

(ionization and photoelectric) , (3) vary test conditions to include winter/

summer, heating/air conditioning, and (4) conduct tests in a mobile home

which was constructed in accordance with the current HUD standard's requirements for thermal insulation.

1. 5 Approach

In a 1976 study of fatal residential fires, Clarke and Ottoson [4]

identified furnishings (upholstered furniture and mattresses) ignited by

smoking materials or by open flames as the top two fire death scenarios.

This led to the decision to use smoldering and flaming ignition of upholstered

chairs as the primary test scenario for this test program.

In addition, three tests were conducted involving a fire in a pan of

cooking oil on the kitchen stove. This scenario was identified as a major

type of residential fire in the U.S. Household Fire Survey conducted by the

U.S. Fire Administration [5]. Although the kitchen fire scenario does not

result in a large number of fire deaths, it was felt that the frequency of

occurrence is high enough to warrant study.

Once the test scenarios were established the test variables were

assigned. The variables of season (winter/summer), bedroom doors open/

closed, HVAC on/off and windows closed/open (summer only) were selected.

The experimental design, including a number of repeat tests, resulted in a schedule of 25 tests - 13 summer and 12 winter (see table 1)

Since it was intended to determine the performance of both ionization

and photoelectric detectors in these tests as a function of mounting location,

a total of 12 detectors was necessary for each test. This would allow the

installation of one detector of each type on the inside wall, ceiling, and

outside wall at the front and rear of the bedroom hallway. One specific model detector of each type was selected as being representative of the

detectors currently being marketed and installed in mobile homes.

3
A factory preset sensicivity of 0.02 OD/m (1.5% per foot) was selected

as representative of the nominal setting of most residential detectors. It was important that all 12 detectors be as close as possible to the same sensitivity to allow direct comparison of response times.

Once these parameters were selected, arrangements were made with the

respective detector manufacturers to provide detectors which had the specified

sensitivity. In addition, the detectors were electrically modified to allow

remote monitoring of their alarm times. This modification in no way affected

the sensitivity or response characteristics of the detectors.

2 . EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

2.1 Description of Mobile Home

The single-wide mobile home purchased for use in this test program was

a 4.3 by 17 m (14 by 56 ft), two bedroom unit with front living room, central

kitchen, and both bedrooms in the rear (see figures 1 thru 4) . The mobile

home was equipped with an oil-fired, hot-air furnace and an electric central

air conditioning unit. It was constructed and certified in accordance the

current edition of the FMHCSS, and included the standard exterior wall and

ceiling insulation.

The mobile home was fully carpeted except for the kitchen and bathroom

where a vinyl floor covering was used. All interior walls were a 1.0 cm

(3/8 in) thick gypsum board with vinyl coating and the ceilings were 1.0 cm

(3/8 in) gypsum board finished with rough textured paint. The exterior of

the unit was finished with 1.3 cm (1/2 in) exterior grade plywood board.

The unit was insulated with 8.9 cm (3-1/2 in) fiberglass batts with foil

vapor barrier in the walls and 15.2 cm (6 in) fiberglass batts in the

ceiling

.

The mobile home was installed on the grounds at the NBS Annex facilities

and oriented such that the long exterior wall of the corridor leading to the

bedrooms was facing south. Since this exterior wall was painted a dark

green color, the southern exposure resulted in maximum heating from the sun during the summer test conditions. This was done to provide the maximum

possible temperature difference between the interior wall surface of the

outside walls and ceiling and the interior air temperature.

Since the 1976 tests indicated a substantial delay in response to a fire started in the living room from smoke detectors installed on the bedroom side of the furnace cold air return, it was felt to be important that

this test program be conducted with detectors again installed on either side

of the return. However this particular mobile home had the furnace and its

return (figure 4, labeled F) installed immediately in front of the rear bedroom door. Since this arrangement would not permit the installation of

detectors beyond the location of the furnace at the remote end of the corridor

from the living area, it was necessary to extend the mobile home corridor

another 1.2 m (4 ft) into the rear bedroom. This was done by framing in a plywood wall at the original rear bedroom doorway and moving the rear bedroom door to the back of this 1.2 m (4 ft) long extension (see figure 4).

The air return for the air conditioning system was separate from that

used by the furnace. This air return was installed in the floor of the

corridor almost directly in front of the furnace (figure 4, labeled R) . As

a result, the return air location was essentially the same for both the summer and winter test conditions.

4
2.2 Fire Sources

2.2.1 Living Room Fires

Twenty-two identically constructed upholstered chairs were purchased

from a furniture manufacturer (see figure 7) . The chairs consisted of a hardwood frame with a drop-in spring unit in the base, cotton padding in the arms and back, medium density polyurethane arm and back pads, all covered

with a medivim weight 0.6 kg/m^ (18 oz/yd^) cotton fabric. The seat cushion

consisted of a block of polyurethane foam covered with the cotton fabric.

Total chair weight was approximately 15.9 kg (35 lbs).

It was requested that all materials used in the chairs be untreated

with fire retardant chemicals. Samples of the polyurethane were tested by

x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy and only trace amounts of phosphorous and

bromine (the usual treatment chemicals) were found. It was not possible to

test for boric acid in the cotton, but it appeared from its burning characteristics that the cotton was also not treated.

2.2.2 Kitchen Fires

Tests 23 and 24 were conducted using a 20.3 cm (8 inch) diameter cast

iron pan on the right front burner, filled with 5-8 cm (2-3 inches) of

vegetable oil and covered with a lid. In test 25, a 17.8 cm (7 inch)

diameter stainless steel pan was used, filled with approximately 2.5 cm

(1 inch) of oil, and no lid was used.

2.3 Detector Performance Evaluation Criteria

One of the most realistic methods of comparing the performance of

different smoke detectors in full-scale fire tests is by comparison of

escape times; that is, the amount of time provided by the detector for

escape of the occupants from the building. This type of comparison originated in the IITRI/UL report titled "Detector Sensitivity and Siting Requirements for Dwellings" [6]

.

The escape time is computed by subtracting the

individual detector alarm time from the time at which the first of one or more tenability criteria are exceeded. These tenability criteria normally

include smoke levels, temperature and carbon monoxide levels and may also

include such parameters as radiant flux, oxygen depletion, or carbon dioxide

levels.

Previous tests have shown that critical smoke levels are almost always

the first of the above mentioned tenability criteria to be exceeded [6]

.

While some differences of opinion exist over what smoke level is applicable

as a limit, values on the order of 0.25 optical density per meter (relating

to visibility of about 4 meters (13.3 ft)) appear to be the most often cited

[6-9]. The primary reason for the differences in values selected by various

experimenters is that the effects of smoke on the ability to escape may be

as much or more psychological than they are psysiological. Thus, one might

see a rather large variation in effect from individual to individual under

similar smoke conditions and that value might be different depending on the

distance to be traveled to an exit.

The normally cited 0.25 OD/m level was exceeded in most of the tests.

Typical ionization detector response occurred when conditions in the corridor

were below or at worst just at this level. Photoelectric detector response

occurred prior to reaching this level. But there is also some question

about the applicability of the 0.25 OD/m level in the particular case of a mobile home.

5
In the case of a single family home (particularly multistory) the

building occupant must travel a significant distance through the interior of

the building in order to reach a point of egress. In a multistory home this

might mean traveling through a second floor corridor, dovm a staircase,

through a first floor corridor and living room or kitchen, and finally out

the door. This is not the case in a mobile home, where all of the bedrooms

are typically located within a few feet of a door and where all bedrooms are required to have an easily accessible secondary means of egress. Based on

these factors, it is unjustified to impose this smoke level limit in the

mobile home situation. The occupant of a mobile home should be able to

escape through significantly greater smoke levels without the attendant

psychological effects since the distance to be traveled is so much shorter.

Since there is no experimental data upon which to select a critical smoke

level for mobile homes as there is for other types of housing, it was decided

to compare the smoke detector performance solely on the basis of response

time with primary consideration given to carbon monoxide exposure and only

subjective observations on visibility.

The effects of carbon monoxide are physiological and there is much less

disagreement on critical levels. A level which the Center for Fire Research

has used (which takes into account the cumulative nature of CO exposure) is

a CO level which would result in a calculated 25% carboxyhemoglobin (COHb)

blood concentration using a formula developed empirically by Stewart tlO]

This formula takes into account breathing rate and the typical lung volume

of a normal adult human.

Stewart conducted a study in 1973 with human volunteers. They were

exposed to 35,600 ppm for 3/4 minute, to 15,000 ppm for 2 minutes, to 1,000

ppm for 10 minutes and to other intermediate combinations. The COHb levels

were monitored and from the results the following equation was derived.

A%COHb = (liters breathed) PPMCO1.036

3.01 X 10**

Stewart's volunteers averaged a ventilation rate of approximately 7 liters/

minute and exhibited no adverse symptoms beyond a mild frontal headache.

The ventilation rate to be used was obtained from the work of Alarie

[11]. He quoted 6 il/minute at rest, 9.5 Jl/minute for light activity, and

18 «, /minute for light work. These figures were compared to Stewart's measurements on his volunteers and a value of 10 £./minute taken as the accelerated

rate expected under a fire situation.

2.4 Instrumentation

2.4.1 Chair Tests

Three physical parameters were continuously measured inside the mobile

home during the tests; temperatures, smoke levels, and gases (carbon monoxide

and carbon dioxide) . Figure 4 shows the location of each instrument in the

mobile home.

Temperature measurements were taken by means of type K chromel-alumel

thermocouples (24 gauge) , positioned in 24 locations throughout the test

unit. Vertical temperature profiles (thermocouple trees) were taken at

three locations: 1) in the living room directly above the chair used as the

ignition source (2.5 cm, 0.3 m, 0.6 m, 0.9 m, 1.2 m (1 in, 1 ft, 2 ft, 3 ft

and 4 ft) from the ceiling) ; 2) in the center of the corridor leading to the

bedrooms directly in front of the rear door (2.5 cm, 0.3 m, 0.6 m, 0.9 m and

1.2 m (1 in, 1 ft, 2 ft, 3 ft and 4 ft) from the ceiling) and 3) at the

6
front end of the corridor directly in front of the detectors (0.3 cm, 2.5 cm,

5 cm, 7.5 cm, and 10 cm (0.1 in, 1 in, 2 in, 3 in and 4 in) from the ceiling)

.

This latter profile was taken to measure the boundary layer along the ceiling.

Additional temperature measurements were taken 2.5 cm (1 in) from the interior

wall surface near each group of three detectors in the corridor, at the east

and south walls of the living room 20.3 cm (8 in) down from the ceiling, and

in the center of the front and rear bedrooms 0.9 m (3 ft) from the floor.

Smoke obscuration measurements were taken at six locations using NBS

extinction photometers [12] . These measurements were taking at the ceiling

(beam center approximately 6.4 cm (2.5 in) below the ceiling) and at the 1.5 m

(5 ft) level at the front and rear of the corridor immediately adjacent to

the detectors. Smoke measurements were also taken in the center of the front

and rear bedrooms at the 0.9 m (3 ft) level.

Measurements of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were made at three

and two locations respectively using non-dispersive infrared analyzers. The

measurement locations were the 1.5 m (5 ft) level immediately in front of the rear door in the center of the bedroom corridor (both CO and CO 2 ) and in the

center of the front (CO only) and rear (CO and CO2 ) bedrooms at the 0.9 m

(3 ft) level.

A total of 46 instrument channels were connected to an Acurex Autodata

9, microprocessor controlled data acquisition system located in a building

adjacent to the mobile home. This data acquisition system scanned the instrument channels at the rate of 25 channels per second at 10 second intervals

and recorded all data on computer compatible magnetic tape for subsequent

reduction. The data acquisition system internally converted and recorded all

thermocouple outputs in °C. The extinction photometer and non-dispersive

infrared gas analyzer outputs were recorded as voltages and then converted to

appropriate engineering units for analysis by the data reduction program.

The extinction photometers were converted to units of optical density per

meter and gas concentrations to percent concentration using a fourth order

equation derived from the individual instrument calibration curves.

2.4.2 Kitchen Grease Fire Tests

For the kitchen fires (tests 23, 24 and 25) the thermocouple tree (TC2-

TC6) was moved from the center of the living room to the kitchen (see figure

4, labeled alt. tree 0). All other instrument locations remained the same. The overhead kitchen cabinets were removed and replaced with cabinets fabricated from 1.6 cm (5/8 in) calcium silicate board. The range hood was reinstalled above the cooking range and the wall and ceiling surfaces near

the stove were also protected with calcium silicate board.

2.5 Detectors

Twelve samples of one model each of ionization and photoelectric singlestation residential smoke detectors considered to be typical of those detectors

currently being installed in mobile homes were obtained from their respective

manufacturers for the test program. The detectors were modified by the

manufacturers to provide an electrical circuit closure upon alarm which

facilitated their connection to elapsed time clocks. It was further specified

that the test samples be provided at a nominal 0.02 OD/m (1.5 %/ft)^ obscuration sensitivity level as measured in the UL 217 type test compartment [13]

.

2 While the preferred unit of smoke density is OD/m, the %/ft units are shown

for the benefit of the readers who might be more familiar with these units.

7
Prior to installation the calibration of each detector was verified in

a UL 217 type test compartment maintained at NBS . The six photoelectric

detectors ranged in sensitivity from 0.022 to 0.027 OD/m (1.53 to 1.87 %/ft)

obscuration, yielding an average sensitivity of 0.024 OD/m (1.66 %/ft) with a standard deviation of 0.001 OD/m (0.10 %/ft). The six ionization detectors

ranged from 0.023 to 0.027 OD/m (1.57 to 1.89 %/ft) yielding an average

sensitivity of 0.025 OD/m (1.74 %/ft) and a standard deviation of 0.002 OD/m

(0.12 %/ft)

.

One detector of each type was installed on the inside wall, ceiling, and

outside wall of the mobile home at the front (figure 5) and rear (figure 6)

of the corridor (see table 3) . The front hallway units were installed as close to the front of the corridor as was permitted (representing compliance

with current requirements of FMHCSS - see figure 5) and the rear corridor

detectors were installed about 0.8 m (2-1/2 ft) past the furnace cold air

return in the center of the corridor extension (see figure 6) . The wall

mounted detectors were located approximately 20.3 cm (8 in) below the ceiling.

All detectors were connected to a suitable source of power and the

contact closure circuits were connected to a set of cloclc timers which

measured elapsed time to alarm to the nearest second. The clock timer panel was located in the instrumentation room adjacent to the data acquisition

system.

Upon completion of the test program the sensitivity of the smoke detectors

was measured with the detectors in place using an NBS smoke detector field

test unit [14]. Empirical data on this device indicates that it will measure

sensitivity of any smoke detector to within 0.007 OD/m (0.5 %/ft) of the

reading obtained in the UL 217 test compartment.

The measured sensitivity of the six photoelectric detectors ranged from

0.029 to 0.051 OD/m (2.0 to 3.5 %/ft) obscuration yielding an average sensitivity of 0.035 OD/m (2.4 %/ft) with a standard deviation of 0.010 OD/m

(0.7 %/ft). The sensitivity of the six ionization detectors ranged from

0.029 to 0.036 OD/m (2.0 to 2.5 %/ft) yielding an average sensitivity of

0.032 OD/m (2.2 %/ft) and a standard deviation of 0.004 OD/m (0.3 %/ft).

The only test detectors which shifted significantly in sensitivity

(although still remaining within accepted limits) were the two ceiling

mounted photoelectric units. These detectors shifted from 0.02 OD/m

(1.5 %/ft) to 0.051 and 0.043 OD/m (3.5 and 3.0 %/ft) at the front and rear hall positions respectively. A possible explanation for this shift is that

the LED light sources were heat stressed by the repeated temperature exposure

(up to 150°C peak), causing their normal, linear light degradation characteristic to be accelerated. A discussion of this light degradation characteristic is contained in reference [15]

.

In addition to the smoke detectors, five analog output gas sensing

detectors were installed adjacent to the smoke detectors (see figures 5 and

6) to provide information on their comparative response. These five units

were located at the inside wall, ceiling, and outside wall locations at the

front of the corridor and at the ceiling and outside wall locations at the rear of the corridor.

These gas sensing detectors employ a semiconductor gas sensing element

which is responsive to oxidizable gaseous material. Detectors employing this

type of element are sold in the U.S. as fire detectors. However, previous

studies at NBS [16,17] have detailed some problems associated with the use of

earlier versions of this sensor as fire detectors. Since improvements/

modifications in the sensor used in these analog output detectors have

recently been made, some comparative information on their detection capability

was desired.

8
The five test units were provided by the sensor manufacturer and were

arranged to provide a continuous analog output in the range of 0 to 3 volts

dc. The output of these five units was connected to the data acquisition

system. (A problem which developed in the data collection system resulted in

the loss of data from the gas detectors for the winter tests.)

2.6 Weather Conditions

All summer tests were conducted in the afternoon on sunny days with

outdoor temperatures above 32°C (90°F) . All winter tests (except for the

kitchen tests) were conducted in the morning on days when the outdoor temperature was below 4°C (39°F)

3 . PROCEDURE

3.1 General

A total of 25 experiments were conducted in the test series; 13 under

summer test conditions and 12 under winter conditions. The summer series

consisted of 7 smoldering tests and 6 flaming tests, all of which used an upholstered chair in the living room. The winter series included 5 smoldering

tests and 4 flaming tests with chairs in the living room and three grease

(cooking oil) fires on the kitchen stove. Table 1 provides the complete test

matrix for the summer and winter test series.

3.2 Experimental Procedure

The upholstered chair was placed in the center of the living room in a large galvanized metal pan to capture the water used in extinguishment, (see

figure 7) . This prevented wetting the carpets and increasing the interior

humidity for subsequent tests. The metal pan was placed on a sheet of 1.6 cm

(5/8 in) calcium silicate board to inhibit melting of the living room carpet.

In addition, a 1.2 by 1.8 m (4 by 6 ft) sheet of 1.6 cm (5/8 in) calcium

silicate board was secured to the ceiling directly above the chair to prevent

direct flame impingement on the gypsum board ceiling. A single thermocouple

was placed between the calcium silicate board and the ceiling board to allow

monitoring of the interface temperature. This was a precautionary measure to

preclude possible ignition of the ceiling joists.

Smoldering ignition of the chair was initiated with a 500 watt electric

charcoal igniter (cal-rod heater) . The igniter was placed in direct contact

with the chair back just above the seat cushion and then energized from a source of 120 VAC at time zero. The charcoal igniter was held in contact

with the chair for 120 seconds at which point self-sustaining smoldering had

begun. The charcoal igniter was then de-energized and removed from the

mobile home.

The use of a cal-rod heater to produce self-sustaining smoldering

ignition provides an experimentally reproducible means of simulating the

characteristics of a smoldering cigarette ignition in terms of temperature

rise, gas generation, and smoke production. While there has been some criticism of the lack of true representation of accidental smoldering from a cigarette in using the cal-rod heater [18], work conducted at Factory Mutual

Research Corporation indicated that the use of an electric heating coil

similar to that described above reasonably simulates the self-sustained

smoldering obtained with a cigarette [19]. The only major variation identified

in this work was the time required to produce self-sustained smoldering

ignition. The resulting measurements for smoke, gases and temperature were

similar, indicating comparable conditions.

9
Flaming ignitions were initiated by placing a small polyethelyne

wastebasket adjacent to the chair filled with a specified mix of combustibles

as detailed in table 2. The contents of the wastebasket were ignited with a single paper match.

In all cases, the test was allowed to continue until it was felt by the

observers that living room window temperatures were such that breakage might

occur (on the order of 60®C)

.

At that point, the chair fires were extinguished with a garden hose carried in through the front door.

The number of tests conducted permitted systematic examination of each

combination of 1) type of ignition, 2) HVAC system on or off, 3) bedroom

doors open or closed, and 4) windows open or closed. Further, at least one repeat test was conducted for each of the smoldering and flaming type

conditions

.

The winter test series was similar to the summer test series except that

no open window tests were conducted. In addition to the chair tests con- ducted in the winter series, three kitchen grease fires were conducted to

provide information on response to a rapidly developing fire with a high heat

output and producing black smoke.

At the test start the burner was turned on high. After about 35 minutes

in tests 23 and 24 smoke began issuing out around the lid, increasing in rate

until at about 40 minutes the lid was removed and auto-ignition of the oil

occurred. In test 25 where no lid was used, the oil began to smoke at about

11 minutes and auto-ignition occurred at 16 minutes. All three of these

tests were terminated when the oil began to froth and spill out of the pan,

spreading flaming oil to the top of the stove and adjacent cabinet top.

4 . RESULTS

Graphs of the reduced data from all instruments are presented in

Appendices A and B for the summer and winter tests respectively. Groups of

instruments such as each thermocouple tree, front corridor smoke measurements, rear corridor smoke measurements, bedroom smoke measurements, carbon

monoxide measurements, etc. are plotted together. Each graph is labeled with

the instrument channel (corresponding to the channel identification in figure

4) and location.

The elapsed time from ignition to alarm for the smoke detectors is

tabulated for each test in table 4. They are tabulated by clock number which

is related to detector type and location in table 3.

Table 4 also lists time to appearance of first flames in each test. For

the case of flaming ignition tests, this time is zero; for smoldering ignition tests this time reflects the time at which transition to flaming

spontaneously occurred.

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 Smoldering Ignition Chair Fires

The smoldering ignition upholstered chair fires include tests 1 through

7 in the summer series and 14 through 18 in the winter series. Although all

of the chairs used were identical and the method of obtaining self-sustained

smoldering ignition was identical, the time at which the chairs converted to

the flaming mode varied from slightly less than 30 minutes to slightly more

than 60 minutes after ignition. Also, the rate of smoke generation during

the smoldering phase varied significantly; with some fires producing relatively little smoke (such as test 2, figure A17) and others producing

10
relatively large amounts of smoke (such as test 3, figure A27) . Analysis of

the results indicated that there were no peculiarities in the procedure and

that the variations were most likely a result of the typical vagaries of

full-scale fire testing.

As would be expected, the smoldering tests resulted in a very gradual,

almost linear increase in ambient temperature until transition to flaming

(e.g. see figures Al, All). Once transition occurred, temperatures throughout the mobile home increased quite rapidly; the duration of the tests being

limited by the attainment of high temperatures (est. 60 °C) at the living room

windows. The peak temperatures observed at test termination in both the

smoldering and flaming tests were of the same order of magnitude. However,

as would be anticipated, the elapsed time was quite different for the two

general types of fires, with the smoldering tests taking 2-3 times longer to

reach termination temperatures.

As was mentioned earlier, the rate of smoke generation from the smoldering

chairs varied considerably. In test 2, smoke levels in the corridor and

bedrooms were quite low (_< 0.2 OD/m) at the point of transition to flaming

(figures A17, A19) . Under this condition some ionization detectors did not

respond until a few seconds after transition to flaming due to the lack of

sufficient smoke at the detector location to cause alarm of the ionization

detectors. In most of the tests, however, there was sufficient smoke to

result in alarm of the ionization detectors prior to transition to flaming.

Since smoldering materials typically produce fairly few numbers of relatively

large size smoke particles, it took between 0.15 to 0.23 OD/m (10 to 15 %/ft)

obscuration smoke level, measured by an extinction photometer, to result in

alarm.

This type of large, white smoke particle is very efficient at scattering

light [20]. As a result, the photoelectric type detectors responded faster

than the ionization type to this type of smoke. This comparative response

difference between ionization and photoelectric detectors to smoke particulate from smoldering sources is well-known and documented [6,7].

Because the generation of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide is, in

general, a function of rate of combustion, the rate of gas generation in the

smoldering fires was less than that in the flaming fires. That is, while

similar peak values of CO and CO 2 were recorded the respective types of

ignition, the rate of increase was lower for the smoldering tests until

transition to flaming. Although a critical level of CO exposure based on the

criterion established for this study was not reached in any of the tests, the

levels of the CO exposure (COHb concentration) were somewhat greater for the

smoldering fires than for the flaming fires, primarily due to the cumulative

effect. Using the Stewart formula discussed in section 2.3 and assuming a linear increase in CO from 0 to 300 parts per million (ppm) (the highest

reading at detector alarm) in 33 minutes (the average alarm time for the

slower - ionization detectors in the smoldering tests) the calculated COHb

level would be approximately 2%. The same calculation using a linear increase

from 0 to 1000 ppm (the highest value attained in any test) over the full

4000 second maximum test duration yields a value of only 14.2%, which is

still considerably lower than the threshold of COHb selected for this study.

The peak carbon monoxide concentrations were under 1000 ppm for all

tests. Peak concentrations at the time of detector alarm tended to be less

than 300 ppm, which is significantly below levels which would be expected to

result in adverse physiological effects.

11
5.2 Flaming Ignition Chair Fires

The flaming ignition chair fires included tests 8 through 13 of the

summer series and 19 through 22 of the winter series. Although there was

some variation from test to test in the flaming fires, this inter-test variability was not as great as was observed in the smoldering tests prior to

transition to flaming.

Temperature measurements throughout the test unit increased exponentially

from the time of ignition and peaked at similar values to the smoldering

tests (after transition) at test termination. This would be expected since

termination of the tests was based on attainment of similar elevated temperature levels at the living room window. It was estimated that about one-third

to one-half of the chair was consumed prior to the end of the test.

Smoke levels observed during flaming ignition tests increased more

rapidly and the smoke was noticeably darker in color, which is characteristic

of flaming combustion. This darker color and typically smaller particle size

has some adverse effects on the performance of photoelectric type smoke

detectors. That is, the smaller smoke particle size is less efficient at

scattering light and the darker color tends to absorb more light and scatter

less [20] . The relatively large numbers of the smaller particles produced by

flaming combustion is more efficient at producing signal change in the ionization chamber [20] . Therefore, the ionization detectors responded before

the adjacent photoelectric type detectors for the flaming fires. Again, this

effect is well known and documented [6,7].

As was mentioned earlier, the rate of CO and CO2 generation was greater

for the flaming combustion tests. Similar concentrations were measured at

one-half to one- third of the time of the smoldering case. Again, since the

time frames are shorter the cumulative effects of the carbon monoxide would

not be as great. The peak values at time of detector alarm again tended to

be less than 300 ppm. The COHb calculations similar to those discussed in

section 5.1 for a linear increase from 0 to 300 ppm for the 6 minutes average

response time for the photoelectric detectors to respond gives a calculated

COHb level of only 0.37%. Likewise the calculation for the 0 to 1000 ppm

increase over the entire 1500 second maximvun test duration yields a value of

5.3%. Thus there would be no expected adverse physiological effect from this

exposure.

5.3 Kitchen Grease Fires

The kitchen grease fires included tests 23, 24 and 25. While these are listed under the winter series the tests were conducted in the early spring

with relatively mild (12°C (54°F)) weather conditions.

Tests 23 and 24 were conducted using covered pans of oil. In both of

these tests, the oil began to smoke at about 35 minutes and was allowed to

continue for about 5 minutes prior to removal of the lid. Auto-ignition was achieved within two seconds after the lid was removed.

Temperatures recorded in the mobile home were essentially ambient until

auto-ignition occurred. The recorded temperatures then increased very rapidly

due to the high heat output from the burning oil.

No smoke was observed from the grease fires until about 35 minutes had

elapsed. Smoke levels then increased rapidly. The smoke color changed from

a white, large particle smoke during the non-flaming stage, to a dark,

smaller particle smoke during the flaming stage. The nature of the smoke

produced during the pre-ignition stage resulted in the photoelectric detectors responding first in test 23. In test 24 the order was reversed, most

probably as a result of the burning of some grease on the outside of the pan

12
and upper surfaces of the stove from the previous test. As this spilled

grease burned off the pan and stove surface it may have added significantly

to the quantity of small particulate enhancing the response of ionization

detectors.

This assumption was reinforced by the results of test 25 which used an uncovered pan and where the photoelectric detectors responded first. This

was a different pan than was used in the previous two tests and had no external grease accumulation. Also, every attempt was made to clean the stove,

removing the accumulated grease, as best as possible prior to test 25. The

time frame to auto-ignition of the grease in test 25 was significantly shorter

than 23 and 24, most likely due to the fact that the pan used in test 25 was

thin stainless steel and the pan used for tests 23 and 24 was cast iron. The

thinner, lower mass stainless steel pan would be expected to heat up faster

and would cause the oil temperature to increase faster. Auto-ignition was achieved in test 25 at approximately 16 minutes.

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels for the kitchen grease fires

tended to be significantly lower than those for the previous tests with

upholstered chairs. This was attributed to the much smaller amount of fuel

being burned in the grease fires as compared to the chair fires. There was almost no CO and CO 2 produced prior to auto-ignition of the oil and, while

higher rates of gas generation were evident in the burning oil, the time of

flaming was very short, resulting in little gas accumulation. This is demonstrated in the plotted data in the very low levels of CO and CO2 for all

three kitchen fires. (Figures B109, BllO, B120, B121, B131 and B132.)

5.4 Performance of Smoke Detectors

The data obtained from these tests provides information not only on the

performance of smoke detectors but also on the environmental effects (temperature, smoke, and gas levels) which can be produced in a relatively small

volume living unit by the combustion of a single item of furniture.

In general, for this test series the smoke detectors responded in advance

of conditions selected to correspond to a point in fire development where

occupant escape might be impaired. Although ionization detectors significantly

lagged behind photoelectric detectors for smoldering fires, the front hallway

mounted units responded prior to transition to open flaming in all but four

cases; and in these cases they responded in less than 20 seconds after transition. For the flaming ignition fires, photoelectric detector response

lagged ionization response by a lesser amount but again all photoelectric

detectors responded before measured conditions approached the thresholds for

occupant tenability established for this study.

Table 5 summarizes a comparison of smoke detector response by type of

detector, location, and type of ignition for tests 1 through 22. The data

from these tests indicate that there was no significant difference in response

time between inside and outside wall mounted detectors. The inside wall

mounted detectors responded before the outside wall mounted detectors in

about half the tests and vice versa. However, the differences between front

and rear hall mounted detectors were more significant, particularly in light

of the much greater range of values for earliest and longest response times

for the rear hall units.

Table 5 also compares wall mounted (upper portion of table) and the

ceiling mounted detectors (lower portion of table) . This table shows that

the fastest and most consistent detector response was attained by wall mounted

detectors located at the front end of the corridor. The slowest and least

consistent were ceiling mounted detectors at the rear end of the hall. The

reason for the inconsistency and slower response of the ceiling mounted

13
detectors was not a result of thermal inversion layers at the exterior sur- faces as was found in the 1976 NBS study [2] , but rather was a function of

the smoke flow. Figure A3 3 shows that there was only a very small thermal

gradient at the ceiling, which would not account for this effect.

Looking at the data in table 5, it can be seen that the ceiling mounted

detectors respond at approximately the same time as the wall mounted detectors for flaming fires. But in the smoldering ignition tests elapsed time to

alarm of the ceiling mounted detectors was significantly greater than for the

wall mounted detectors. The explanation of this phenomenon is that flaming

fires produce significant thermal lift forming a dense smoke layer at the

ceiling. This was observed to be 45 to 60 cm (18 to 24 inches) thick and of

fairly uniform density. This effect can be seen by comparing the smoke

levels at the ceiling to that at the 1.5 m (5 ft) level and noting that they are almost equivalent for all of the flaming ignition tests (e.g. figure

A97) . For the smoldering tests, however, there was much less thermal lift to

the smoke and, as the smoke moves along the ceiling, it begins to fall away

with increasing distance from the fire source. By the time the smoke reaches

the first set of detectors in the front end of the corridor it is often

significantly more dense at the 1.5 m (5 ft) level than at the ceiling level

(e.g. figure A37) . Therefore, the wall mounted detectors installed 20.3 cm

(8 in) below the ceiling on the side walls are exposed to higher smoke levels

earlier in the test, and respond faster.

The HVAC system demonstrated some interesting effects. Earlier reports

have documented significant effects of central forced air HVAC systems on smoke transport in dwellings [6,7]. These effects, however, are most critical

to the vertical transport of smoke up stairways. Since stairways do not

exist in mobile homes, the effects of the HVAC system on smoke transport and

therefore on detector response are minimal. There is, however, a significant

effect on the environment to which the mobile home occupants are exposed.

Looking at the graphs of temperature at the 0.9 m (3 ft) level in the

front and rear bedrooms it can be seen that the temperature levels increase

with increasing fire intensity if the bedroom doors are open, but remain

fairly constant with the bedroom doors closed. This phenomenon appears to be

independent of whether the HVAC system is on or off, or whether it is heating

or air conditioning. Therefore, a closed bedroom door provides an effective

barrier to the initial temperatures being generated by a fire.

Such is not true, however, of the smoke levels. Comparing the graphs of

smoke levels in the bedrooms for various tests it can be seen that these

levels remain low only when the bedroom doors are closed and the HVAC system

is off. If the doors are closed and the furnace blower is on, a significant

increase in the smoke levels in the bedrooms occurs; particularly for smoldering fires. If the furnace blower is off and the bedroom doors are open, a slight increase in smoke levels occurs in the bedrooms over the case where

the blower is on and doors are closed; and the worst case is for the blower

on and the bedroom doors open. The same general results are seen for the

flaming tests although the magnitude of the difference is not as high.

The mechanism for smoke entering the bedroom with the bedroom doors open

is direct flow through the open door. In the case where the bedroom doors

are closed and furnace blower on, the smoke entering the bedroom is pulled

into the cold air return at the furnace location and forced into the bedroom

through the heating vents. Since the data on smoke levels show that there is

more visible smoke in the smoldering test than in the flaming test and that

the smoke in the smoldering test tends to be denser at lower levels in the

corridor, it follows that more smoke is distributed through the heating vents

in the smoldering case than in the flaming case. The results of the smoldering and flaming tests under the various conditions support this argument.

14
While increases in the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels in the

bedrooms are somewhat analogous to the development of smoke conditions,

distribution of carbon monoxide through the heating vents is somewhat less

since CO is more naturally buoyant than the smoke in the smoldering tests.

The test results do not indicate a significant variation in accumulation of

CO under the various conditions discussed above.

5.5 Analog Gas Detectors

The output voltage for the five combustible gas detectors appeared to

follow more closely the general shape of the carbon monoxide curves rather

than the smoke curves; this would be expected of a gas sensing device. Since

measurable smoke precedes measurable gas concentrations for most fires this

is of no advantage to an early warning fire detection device. To determine

if a detector employing this type of gas sensing element could provide a response to these test fires at least as quickly as either the ionization or photoelectric detectors, the output voltage range of the gas detector with

the greatest output was taken from the test data over the time period when

the conventional detectors responded.

For a typical smoldering chair fire (test 4, figure A40) the maximum gas

detector output ranged from 0.004 to 0.5 volts during the time that the front

I hallway detectors operated (fastest-ionization to slowest-photoelectric

respectively) . The maximum output at the time the last smoke detector

I alarmed (rear hall-photoelectric) was 0.9 volts.

Similarly, for a typical flaming fire (test 10, figure AlOO) the maximum

i gas detector output ranged from 0.00 2 to 0.04 volts during the time that the

•front hallway detectors responded (fastest-ionization to slowest-photoelectric

respectively) . The maximum output at the time of the last smoke detector

alarm (rear hall-photoelectric) was 0.06 volts.

From these data it would appear that a fire detector utilizing a gas

' sensing element of this type would need to be set to alarm at an output

voltage level of approximately 0.04 volts or less in order to provide response

, for both fire types at least as fast as the slowest of the conventional smoke

: detectors. This represents an alarm level of only 1.3% of the full-scale

i output.

I To properly determine if this alarm setting is feasible, it would be

T necessary to monitor the variation in output voltage in a normal household

p environment for a period of time. This would allow a determination of the

I false alarm potential of the device under normal use. While this data is not

•currently available, it would appear from general engineering considerations

•that an alarm point of 1.3% of full-scale output would lead to an unaccept-

: able number of false alarms due to a poor signal to noise ratio.

• 6. LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

There are certain assumptions and limitations which must be considered

when conclusions are drawn from the data. The important assumptions and

I limitations of this series of tests are:

1. The mobile home used represented only one specific floor-plan/interior

geometry. While this was a fairly common floor plan, room arrangements

which are radically different might produce different detector response

I characteristics. For example, a seemingly minor change such as the use

' of several HVAC system returns or location of the single return at a

j different height could have a major effect on the results obtained.

i

I

15
I

I

2. The mobile home used had a non-combustible interior finish and the tests i were arranged such that the fire never spread from the initial item

ignited. If fire spread to other furnishing items and/or to the interior

^ finish were permitted, the results could be significantly different. ; Under some conditions of sufficiently rapid fire spread, smoke detectors

might have been ineffective. I

3. Only two specific fire types and locations were tested; i.e. chairs in

j the living room and cooking oil fires in the kitchen. Thus the effects

of other fire scenarios, such as a mattress fire in the bedroom, are unknown . i

i e 4. Only one specific model of ionization and of photoelectric detectors

were used in these tests. The performance of other models from the same . ; or other manufacturers might be different although the models used

should be representative of most detectors now being produced.

7. CONCLUSIONS I

•I Based on the data obtained in these tests and given the limitations

discussed in section 6 , the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Thermal inversion layers at the ceiling and outside wall which might

have a detrimental effect on smoke detector response appear to be

insignificant in mobile homes constructed in accordance with the current

Federal standard.

This conclusion is based upon both the boundary layer temperature ^ measurements and on the recorded performance of ceiling and wall mounted . detectors.

^ This also assumes that the mobile home in question will have at least ^ the minimum R value insulation as specified in the current FMHCSS. While the

j mobile home tested had insulation sized for this particular geographical area

it should be safe to assume that increased insulation provided in mobile

homes for colder climates should exhibit roughly equivalent performance in

terms of development of thermal gradients.

2. The smoke detectors included in this test series demonstrated similar

performance when installed on either outside or inside walls. The 5 response time for ceiling mounted detectors may be significantly longer

for smoldering type fires.

The slower response for ceiling mounted detectors appears to be more a i function of the movement of the smoke and does not appear to be caused by j thermal effects due to pre-existing thermal inversion.

3. Detector performance can be adversely affected by forced air HVAC

^ systems operating during the fire if the return air register is between

the detector and the fire.

The primary reason for the slower response of the rear hall detectors is

a combination of the increased transport time necessary to move the smoke

from the front to the rear of the corridor and also the dilution effect of ; the cold air return pulling the smoke down and into the air duct system. i

4. Closed bedroom doors provide effective barriers to heat from a fire

resulting from the burning of incidental combustibles such as an upholstered chair or pan of grease, prior to spread beyond the initial

item.

16
The heated air tends to be near the ceiling in the hallway during the

initial fire buildup prior to detector alarm, such that the high temperature

air is not pulled into the HVAC system return.

5. With forced-air HVAC systems, significant quantities of smoke can be

distributed into the bedrooms if the HVAC system is operating during the

fire, even if the door is closed.

This effect is most severe under smoldering conditions when the smoke is

denser and tends to be lower in the corridor. It is, however, noticeable

even in the flaming type fires.

6. Based on the series of fire tests conducted in this program and the

evaluation criteria discussed in section 2.3, a properly functioning

smoke detector of either the ionization or photoelectric type should

provide an alarm in sufficient time to permit an alert and mobile occupant

to escape from the mobile home. While either type detector provided

enough time for escape, the use of a detector which combines both

ionization and photoelectric sensors in the same unit (or one of each)

could provide significant improvement in alerting the occupants of a mobile home to either a flaming or smoldering fire. This potential

improvement in response appears, based on the data, to be more significant

than response improvement based on location of the detectors, for the

locations examined.

This latter statement can be seen in the data in table 5 by examining

the response of the photoelectric detectors under smoldering conditions and

the response of the ionization detectors under flaming conditions. The ideal

average response of a combination detector which is wall mounted at the front

end of the hall should be on the order of 16.8 minutes for smoldering fires

and 1.7 minutes for flaming fires (assuming a combination detector exhibiting

the same performance characteristics as the two detectors used mounted sideby-side) .

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of these tests and on revisions of the approval

standards promulgated since the adoption of the Federal Mobile Home Construction

and Safety Standards, the following changes to the FMHCSS are recommended.

Intent of recommended change to Paragraph 280.208(c) ; The intent of the following recommendation is to reference UL 217 which

replaced UL 167 and UL 168 as the approval standard for single and multiple

station smoke detectors on January 2, 1976.

Recommended wording for Paragraph 280.208(c) ;

(c) Smoke Detectors

Smoke detectors shall be either the ionization chamber or the photoelectric

type approved for wall mounting and shall comply with all the requirements of

Underwriters Laboratories Standard No. UL 217 for Single and Multiple Station

Smoke Detectors. Detectors shall bear the label of a testing and approval

laboratory that indicates the smoke detectors have been tested and approved

under the requirements of UL 217. The testing and approval laboratory shall

be one which maintains a periodic follow-up service of the labeled devices to ensure compliance with the original approval.

17
Intent of recommended change to Paragraph 280.208(d) ; The intent of the following recommendation is to allow installation of

smoke detectors on either inside or outside walls of mobile homes (based on

the findings reported herein) and to make the mounting dimension below the

ceiling consistent with other nationally recognized installation standards.

Also, prohibition of connection to a branch circuit controlled by a ground- \ fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) is intended to preclude loss of power to the

smoke detector from a false trip of the GFCI. I Recommended wording for Paragraph 280.208(d) :

(d) Installation

Smoke detectors shall be installed on an interior or exterior wall of

the mobile home. The top of the detector shall be 4 to 12 inches from the

ceiling. The detector mounting shall be attached to an electrical outlet box

and the detector connected by a permanent wiring method into a general | electrical circuit. There shall be no switches in the circuit to the detector other than the overcurrent protective device protecting the branch circuit.'

The branch circuit to which the detector is connected shall not be controlled

by a ground-fault circuit interrupter.

9 . REFERENCES

[1] Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standard, U.S. Department of ! Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., Federal Register Vol. S 40, No. 244 (Dec. 18, 1975). j

1 [2] Gawin, W. M. and Bright, R. G., Mobile home smoke detector siting study, ' Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 76-1016 (May 1976).

| [3] Rork, G. , Honeywell, Inc., private communication.

I [4] Clarke, F. B. and Ottoson, J., Fire death scenarios and fire safety i planning, NFPA Fire Journal, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 20-22, 117, 118 (May

' 1976) . I

[5] Highlights of the U.S. Household Fire Survey, U.S. Fire Administration. |

[6] Bukowski, R. W. , et al. , Detector sensitivity and siting requirements ' for dwellings, NBSGCR 75-51 (Aug. 1975).

[7] Harpe, S. W. , et al. , Detector sensitivity and siting requirements for | dwellings phase II, NBSGCR 77-82 (July 1976). ^

[8] Budnick, E. K., Fire spread along a mobile home corridor, Nat. Bur.

Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 76-1021 (July 1976).

[9] Heskestad, G. , Escape Potentials from Apartments Protected by Fire

Detectors in High-Rise Buildings, FMRC Serial No. 21017, HUD contract

no. H-2034R (June 1974) .

[10] Stewart, R. D., et al. , Experimental Human Exposure to High Concentrations

of Carbon Monoxide, Arch. Environ. Health, 26, pp. 1-7 (Jan. 1973). I

[11] Alarie, Y. and Zullo, P., Predicting Carboxyhemoglobin for Different

Patterns of Carbon Monoxide Exposure, Industrial Health Foundation | Symposium on Carbon Monoxide, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 18-46 (1974).

[12] Bukowski, R. W. , Smoke measurements in large and small scale fire i testing, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 78-1502 (Oct. 1978).
[13] Single and Multiple Station Smoke Detectors, UL 217, 2nd Edition,

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL (Oct. 1978).

[14] Lee, T. G. , An instrument to evaluate installed smoke detectors, Nat.

Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 78-1430 (Feb. 1978).

[15] Bukowski, R. W. , An evaluation of light emitting diodes as source lamps

in photoelectric smoke detectors, NFPA Fire Technology, Vol. 11, No. 3,

pp. 157-163 (Aug. 1975).

[16] Bukowski, R. W. , Some problems noted in the use of Taguchi semiconductor

gas sensors as residential fire/smoke detectors, Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), NBSIR 74-591 (Dec. 1974).

[17] Bright, R. G. , Report of fire tests on eight TGS semiconductor gas

sensor residential fire/smoke detectors, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR

76-990 (Apr. 1976)

[18] Gallagher, E. L., FEMA: NBS Tests Do Not Reflect Reality, NFPA Fire

Journal, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 19, 38-41 (March 1977).

[19] Kung, H. C. et al. , Development of low-cost residential sprinkler

protection: A technical report. National Fire Prevention and Control

Administration, National Fire Safety and Research Office Grant No. NFPCA

76054, U.S. Fire Administration, Washington, D.C. (Apr. 1978).

[20] Lee, T. G. and Mulholland, G., Physical properties of smoke pertinent to

smoke detector technology, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 77-1312 (Nov.

1977) .

19
20

Figure

1.

Mobile

home

test

unit,

north

and

west

exposures

(living

room

end)
21

Figure

2.

Mobile

home

test

unit

showing

south

wall

of

living

room
22

Figure

3.

Mobile

home

showing

southern

exposure

of

corridor

and

bedroom

end
jl

23

Figure

4.

Mobile

home

floor

plan

and

instriimentation

locations
Figure

5.

Test

detectors

and

boundary

layer

probe

at

front

end

of

corridor
25

Figure

6.

Test

detectors

mounted

in

hallway

extension

at

rear

of

corridor
26

Figure

7.

Upholstered

chair

and

wastebasket

in

test

position

in

living

room
Table 1. Test variables

Test No. Ignition HVAC

Bedroom

Doors Windows

Slimmer Tests

1 S On Open Closed

2 S On Open Closed

3 S Off Open Closed

4 S On Closed Closed

5 S Off Closed Closed

6 S On Open Closed

7 S Off Open Open

8 F On Open Closed

9 F Off Open Closed

10 F On Open Closed

11 F On Closed Closed

12 F Off Closed Closed

13 F Off Open Open

Winter Tests

14 S On Open Closed

15 S Off Open Closed

16 S On Closed Closed

17 S Off Closed Closed

18 S On Open Closed

19 F On Open Closed

20 F Off Open Closed

21 F On Closed Closed

22 F Off Closed Closed

23* F On Open Closed

24* F Off Closed Closed

25* F Off Closed Closed

*Kitchen grease fires

Flaming = F

Smoldering = S

27
Table 2. Wastebasket and contents flaming fire ignition source

Waste Can - 6.4 (1.7 gal) (polyethlyene)

1 - polyethylene bag (liner)

16 - full sheets of newspaper (black ink only)

3 - 3 oz. paper cups, crumpled

3 - sheets 8-1/2 x 11 writing paper, crumpled

5 - facial tissues, crumpled

2 - cigarette packages, crumpled

1 - 1/2 pint milk carton

Table 3 . Detector type and location

Clock

No.

Type

Detector*

Mounting

Position*

Location in

Corridor

1 P IW Front

3 P C Front

5 P OW Front

2 I IW Front

4 I C Front

6 I OW Front

7 P IW Rear

13 P C Rear

9 P OW Rear

8 I IW Rear

12 I C Rear

10 I OW Rear

*P = Photoelectric, I = Ionization

IW = Inside wall, C = Ceiling, OW = Outside wall

28
Table

4.

Detector

alarm

times

(sec)

IN IT* m vX> CO iX> r- ro \D rH CO in ro o rH ro CN CN >S) CN m 00 <T> o CO rH CO VD ko ro ro y.0 m vD O CN ro CN CN CT CT CN CT ro 00

f*H CO vO rH »X) rH CT* 00 ro in ro ro 00 o rH in ro (T

iH rH rH rH rH rH rH CO rH CN CN CN

IN ro m ro (T* 00 vO (T* O ro rH CT CT o in rH (T CN CN r- CO CN rH rH >.0 ro m rH CN CN o VD ro 00 rH rH CO ro CT 00 in

iH m <N in ro CN rH CN m rH rH rH ro CN vD CT rH rH CN rH o

•—

IN rH CN rH ro rH CN CN ro rH CN CN CN rH

\JD 00 m CO o ro CO CO m O o o ro in CT ro ro o (T CT o cn iH <T* vO O rH in VD m in in CO o CO m o in 00 vO

1—

m CN rH m 00 ro CN rH CN CN rH rH rH rH CN CT rH CN rH rH o

fH (N rH CN rH CN rH CN CN ro rH CN CN CN rH

o m CN CT* CN CN ro 
 o CN m O r- CN vD ro 00 VD CO CN (T

CT> (T> m in vO o CO lO CN o vO m rH rH ro ro CN CN m r-- o o m O 00 ro m ro ro ro CT CN ro ro CT

rH rH rH rH rH rH CN rH CN CN

ro CN lO CT* CN CT* rH rH 00 CN (T CT CT ro rH rH m o CN rH ro

CO 1—1 rH CN m m CN vD in ro CN CN vO in CO m CN CT m (T CN m

m CNJ rH m vO ro CN rH CN rH rH rH CN CN ro CT rH rH rH rH ro O

fN rH CN rH CN rH CN CN ro rH CN CN CN rH

CO in ro O o CT* 00 CT* CN lO 00 o o ro CO o VD ys> ro ro m m r- o

<T> rH rH r- in m m CN ro o O 00 r- in CN CT 00

VD in CT >43 ro CO ro m in ro ro CO ro CT CT rj* ro ro CT

rH rH rH rH CN rH CN CN

(T« 00 ro 00 00 o (T* ro o ro ro CT VD vD ro o m r- 00

\D CO r- CT* 00 ro 00 *D VO o CT o >43 CN 03 VD CO 00 o CN

in o rH vl) r- ro rH rH iH rH in CN CN CT o o 4-) CN rH rH rH CN rH 4-1 rH CN ro rH CN CN CN rH

in in o

<y\ in ro o lO o in CN O CN in V4 ro ro 00 ro CT CT rH >43 CT VD

in 0) m o O ro CO ro 00 ro CT m rH CO OJ rH ro m m CT CO 00 CT VD ro CT ro £ CN 00 CT* ro CN O 00 CN ro ro ro 4-1 m m CT CT ro ro CN CN ro CN 00 1

rH rH c rH CN CN CN

cn s

Csi m 00 in rH CO (T* CO CN VO CT ro CN CN in o CT CT CT in m CN CN

CT* kO ro ro rH o ro CT ro vO rH ro VO CO vD 00 vD r' 00 m ro (N rH lO o lO CD ro rH rH rH rH rH rH CN r- CT CT o rH nj rH CN rH CN rH CN CN ro rH CN CN rH rH

r- (T» vD O ro vD vD o CT ro o lO CT CN 00 CO 00 rH CN vO CO rH m ro ro vO ro m m CO r- vO CN ro m CN CN CN CN ro ro in r*- CN in ro ro 00 in ro rH 00 CN ro ro ro \o m CN O ro ro ro ro CT

rH rH rH rH ro rH rH (N (N

in o rH (T CT* vD vD <T CT ro rH rH CT O CT 00 ro r- CN rH O m

(N o o 00 ro rH rH CO ro ro vO rH ro VD ro r*- CT 0^ LO ro

i-H CN VD r*' m ro rH rH rH rH CO rH CN r** CO o O 1—} <N rH rH rH CN rH rH CN ro rH CN CN CN rH

in rH rH ro CT* \D CN vD o CN vD r- ro rH in CN CT r- CN in CO VD

r—

rH CN CT* r- 00 CT ro CN ro in vD ro rH vO (T vD vD CT m ro 00 \D ro CN o CN ro ro in r- in rH CT ro ro CN CN ro CN 00

i-H rH rH CN rH CN CN

(fl 0) 0 E

4-1 03 iH o O O O O O o o o O o O O O o d) r- 00 cn 00 CT* CN o O O o O O CN CO ro vO VD O O O o CO r- B 00 rH ro r- r- rH CN CT o •H +J •—1 CN cn ro CN ro rH CN CN ro rH CN CN CN rH

V4 'H

Ck

a;u o

0 z

r-H ' u y rH CN ro in vO CO CT O rH CN ro m 00 CT O rH CN ro m rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CN CN CN CN CN CN r

in

03

29

I
Table 5. Detector average response time (min)

Wall mounted units only

Front Hall Rear Hall Difference

P I P I P I Smold. 16.8 33.1 20. 8 34.9 4.0^ 1.8^^

Flam. 5.9 1.7 7.1 3.2 1.2 1. 5 Ranges to 10 minutes

Ranges to 7 minutes

Ceiling Mounted Units

Front Hall Rear Hall Difference

P I P I P I Smold. 19.8 34.9 27.1 37.0 7 . 3

* 2.1^^

Flam. 6.5 1.7 7.1 3.5 0.6 1.8

Ranges to 20 minutes

Ranges to 10.4 minutes

Average variation between inside wall, outside wall detector = 45 seconds

front, 74 seconds rear. '

I Average variation between inside wall, ceiling, outside wall detector = | 108 seconds front, 164 seconds rear.

'

30
APPENDIX A - GRAPHS OF REDUCED DATA FROM SUMMER TESTS

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

RGURE

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

FIGURE A2 VERTICAL T^P. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TESt 01

A1

ktVJRE

(DEG

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED DME (MIN)

DE

I

A2
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A5 TEMPERATURE AT LIV NG

ROOM WALLS-TEST 01

ELAPSED time (MN)

FIGURE A6 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BEDROOMS -TEST 01

A3

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

r)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A7 SMOKE LEVELS 'N FRONT hallway-test 01

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE AS SMOKE UEVilS IN REAR HALLWAY-^^ 01

A4

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(V’)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(W’
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q 10 20 30 40 50 60

A5

TOS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"'
nON

(PERCENT)

ELAPSED time (MIN)

FIGURE A1QA CARBON MONOXIDE

CbNCENTR^lON-TE^ 01

to 20

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 SO 60

s

a.a

A6

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE All VERTICAL T_

ABOVE CHAIRPROFILE

02

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE A12 VERTICAL TEMf^ PROFILE

IN HALLWA'^-TEST 02

A7
TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C>

10 20

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 50 ~T~

60 T T T ~T“ 302

140

120

TEMP.-BOUNOARY LAYER PROBE

0.1 IN FROM CDUNC (TC 10)

1.0 IN FROM CEIUNC (TC 8) 2.0 IN FROM CDUNC (TC 12)

3.0 IN FROM CDUNC (TC 9)

4.0 IN FROM CDUNC (TC 22)

- 276

- 248

100

BO

60 -

40

20

- 221

- 194

- 167

- 140

113

- 06

59

32 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 4000

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500

FIGURE A13 VERTICAL TEMP, PROFILE

CEILING BOUNDARY LAYEf^-TEST (52

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 60 60

A8

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

r)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG
TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A15 TEMPERATURE AT UVING

ROOM WALLS-^EST 02

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 T— >22

45 -

40 -

TEMP.-FRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT aEDROOM.3 FT FROM aOOR (TC 14) REAR BEDROOM. 3 FT FROM aOOR 23)

- 113

-I 104

- 86

- 77

- 6B

- 59

10 - - 50

S - - 41

500 1000 tsoo 2000 2500

ELAPSED time (SEC) RGURE A16 TEMP. IN "RQNT AND

REAR BEDROOMS -TEST 02

3000 3500 4000

A9

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
urifCML

^

_

_

uriiUMU

\wi

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A17 SMOKE IN FROM HA_lWAY-iEM 02

4.00

10 “T“ T

ELAPSEO TIME (MIN) 20 30 40 —I 1 1 1 r~ 50 ~r"

60 T T 4.00

3. SO

SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HAa

CEIUNG (SMO 3) 5 FT LEVEL (SMO 4^ 3. SO

3.00 3.00

2.50 2.50

2.00 2.00

.50 - 1 .50

t .00 - 1 .00

0.50

0.00 J 1 1 1

‘ I 1 L

0.50

J I L

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE A18 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TES' 02

3000 0.00

3500 4000

AlO

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"')

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"’)
ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

TM»P W

All

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

OENSITY

(M*')
iTION

(PERCENT)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q 10 20 30 40 50 60

A12

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A21 VERTICAL TL ABOVE CHAIRPJ^ORLE

ELAPSES TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A22 VERTICAL TEMfs PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TESf 03

A13

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

<DEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

A14

OURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

RGURE

40

3S -

30

!Z5

'20

IS

10

ELAPSED DUE (MIN) SO 40

TEUP.-FRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT BEDROOAA.3 FT FROM FUXIR (TC 14) REAR BEDROOM, 3 FT FROM aOOR (TC 33)

jsacLJ/uvfifwivrH if nr unn-f rr

LKS-Tinnit

122

113

104

95

86

77

68

59

SO

41

32 500 1000 tSOO 2000 2600

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3600 4000

A15

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
wrilbMt.

_

ur-iikiHi.

V*"

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

A16

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*')

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*')
T08

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

„

„

_

^(CA^OENSmr

(lyT)

ELAPSeO TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE ^30 GAS DETECTOR OUTPUT

VOLT^E BY LOCATTON-TESf 03

A17

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

<M*’)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

A18
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A31 VERTICAL T^P. PROFILE

ABOVE CHAIR-^SY 04

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A32 VERTICAL TEMF> PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-test 04

A19

ITURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

RGURE A33 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

CEILING BOUNDARY LAYEf^-TEST (34

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

A20

kTURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
elapsed time (MN)

ELAPSED time (MN)

FIGURE ^6 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

RE?R BEDROOMS -TKT 04

A21

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

<0EC

F)
0 10 20 40 SO

elapsed time (min) 30 60

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE A17 SMOKE l^ELS IN FRONT HALLWAY-TE:^ 04

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE AJ8 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TEST 04

A22

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M-')

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"’)
TOS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

_

_

_

OPTICAI^

DENSITY

(HT*)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED DME (MIN)

A2 3

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"')
nON

(PERCENT)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A4QA CARBON M(DN OXIDE

(Jon5entration-te^ 04

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE A40B CARBON DIOXIDE

(:0NCENTRATI0N'-TEST M

A24

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
RGURE A41 VERTICAL TEMP. H^OFILE

ABON^ CHAIR-TESY 05

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A42 VERTICAL TEMf^ PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TKY 05

A25

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)
kTURC

(DEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE A44 TEMP. IN HA^WAY

NEAR DETECTORS -TE^ 05

A26

ITURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
0 10 20 -r

40 ~r

50 250 T

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30

1 1 1 60

_1 482

225 -

200 -

TCMP.-LMNC ROOM WAaS

EAST NMJL.B IN DOWN (TC 2^

SOUTH WALL.B M DOWN TTC 7)

- 437

- 392

175 -

2S

- 347

- 302

- 257

- 212

- 167

- 122

- 77

0

1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 32 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE A45 TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST 05

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

0 10 20 30 40 50 1 I

1

1 I

1 1 1

TEMP.-FROHT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT BEOROOM.3 FT FROM aOOR OC 14) BEDROOM. 3 FT FROM FLOOR 23)

UAOf iTUr-»

^ im

50 —T

60

122

45 h

40

35 -

‘30 - Q

O

^25

'20 -

- 113

104

95

86

- 77

- 68

IS - - 59

10 - 50

5

- 41

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE A46 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BEDROOMS-TEST 05

3000 3500 4000

All

ITURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)
ucioiit

v***

;

optical

density

(M*')

ELAPSED TIME <MIN)

f^lGURE AV SMOKE UEVEIS^ IN FRONT HALLWAY-TE^ 05

ELAPSED DME (MN)

FIGURE A48 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-tEST 05

A28

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(VT’
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A50 GAS DETECTOR

VOLTAGE BY LOCATION -TE

TPUT

A29

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*'
10 20

“T“

elapsed time (MIN) 30 40 50 “T”

60 “T” iOOO

0.08 -

So. 06 - i

CO concentration 3 FT LEVEL BACK BEONOOM (CO 1) 3 FT LEVEL FRONT BEDROOM fCO 2) S FT LEVEL CENTER HALLNAY (£0 3) •V

i / M

J\iM

- 800

- 600

0.04 -

0.02 -I

0.00

soo 1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED time (SEC) 3000 3500

- 400

- 200

4000

10 T

20 —r~

ElAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 T T X

60 “r

60 ~T“

2.6 C02 CONCENTRATION 3 FT LEVEL BACK BEDROOM (C02 1) S FT LEVEL CENTER HALLWAY (C02 3)

- 28000

2.4 - - 24000

2.0 - 20000

tfl.6 - 16000

1.2 - 12000

0.6 - 8000

0.4 - 4000

0.0 * - 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE A50B CARBOn DIOXiDE

CONCENTRATlO\-T-~ C5

3000 J 1 lo 3500 4000

A30
TEMPCRATURC

<OCC

C)

TIMPCJUTURC

(DEC

C)

400

3S0

300

ISO

100

SO

0

elapsed time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 7o2

660

608

536

464

39Z

320

248

176

104

32

0 500 1000 ISOO 2000 2SOO 3000 3500 4000

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

T 1 1 r

TEMPERATURES, LIVING ROOM TREE

1 IN FROM CEUNC ^ 2)

1 FT FROM CDUNG TO 3l 2 FT FROM CDUNG TC 4

3 FT FROM CDUNG TC 5

4 R FROM CDUNG TC 6

I

akssiSa

J I I I 1 L

RGURE A51 VERTICAL TEMP

ABOVE CHAIR-TEST 06

PROFILE

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A52 VERTICAL TEMF^

IN HALLWAY-Test ^|OF,LE

A31

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
klURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C>

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

A32

kTURC

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(OEO

C)

ELAPSED DME (min)

FIGURE ^6 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BEDROOMS -TEST 06

A33

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
elapsed time (MN)

FIGURE A57 SMOKE JN FRONT HALLWAY-TE^ 06

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A58 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TEST 06

A34

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"*)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"’)
(VOLTS)

_

_

_

^TICA^DCNSnY

(M-*)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

B=v"loW°^E§V^r

A35

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M^)
CONCENTRATION

(PERCENT)

ELAPSED time (MIN) 30 40T 1000

0.08 -

So. 06 - i

:0.04 -

0-02

0.00

CO CONCENTRATION ' 3 FT LEVEL BACK BEDROOM (CO 1) — 3 FT LEVEL FRONT BEDROOM ,CCO 2) 5 FT LEVEL CENTER HALLWAY (dO 3)

500 1000

FIGI

1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500 4000

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE A60B CARBON DlpXQE

CONCENTRATION -TEST 06

A36

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE A61 VERTICAL TEMP^ PROFILE

ABOVE CHAIR-TEST 07

elapsed time (MN)

FIGURE A62

IN VERTICAL TEMP.

HALLWAY-TEST

PROFILE

A37

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
kTURE

(DEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

FIGURE A63 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

CEILING BCJUNDARY LAYER-TEST (57

ELAPSED time (WNN) 0 10 20 30 40 60 SO

A38

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

'FIGURE A65 TEMPERATURE AT UVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST 07

ELAPSED time (MIN) 30 40

I2E

4S -

40 -

TOlP.-FRONT AND REAP BEDROOMS

FRONT BEOROOM.3 FT FROM aOOR QC

REAR BEDROOM, 3 FT FROM aOOR (TC 7i]

- M3

- 104

3S -

30 L- /

^Z5

nr

'20 -

95

86

- 77

- 68

IS - 59

10

S

50

41

J I I L

500 J L J L

1000 J I I L1500 2000 2S00

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) FIGURE; A66 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BE^DROOMS-TEST 07

3000 J L

3500 4000

A39

ITURE

(DEG

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
UKIIUMU

UClWIt

\m

ELAPSED time (min)

A40

OPTICAL

DENSnV

(M")

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*’)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

B?ioW??EroT

A41

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M'';
elapsed time (MIN)

10 20

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 SO 60

s

a.

(Ls

E

A4?
ELAPSED TIME CMIN) 10 IS 20 2S

FIGURE A71 VERTICAL TEjMPv

ABOVE CHAIR- lESY 08

752

- 600

- BOB

- 536

-I 464

- 320

- 248

176

104

32

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 15 20 25

FIGURE A72 VERTICAL TEMF^ PROFILE

IN HALLWAY- TESf 08

302

- 221

194

167

140

113

86

59

32

A4 3
TIMPBRATURC

{DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED DME (MIN) 0 5 10 16 20 25

FIGURE A74 TEMP. IN H/^WAY

NEAR DETECTORS-TEST 08

A44

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

p)
0 s ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED DME (MIN)

"IGURE A76 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

RBMR BEDROOMS-TEST 08

A4 5

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
ELAPSED time (min)

ELAPSED DUE (MIN) 0 5 10 15 20 25

A4 6

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*')

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M”)
TOS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

_

_

_

_pPTICA^DeNSmr

(HT*)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

A47

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DCNSnTY

(M“')
T

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED DME (MN)

Q S 10 16 20 28

A48

CONCENIRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 15 20

FIGURE A8^gQ,

C-ha:rI.^e"sT

ELAPSES TIME (MIN) 10 15 20

FIGURE A82 VERTICAL TEMJL PROFILE

IN1 HALLWAY-test 09

25752

536

- 464

392

248

104

32

25302

275

248

221

194

167

140

113

86

S9

32

A49

i

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
tTURC

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

0 6 ELAPSED TIME (MN)

10 IS 20 2S

302

276

248

221

194

59

92

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 18 20 28

A50

ITURE

(DEC

F

I

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED time (MIN)

A51

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 6 10 15 20 25

A52

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(W)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*')
ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIUE (MN)

10 IS 20 253.0

2.0

2.0

2.4

2.2

2.0

1 .8

1 .6

1 .4

1.2

I .0

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

A53

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"’
ElAPSeD TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 18 20 26

TM“?&NmRS«lE?P>S§^

A54

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED time (MN)

nCURE PROFILE

FIGURE A92 VERTICAL TEMf^ PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 10

A55

kTUPE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
temperature

(DEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q S 10 IS 20 26

A56

kTURE

(DEC

FI

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

bM)o&WfS°

A57

nUPC

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
Ur

I

ICML

UC.I«ai

II

^

_

_

(Jt* I

IU«b

UCKIM

II

V*"

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

hallS(ay-S?^^^i 0^

ELAPSED DME (MIN) 0 5 10 IS 20 26

FIGURE A98 SMOKE LEVELS IN hallway-test ’0

A58

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M**)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M")
(VOLTS)

_

_

_

OPTICA^

DCNStTY

(Itr)

elapsed time (MN)

ELAPSED DUE (MN)

A59

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

OCNSTTY

(M*'
TION

(PERCENT)

o

o

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 20 25

A60

1

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
TEMPOUTIMC

(OEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED DME (MIN)

FIGURE A101 VERTICAL TEMP. PRORLE

ABOVE CHAIR-TEST 11

ELAPSED TIME (MfN) 0 S to IS 20 2S

FIGURE A102 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALFWAY- T^ST 1 1 A61

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

<DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q 5 10 IS 20 26

A62

ITURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A1 j-IVING

ELAPSED DME (MIN) 10 15 20 25

122

119

104

9S

66

77

68

59

SO

41

32

Figure aios temp, in front and

REAR BEDROOMS-TEST 11

A63

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 20 26

FIGURE A1 08 SMOKE l^ELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TKT 1 1

optical

density

(M-')

optical

density

<M-'
___

^ICAt_DENSnY

<M^)

ELAPSED DME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

A65

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*’
CONCENTRATION

(PERCENT)

o

o

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q 6 10 IS 20 25

A66

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

.

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
FIGURE A111 VERHCA. PROFILE

ABOVE CHAR-TESt 12

ElAPSED time (MN)

10 IS 20 28902

275

248

22]

184

167

140

119

66

59

92

FIGURE All

VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-test 12

A67

kTUHE

<0EC

F)

TEMPERATURE

<0EC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(OEG

C)

V

r'

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE A113 VEf^KIAL TEMP. PRQ.FILE

(Idling boundary layer -te^ 12

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 5 10 16 20 25

FIGURE A114 TEMP. IN HALLWAY

NEAR DETECTORS-TEST 12

A68

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
elapsed time (MN)

FIGURE

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

10 IS 122

46 h

40

TCMP.-rRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

rRONT BEOIIOOH.J FT FROM FLOOR (TC 14) REAR BEDI400M, 3 FT FROM FLOOR 23)

- 113

- 104

36 - - 95

.30 -

!26 -

'20 -

i '

- 86

77

60

15 - - 69

10

S

0 200 400 RGURE A1

800 800

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 1000 1200 1400

SO

41

92

A69

OURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 16 20 254.00

- 3.50

-( 3.00

- 2.50

- 2.00

- 1 .50

- 1 .00

- 0.60

0.00

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 15 20 254.00

- 3.50

- 3.00

- 2.50

2.00

1 .50

1.00

0.50

0.00

FIGURE A1 18 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HAL.WAY^TESf 12

A70

OPTICAL

DENSnV

(KT’)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(HT’)
(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

OENSTTY

(kT)

ELAPSED nUE (MN)

ELAPSED DUE (MN)

A71

OPTICAL

OENSmr

(AT’)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 8 10 IS 20 25

FIGUR CARBON MONOXIDE

RATIO N-'^EST 12

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q S 10 16 20 26

A72

mON

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE PROFILE

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 6 10 16 20 26

FIGURE A122 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 13

A7 3

TEMPERATURE

(DEC.

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
kTVJRE

(DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 20 26

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 8 10 16 20 26

A74

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 16 20 25

ELAPSED time (SEC) FIGURE A1^ TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST ij

482

347

- 302

212

167

122

77

32

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

A75

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (liN) 0 8 10 15 20 25

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

» * — 1 1 i 1 I 1 _ I I _ 1 1 0 200 400 000 000 1000 1200 1400

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

A76

optical

density

(M”)

optical

density

(M-*)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IS 20 252.0

1.8

I .8

I .*

1 -2

I -0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

A77

TCS

OUTPUT

(VOLTS)

OPTICAL

OENSiTY

(W
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

10 IS 20 25

S

1=

figure; A 130B CARBON DIOXIDE

(Concentration -test i3

A78
APPENDIX B - GRAPHS OF REDUCED DATA FROM WINTER TESTS

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED ’’iME (MIN)

FIGURE B2 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TESt U

B1

kTURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(OEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

figure: B4 temp^ in hallway

NEAR detectors -TEST 14

B2

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED time (M!N)

FIGURE B5 TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST 14

so

10 —r

20 -T

EJkPSED TIME (MIN) 30 AO 50 60 “T" -T—ii22

<5 - -1113

AO -

35 -

1 30 -

^25

I

?20

IS

10

I^.K

TEMP.-FRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT aEDROOM.3 FT FROM aOOR (TC 14) REAR BEDROOM, 3 FT FROM aOOR (TC 23)

500

J L _L J L J I I L J L

1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500

FIGURE B6 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BEDROOMS-TEST 14

104

- 95

86

77

- 68

59

50

41

32 4000

B3

ITURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
ELAPSED 'IME (MINJ Q 10 20 30 40 SO 60

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 2C 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B8 SMOKE LEV^S IN REAR HALLWAY-TEST 14

B4

optical

density

<m-’)

optical

density

(M*’)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED time (MIN) Q 10 20 SO 40 SO 6C

B5

concentration

(PPM)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(W
ELAPSED time (min) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

10 20 ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 50 60

FIGURE B12 VERTICAL . ABOVE (:hairtemp. PROFILE

B6

concentration

(ppm)
elapsed time (min)

FIGURE B13 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 15

ELAPSED Time (min)

FIGURE BU VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

CEILING BOUNDARY LAYER-TEST 15

B7

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

f)

\

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
temperature

(dec

C)

temperature

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED time (min) 0 10 20 30 40 SC 60

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE B16 TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST 15

B8

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

RGURE B17 TEMP. IN FRQNJ

REAR BEtDROOMS-TEST

AND

15

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B18 SMOKE LEVELS IN FRONT HALLWAY-TEST 15

B9

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(VT';
OPTICAL

OENSnY

(M-)

o

o

-

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO so

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

BIO

optical

density

(W')
T10N

(PERCENT)

o

o

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE B21 CARBON MONOXIDE

CONCENTfeMlON-TEST 15

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE B22 CARBON DIOXIDE

C(5^NCENTRATI0N-TEST 15

Bll
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

EUAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B2315 Vy?TlCAL TEMP. PROFILE

ABOVE CHAIR-TEST 16

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B24 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 16

B12

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

C>

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE B25

CEILIN

VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

BOUNDARY LAYER-TEST 16

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE B26 TEMP. IN HALLWAY

NEAR DETECTORS-TEST 1 6

B13

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
TEMPE3WT0RE

(DEC

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 to 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B28 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BEDROOMS -TEST 16

B14

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE B29 SMOKE LEVELS IN FRONT HALLWAY-TEST 16

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE B30 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TEST 16

B15

optical

density

(m")

optical

density

(M-’)
irtMMUN

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED Time (MIN) Q 10 20 30 40 50 60

B16

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M**)
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

CONCENTRATION

(PERCENT)

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 so 60

riGUJRJE BJ3 CARBON DIOXIDE

(!:(5^ncentration-tkT i6

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE B34. VERTICAL TEMP^

ABOVE CHAIR-TEST

PROFILE

17

B17
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C>

ELAPSED TIME (MrN)

FIGURE B35 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 17

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

B18

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEO

C)

elapsed time (min) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B37 TEMP. IN HALFWAY

NEAR DETECTORS-TEST 17

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

FIGURE B38 TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST 17

B19

1

temperature

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
10 ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 20 30 40T

60T

60

-I— 122

45

40

TEMP, -FRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT BEOROOM.3 FT FROM aOOR OC 14) REAR BEDROOM. 3 FT FROM FLOOR 23)

113

104

36 96

30 - s

!2S

20 -

IS -

- 77

- 68

- 59

a

o

10 - 50

41

J L

500 J I I L

1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500

32 4000

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

B20

optical

density

(M*’;
optical

denstty

(m-’)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) RGUF^ SMOKE LEVELS^IN

REAR HALLWAY-TEST 17

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

B21

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M”
CONCENTRATION

(PERCENT)

„

„

cuiN^.ti<i^nun.

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q to 20 30 40 60 60

10 “T" T20 —

T"

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 T T T

50 —r

60

2-6

2.4

2.0

1.6 -

1.2 -

0.8 -

0.4 -

0.0

C02 CONCENTRATION

3 FT LEVEL BACK BEDROOM (C02 1} S FT LEVEL CENTER HALLMAY (C02 3)

600 1000 1600 2000 2600

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500

- 20000

24000

20000

16000

12000

8000

4000

'0 4000

B22

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
TIMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 5C 60

FIGURE B45 VERTICAL TMP. PROFILE

ABOVE (bHAIR-TESt

ELAPSED ’’IME (MiN) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE B46 VERTICAL TE>IP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 18

B23

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
TEMPEJMTURE

(DCG

C)

rEMPERATURC

(0£G C)

eiAPSCD TIME (mIn) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

B24

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
TEMPERATURE

(OEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

FIGURE B49 TEMPERATURE AT UVING

ROOM WALLS-TKT 18

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 so 60

FIGURE B50 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

REAR BraROOMS-TEST 18

B2 5

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
elapsed time (min) Q 10 20 30 40 SO 60

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

B26

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M^*)

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*’)
ELAPSED Time (MN)

0 to 20 30 AO SO so

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) RGURE B53 SMOKE LEVELS

IN BEDROOMS-TEST IS

ELAPSED time (min) 0 to 20 30 40 so 60

B27
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IE 29 25

RCURE PROFILE

u.

i£0

UiK

1

I

fc?

B28

CONCENTfUTION

(PPM)
TEMPOWTURE

(OEG

C)

temperature

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 5 10 15 20 7^

FIGURE B57 VERTICAL TEM’. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY- TEST 19

B29

(OEC

F)

TEk/tf’ERATuRE

(DEC

F)
tempej^ature

{oeg

c>

temperature

(dec

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

B30

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

riMPtHAl,

/jtC

F)
temperature

(DEC

C)

I

elapsed time (min) 10 IS 20 25

ouio

sM'do'M^S W

ELAPSED time (MIN) 10 IS 20 2S4-00

3.50

3. 00

2. SO

2 00

1 .50

I .00

0.60

0.00

FIGURE B62 SMOKE l^Q-S I FRONT HALLWAY-ltST 19IN

B31

i

optical

density

(M**;
ELAPSED TIME ^MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 25

B32

optical

density

(m-')
CONCENTRATION

(PERCENT)

0 S 20 25

-j 1000

ELAPSED time (min) IQ 15

800

600

- 400

200

FIGU

ELAPSED T'ME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 2C 25

B33

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
rEMPERATUR£

(DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

{DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IS 20 2S752

680

608

S36

- 464

- 392

320

248

176

104

32

FIGURE B67_ VI^TICAL TD^P. PROFILE

ABOVt CHAIR-TESt 20

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 25

FIGURE B68

IN VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

HALLWAY-test io

B34

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(OEG

F)
TEMPERATURE

(OEO

C>

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 15 20 25

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 20 25

FIGURE B7Q TEMP. IN HALLWAY

NEAR DETECTORS-TE^ 20

B35

temperature

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

elapsed time (min) Q S 10 IS 20 2S

FIGURE

ELAPSED time (min) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

B36

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(OEG

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) Q S 10 15 20 25

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 15 20 254-00

- 3 . 5 (^

- 3.00

2.50

2.00

I .50

1 .00

0.50

0.00

FIGURJE B74 SMOKE LEVELS rear hallway-test 20

IN

B37

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M*')

\

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(W)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 15 20 25

0 ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IS 20 251000

800

600

400

200

0

I

z

B38
ELAPSED Time (MN)

0 S 10 IS 20 25

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IS 20 25752

660

608

S36

464

992

320

24B

176

104

32

FIGURE B78'8 VIERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

ABO\^ CHAIR -test 21

B39

concentration

(PPM)
TtMPERATURE

(DEC

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IS 20 2S302

275

240

221

104

167

140

113

06

59

32

nCURE B7^^V^§AL_T^,J.|.OFILE

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 25

B40

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
kTURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED time (MIN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 IS 20 25482

437

392

347

302

257

212

167

122

77

32

FIGURE B8

B41

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

T

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
0 sT

25 SO T

ELAPSED TIME (MlN) 10 15

-| 1 r

20

-I 1 122

4S -

40 -

TEMP.-FRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT BCOROOM.3 FT FROM FUXJR (TC 14} REAR BEDROOM. 3 FT FROM FLOOR (TC 23}

- 113

- 104

as - - 95

10

S

50

41

200 400 600 800

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 1000 bMMs-W

1200

I 1400

32

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

B42

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"’)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
optical

OENSmr

(M-)

ELAPSED time (MIN)

FIGUF^ M5 SMOKE LMLS IN RE^ HALLWAY-TEST 21

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 15 20 25

B43

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"')
TION

(PERCENT)

o

o

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 5 10 IS 20 2S

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 20 25

B44

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
FIGURE

ELAPSED time (MIN)

FIGURE B90 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 22

B45

temperature

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
TtMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 5 to 15 20 25

B46

kTURE

(OEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED time (min)

FIGURE 093 TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TEST 22

so

ELAPSED time (MN)

10 15

“1 1 r

20 25

122

45 -

40 -

36 -

30 -

'20 -

IS

10

JW

TCMP.-FRONT AND REAR BEDROOMS

FRONT BEDROOM.3 FT FROM FLOOR (TC 14) REAR BEDROOM, 3 FT FROM FLOOR C^C 23}

AaW

, A /v*\ / "'x v*\ / A'

J L J L J L

- 113

- 104

- 95

- 86

77

-1 68

59

- 50

- 41

32

200 400 600 800

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 1000 1200 1400 RGURE 094 TEMP. IN FRONT AND

RD\R 0EbROOMS-T&T 22

B47

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

fJ\

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
UC.I1WII

)

UrilV^U

L/CI<t»lll

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 8 10 15 20 25

FiGUF^ B96 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TEST 22

B48

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"')

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M'';
^

optical

density

(M^)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

FIGURE B97 SMOKE LEVELS

IN bKrOOMS-TEST 22

elapsed time (min) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

B49

concentration

(PPM)

\

OPTICAL

OENSi-nr

(M":
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 IS 20 2S

400

10 “T“

20

-T“

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 SO -~r

60 752

350

300

TEMPERATURES. KITCHEN TREE

IN FROM CEHJNC (TC 2) FT FROM CEIUNG TC 5) FT FROM CEIUNC TC 4, FT FROM CEILING TC 5 n FROM CEILING (TC 6

660

608

- S36

G250

3a

^200 -

ISO

- 464

- 392 I

- 320 P

100

60

-I'T248

176

104

-L. —'32 soo lOOO 1500 2000 2500 4000

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500

FIGURE 3'OC vy^TOL TEMP. PROFILE

IN kitchen -TKT 23

B50

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
k1UK

(DCO

C)

TCMP0UTURE

<OCO

C)

CUPSED TIME (MN)

0 10 20 30 40 80 60

RGURE B101 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TEST 23

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

B51

kTURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(OEC

F)
kTURE

(DEC

C)

TEI^BRATURE

(OEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

250

225 -

200 -

10T

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 20 30 40 T 1 1 r

TEMP.-LMNC ROOM WALLS

EAST WALUa IN DOWN (TC 2^

SOUTH WALUa M DOWN (TC 7)

SOT

60T 482

437

- 392

ns - 347

150 -

125 -

1 100 -

1 %

75 -

SO

2S

SOO

if

1000 1500 2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000

FIGURE B104 Tl

_L 3500

302

257

212

167

122

77

32 4000

B52

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
UKliUlL

UC1«»II

\M

ELAPSED DME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (MN)

ELAPSED TIME (SEC)

B53

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M^)

\

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
OPTICAL

OENSTTY

(M-")

elapsed time (MN)

0 10 20 30 40 60 60

2-0

1-a -

1 .6 -

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40

SMOKE LEVELS IN BEDPOOMS

FRONT BEOROOM-3 FT LEVEL (SMO S) REAR BEDROOM- 3 FT LEVEL (SMO 6)

60X

60X 2-0

I -e

-I I .6

1 .4 - - I .4

1-2 -

1 -0 -

0.6 -

0.6 -

0-4 -

0.2 -

0.0

500 1000 1500 i

2000 2500

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3500

I -2 ^

' ’® I

1

0.8 _•

0.6 ^

- 0-4

0-2

4000

B54

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M"')
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 to 20 30 40 60 60

20

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 30 40 60T

2.0 - C02 CONCENTRATION

3 FT LE\«L BACK BEDROOM fC02 1} a FT LE\«L CENTER MALL*«kY (C02 1] (C02 3)

60T

20000

2.4 - 24000

2.0 - 20000

o

E

1.2 -

16000

s

a.a.sE

12000

0.0 - 0000

0.4 - 4000

0.0

500 hJ

1000 1600 2000 2600

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 3000 3600 4000

B55

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 60 SO

FIGURE B111 V^TI<:al TEJ^. PROFILE

IN KITCHEN -TEST 24

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

RGURE B112 VERTICAL TEMP. PROFILE

IN HALLWAY-TESt 24

B56

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

PI

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
kTURE

(OEO

TD>«IUTURE

(DEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

u.

EmPSCD time (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIGURE B114 TEMP. IN HALLWAY NE^ DETECTOfRS-TESr24

B57
ELAPS0D TIME (MN)

FIGURE B115 TEMPERATURE AT LIVING

ROOM WALLS-TKT 24

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

B58

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEG

F)
UUWII

V**

>

_

_

UrilLAi.

tAKUMII

VM

EUPSO) TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 60 60

RGURE JB117 SMOKE LEVELS IN f^ONT HALLWAY-TEST 24

4.00

10T

elapsed time (UN)

20 30 40 T 1 1 1 r60T

60

T T—14.00

3. SO - 5 FT LEVEL (SMO

SMOKE LEVEIS IN REAR HALL CEIUNC ^40 ^ - 3.60

3.00 - 3.00

2.50 - 2-50

2.00 - 2-00

l.SO - I .60

1.00 -

0.60 -

1.00

0.60

0.00 J I I I I I I I 1 \ 1 I L

500 1000 1600 2000 2600

ELAPSED DME (SEC) 3000 3500

0.00

4000

FIGURE B11 8 SMOKE LEVELS IN REAR HALLWAY-TEST ^4

B59

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(LT")

OPTICAL

OENSOY

(M*')
^

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M^)

ELAPSED time (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

%

FIGURE

IN

ELAPSED DME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 60 60

figure: B1 20 c>^bon monoxide

(Jonc:entration-test 24- B60

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 6 10 15 20 2S

K

I

FIGURE B122 VERTI(:AL TEMP. PROFILE

IN kitchen -TEST 25

B61
kTURE

(OEO

C)

TEMPBRATURE

(DEO

C)

0 sT

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 16 20 26

-|

1 1 1

,

1 1 302

140

120 -

TEMPERATURES, HALURAY TREE

1 IN FROM COUNC (TC 18)

1 FT from CEIUNC QC 16 2 R FROM CEIUNC QC 17 3 R FROM CEILMG {TC 16' 4 f7 from CEIUNC (TC 19)

- 275

- 240

- 221

I - 194

- 167

- 140

- 113

- 86

- 59

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 16 20 26302

276

248

221

194

167

140

113

66

59

32

FIGURE B124 VEF^ICAL TEMP. PRQ.FILE

CEILING BOUNDARY LAYER-TEST 25

B62

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ilURE

(DCO

C>

TEMFOUTURE

(DEO

C)

ELAPSED TIME (MIN)

ESO

ns -

200 -

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 16

TEMP.-LNMC KOOM \MALLS Ei^ WAU,B DOWN CTC SOUTH NALL.0 IN DOnW TTC 2^

20T

26

402

437

392

175 - 347

ISO 302

126 h

>100

75

50 I2S JJ

257

212

167

122

77

32 200 400 600 800

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 1000 1200

FIGURE

1400

B6 3

ITURC

(DEC

F)

TEkAPERATURC

(DEC

F)
1

1

icikran

i^

ELAPSED DME (MIN) 0 5 10 16 20 26

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 15 20 25

4.01

3-5(

3-01

2.S(

Z.Ot

I .SC

1 .00

O.EO

0.00

B64

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M^)

TEMPERATURE

(DEC

F)
ELAPSED TIME (MN)

FIGURE B 129 SMOKE LB^ELS. IN REAR HALLWAY-TESTK

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 16 20 252.0

1 .8

I .6

1 .4

I .2 k

|.0 ^

0.8

0.6

0-4

0.2

0.0

B65

OPTICAL

DENSITY

(M")
ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 0 S 10 16 20 26

figure: 8131 CARBON MONOXIDE

CONCENTRATION -TEST 25

ELAPSED TIME (MIN) 10 15 20T

26

2-8 - C02 CONCENTRATION 3 R LEVa BACK BEDROOM (C02 1) 5R LEVEL CENTER HALLWAY ^^02

- 28000

2.4 - 24000

2.0 - C

S

20000

'1 -6 - 1 6000 o

1 . 2 - 12000

0.8 - 8000

0 4 4000

0.0 O—.—U. .. I I I L

200 400 800 800

ELAPSED TIME (SEC) 1000 1200 1400

FIGURE 8132. CARBON QJPXIDE CONCEN I RATION -TEST 25

B66

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)

CONCENTRATION

(PPM)
NB$>114A tREv. s-TS)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 79-1915

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF SMOKE DETECTORS IN MOBILE HOMES

7. AUTHOR(S)

Richard W. Bukowski

5. Publication Date October 1979

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS rsrreer. City, sute, ZIP)

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period Covered F inal

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

r~1 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200^word or leaa lactual summary of moat aignificant information. If document inefudsa a significant bibiiography or

literature survey, mention it here,) since its original promulgation in June 1976, the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development's Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standard has required

the installation of at least one smoke detector to protect the mobile home occupants.

The location of the smoke detector was based on earlier tests in a mobile home conducted

by NBS in 1976.

Because of the limited scope of the earlier NBS tests and subsequent improvements

in the design of smoke detectors and the construction of mobile homes, a new series of

tests was conducted to evaluate the influences of the operation of central forced-air

heating and air conditioning systems on the performance of smoke detectors representati-|e

of those which are currently being installed. The tests were conducted with upholsterec.

chairs in smoldering and flaming fire modes, representing key residential fire death

scenarios. Tests were conducted in both summer and winter weather conditions. The

effects of detector location (wall or ceiling and position within the bedroom corridor)

and the effects of open and closed bedroom doors were also investigated.

The report concludes that, for the scenarios examined, a properly functioning

ionization or photoelectric smoke detector mounted near the ceiling on the inside or outside wall at the living room end of the corridor should provide an alarm in sufficieijt

time for occupant escape

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Detection time; detector location; fire tests; gas detectors; kitchen fires; mobile

homes; smoke detectors; tenability limits; upholstered furniture.

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited

[ j For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1 Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

[~x’i Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

179

22. Price $9.00

USCOMM-DC
.

' »« .-amH -A:

'ao".T^_ ^

..S'lA.'QjiCt'fe w1

|

' T V'lUi^AOlio ^ , j!,,

pm

r )

, ,

,. . ^ „ , ^ TM ' '

' "' aft^wwtoiiiviwiE’ 'fl(«<i»«i'' ftw3!ffl,i^iWi<aet ^

' '•

' ll r:a ., 4gi

ii.--

trtv»,'4Jt»p«nt ««4;: fc'i •* 0 Y-!^ A-'f , ... _. i.ilv ta»- r

. ®. t. ^ #%«.*» *-lUaSl®"

It'

»lHf i» >^»ii.«r •.

l6

’’o

'^"*^‘i(ji|»;»'i|i cKt' ls<Ki;a:M

\" ci-T_. 'A - , •• j. ' ,. * .

• 4

.te 3

' i5w>a^'Jo^'i

S^r"' tediSLi^-

jtf» i 'ijbrtc® i«»<rW&^Aaptniw ,bn* 'jiMWipe ^

wait ao .««i. J#

“5

^?.

1 Q< iujli

il>f« ,.«11

' »iuji«att»' W»J«JwM **°T^

ik.

!jr»ilMll

f. !>• s(*S i

H...%

4

l&i...,,

...

»•» ‘-i*

' |.‘ IPM'' « ./'.*Sf«' ‘’•^'iS^ 7'MO l3 .

yLLitf &ik.

' ' *!»r* . 'n , ..

' '.,•. -a . ,—.( »% ^

iil^i4»ll|tt ^"' .' 4V?4i "'