AlllDD TTETDb

NAFL INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C.

A1 11 00992906

/Fire endurance of gypsum board walls an TA435 .U58 V72;197S C.1 NBS-PUB-C 1975 NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National bureau of Standards

Fire Endurance of Gypsum Board Walls

and Chases Containing Plastic and

Metallic Drain, Waste and

Vent Plumbing Systems
The Building Science Series

I'he Building Sciciu'.c Series disseminates technical information developed at the National Bureau of Standards on

building materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The Series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. These publications, similar in style and content to the NBS Building Materials and Structures Reports (1938-59),

arc directed toward the manufacturing, design, construction, and research segments of the building industry, standards organizations, and officials responsible for building codes. The material for this Series originates principally in the Center for Building Technology of the NBS Institute

for Applied Technology. The publications are divided into three general groups: Building Systems and Processes; Health, Safety and Comfort; and Structures and Materials. For further information regarding these publications

please contact the Scientific and Professional Liaison Section, Center for Building Technology, Institute for Applied Technology, National Bureau of Standards, . Washington, D.C. 20234.

ISec mailing list announcement on last page |
PR 2 9 1976 Fire Endurance of Gypsum Board Walls and Chases

Containing Plastic and Metallic Drain,

Waste and Vent Plumbing Systems

W. J. Parker, M. Paabo, J. T. Scott

D. Gross and I. A. Benjamin

Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Sponsored by

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Rogers C. B. Morton, Secrefary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acfing Direcior

Issued September 1975
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title: Fire Endurance of Gypsum Board Walls and Chases Containing

Plastic and Metallic Drain, Waste, and Vent Plumbing Systems. (National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series ; 72) "Sponsored by Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development."

Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs. No.: C 13.29/2:72

1. Fire-Testing. 2. Plumbing—Testing. 3. Pipe, Plastic—Testing.

4. Plaster Board—Testing. I. Parker, William James, 1926-

II. Series: United States. National Bureau of Standards. Building

Science Series ; 72. TA35.U58 No. 72 [TH1091] 690'.08s [696'.2] 75-619228

National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 72

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.). Bldg. Sci. Ser. 72, 114 pages|(Sept. 1975) CODEN: BSSNBV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1975

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

(Order by SD Catalog No. C13.29/2:72). Price $1.80. (Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. maiUng). Stock Number 003-003-01474-5
CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES vi

1. INTRODUCTION , 1 1.1. General 1 1.2. Performance Criteria 2

2. TEST PROCEDURE 3 2.1. Construction 3 2.1.1. Test 1 3 2.1.2. Test 2 4 2.1.3. Test 3 4 2.1.4. Test 4 6 2.1.5. Test 5 6 2.1.6. Test 6 6 2.1.7. Test 7 6 2.1.8. Test 8 7 2.1.9. Test 9 7 2.1.10. Test 10 7 2.2. Instrumentation 7 2.3. Conduct of Tests 10

3. RESULTS 10

3.1. Temperature Measurements 10

3.2. Cotton Pad Test and Flame-Through Time 10

3.3. Gas Concentrations 11

3.4. Airflow Measurements 11

3.5. Smoke Density 11

4. DISCUSSION 17

4.1. DWV in Plumbing Chases 17 4.2. DWV in Wood-Stud Walls 17

4.3. DWV in Steel-Stud Walls 20

5. SUMMARY 2 0

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT 22

7. REFERENCES 22

APPENDIX A. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS DURING THE TESTS 23

APPENDIX B. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE ASTM E 119 STANDARD FIRE

ENDURANCE TEST PROCEDURE AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DWV PLUMBING

CHASES AND WALLS 39

APPENDIX C. SI CONVERSION UNITS 40

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Cross section of wall and pipe chases for test 1 41

Figure 2. Sketch of chase 1 showing thermocouple (T/C) locations. ....... 42

Figure 3. Photograph of installation of DWV on rear wall of chase 1 43

Figure 4. Sketch of chase 3 44

Figure 5, Photograph of lower laterals in chase 3 45

Figure 6. Photograph of exposed wall in test 1 46

Figure 7. Plan view of wall and pipe chases for test 2. . 47

Figure 8. Photograph of chase 5 with side removed 48

Figure 9. Sketch of chase 7 ......................... . 49

Figure 10. Photograph of lower lateral in chase 7 50

Figure 11. Photograph of chases in test 2 51

Figure 12. Wall construction and location of stacks in test 3. ........ . 52

Figure 13. Cross section of wall showing DWV installation and thermocouple

locations in test 3 53

Figure 14. Photograph of wall construction in test 3 54

Figure 15. Wall construction in test 5 55

Figure 16. Wall construction and location of thermocouples for test 6 56

Figure 17. Wall construction and location of thermocouples inside wall space

for test 7 57

Figure 18. Details of wall construction and piping for test 9 58

Figure 19. ASTM thermocouples on unexposed surface ....... 59

Figure 20. Average furnace temperatures for test 1 compared with E 119 curve . . 6 0 Figure 21. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures for chase 5 61

Figure 22. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in PVC installation

(cavity 1) in test 3 62

Figure 23. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 3) in test 3 63

Figure 24. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in copper installation

(cavity 2) in test 3 64

Figure 25. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in galvanized iron

installation (cavity 4) in test 3 65

Figure 26. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in PVC installation

(cavity 7) in test 4 66

Figure 27. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 3) in test 4 67

Figure 28. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in copper installation

(cavity 2) in test 4 68

Figure 29. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in galvanized iron

installation (cavity 4) in test 4 69

iv
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)

Page

Figure 30. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in PVC installation

(cavity 1) in test 5 70

Figure 31. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 3) in test 5 71

Figure 32. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in copper

installation (cavity 2) in test 5 72

Figure 33. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in hubless cast iron

installation (cavity 4) in test 5 73

Figure 34. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 1) in test 6 74

Figure 35. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 2) in test 6 75

Figure 36. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 3) in test 6 76

Figure 37. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in PVC installation

(cavity 4) in test 6 77 Figure 38. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 1) in test 7 78

Figure 39. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in ABS installation

(cavity 2) in test 7 79

Figure 40. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in PVC installation

(cavity 3) in test 7. . . „ 80

Figure 41. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperatures in PVC installation

(cavity 4) in test 7 81

Figure 42. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 1) in test 8 82

Figure 43. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 2) in test 8 83

Figure 44. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 8 84

Figure 45. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 4) in test 8 85

Figure 46. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in copper

installation (cavity 1) in test 9 86

Figure 47. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 2) in test 9 87

Figure 48. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 9 88

Figure 49. Readings in ABS installation (cavity 4) in test 9 89

Figure 50. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 1) in test 10 90

Figure 51. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 2) in test 10 91

Figure 52. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 10 92

V
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)

Page

Figure 53. Unexposed lateral and ASTM surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 4) in test 10 93

Figure 54. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentration in chase 1, test 1 94

Figure 55. Carbon monoxide concentration in chase 5, test 2. . . . . 95

Figure 56. Carbon monoxide concentration in PVC installation (cavity 1) in

test 3 96

Figure 57. Gas concentrations in ABS installation (cavity 1) in test 6 . . . . 97

Figure 58. Gas concentrations in ABS installation (cavity 2) in test 7 . . . . 98

Figure 59. Gas concentrations in PVC installation (cavity 4) in test 7 . . . . 99

Figure 60. Gas concentrations in ABS installation (cavity 3) in test 8 . . . . 100

Figure 61. Gas concentrations in PVC installation (cavity 4) in test 8 . . . . 101

Figure 62. Gas concentrations in ABS installation (cavity 3) in test 10. . . . 102

Figure 63. Gas concentrations in PVC installation (cavity 4) in test 10. . . . 103

Figure 64. Smoke transmission in test 1 104

Figure 65. Exposed gypsiim board wall at the end of test 2 105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Construction Details and Summary of Test Results 5 Table 2. Thermocouple Locations for Each Chase in Tests 1 and 2 8 Table 3. Selected Thermocouple Locations in Tests 3 through 10 9 Table 4. Gas Concentrations in Test 1 12

Table 5. Gas Concentrations in Test 2 ±3

Table 6. Gas Concentrations in Test 6. . . . 14

Table 7. Gas Concentrations in Test 8 15

Table 8. Air Velocities into the Bottom of Stacks 16

vi
FIRE ENDURANCE OF GYPSUM BOARD WALLS AND CHASES CONTAINING

PLASTIC AND METALLIC DRAIN, WASTE AND VENT PLUMBING SYSTEMS

W. J. Parker, M. Paabo, J. T. Scott, D. Gross, and I. A. Benjamin

The use of plastic pipe in plumbing systems of multiple-occupancy

buildings has raised considerations regarding fire safety. To provide

needed data, ten full-scale fire endurance tests were performed involving

a total of 39 plumbing chase and wall assemblies containing plastic and metal

drain, waste, and vent (DWV) systems typical of installations serving one or two story buildings.

Two tests were conducted using plumbing chase configurations simulating

kitchen sink drain systems. The PVC DWV piping in these installations did

not contribute to spread of fire from one side of the construction to the

other.

Six fire endurance tests were conducted in which the performance of ABS,

PVC, copper, and iron was compared directly in kitchen sink drain systems as installed in wood-stud and gypsum-board walls. The stacks ranged from 2 inch

to 4 inch in diameter and the laterals from 1-1/2 inch to 4 inches. In these

tests it was noted that the plumbing configuration and wall construction

details, particularly the sealing of plumbing penetrations, seriously affected

the fire endurance of the barrier. Satisfactory performance was achieved when

certain conditions were met.

In the two tests involving nominal 2 by 4 steel-stud-and-gypsum-board

walls it was determined that the one-hour fire resistance rating of the wall

was reduced considerably when ABS or PVC DWV was installed within it using

the construction details described in this report. These details included

back to back 1-1/2-in diameter laterals feeding directly into 2-in diameter

stacks.

Key words: ABS; DWV; fire endurance; fire spread; fire test; gases; plastic

pipe plumbing; PVC; smoke.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

The use of plastic plumbing systems is growing in the residential housing market.

Availability, ease of handling and installation, and economics are playing a part in the

transition from the conventional materials of copper, steel and cast iron to plastics.

These same factors are also playing an important role in the introduction of plastics

into the multiple-occupancy building.

The use of plastic pipe in the DWV^ plumbing systems of multiple-occupancy buildings

raises two important questions in regard to its involvement in fire. Will the plastic

pipe serve to spread fire to other dwelling units when it might otherwise be contained?

Will there be a serious life hazard introduced due to the smoke and toxic gases generated

by the burning of the pipe? To help answer these questions, the National Bureau of

Standards, with the support of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, established a research and test program.

When plastic DWV piping is incorporated in fire-rated construction, the following

possibilities must be considered.

1. The fire could spread from the room of origin along the burning pipe inside

the wall or chase cavity, and thus into an adjacent residential unit.

2. The additional heat generated in the shaft, chase, ^ or wall cavity due

solely to the burning of the pipe could cause a premature failure of the

wall

.

^DWV refers broadly to drain, waste and vent piping.

^The term "chase" in plumbing usage connotes a shaft constructed specifically to enclose

the plumbing piping in a fire resistant construction.

1
3. Smoke and gaseous combustion products from the burning room could enter

the chase or wall cavity through the hole left by the burning of the

plastic pipe and penetrate into adjacent living areas. The rate of

movement through such a hole would depend largely on the difference

between the pressures in the room and in the cavity.

In addition to their fire spread potential, the common plastic plumbing materials,

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) when they burn, generate a considerable amount of smoke (particulates) and toxic gases. Besides carbon

monoxide, PVC releases hydrogen chloride and ABS generates small amounts of hydrogen

cyanide

.

It must be realized that in a burning room, those furnishings made of organic material may release great quantities of toxic gases and smoke. The quantities could be

many times greater than that which would result from the complete burning of installed

plastic plumbing pipe. Even when plastics are not involved in the fire, carbon monoxide

from the incomplete combustion of other materials in the burning room could spread and

reach excessively high levels in adjacent rooms. Building codes and plumbing codes can place limits on kinds of materials used in construction and installation, but not on materials that subsequently become the furnishings and content of the dwelling. The

basic question addressed here is to what extent does a plumbing system compromise the

integrity of a partition or a pipe chase with respect to the role of either as a fire

(and smoke) barrier.

To evaluate the extent of these potential problems, ten full-scale fire tests

involving 39 plastic and metal plumbing configurations have been performed in this

program. The results of these tests are being used to provide technical background data

necessary to prescribe guidelines for the use of plastic plumbing systems and to suggest

criteria for acceptance of such systems in building and plumbing codes. From the standpoint of fire safety, the suitability of the plastic plumbing will depend on: the type

of application, including the details of the wall, chase, or shaft construction; the

pressure in the shaft in the case of high-rise buildings; the particular plastic material; the pipe size, the type of fittings; and the manner in which the pipe penetrates

the wall.

The full-scale fire tests described in this report apply to kitchen sink or lavatory drain systems made of either plastic or metal. The kitchen is the more likely room

in the house to have a fire involving drain, waste, and vent pipe. Such a fire could be

very intense in the vicinity of the trap due to the common use of wooden base cabinets

and the practice of storing household chemicals and other combustibles under the sink.

The test duration was arbitrarily taken as 1 hour in accordance with the fire endurance

requirement in many building codes for an interdwelling wall in a garden-type apartment.

Full-scale fire tests were performed on ABS DWV piping in two-hour pipe chases in

cooperation with the ABS Institute in 1970 [1] . ^ The experimental procedures used in

the present tests are similar to those employed in the earlier ones.

1.2. Performance Criteria

There are no established performance criteria for evaluating the acceptability of

DWV pipe in a wall assembly, other than the general statement that the piping should not

decrease the fire resistance of that assembly. The first phase of this project has been

directed towards the evaluation of 1-hour fire resistive wall constructions containing

DWV. These walls are commonly used between dwelling units in multi-family buildings

which may contain DWV systems.

The fire resistance of a wall assembly, under test conditions, should be sufficient

to prevent the spread of the fire from one dwelling unit to another for the designated

time — in this case, 6 0 minutes. The limitations on the spread of fire would restrict

the passage of flame through the wall assembly and would prevent the development of an unacceptable temperature rise on the unexposed surface of the wall and the loss of

structural integrity. These limitations would prevent open flame from coming through

and igniting objects in an adjacent room and would prevent self-ignition or smoldering

^Numbers in brackets correspond with the literature references listed at the end of

this paper.

2
of combustible objects in contact with a high temperature wall surface. The critical

range for self -ignition would be about 163 to 204 °C (325 to 400 °F) . The ASTM E 119

test standard [2] also mentions preventing the passage of hot gases without specific

reference to smoke. However, there has been increasing evidence in recent years of the

need to consider the regulation of smoke coming through the walls as part of the criteria

for containing the fire. The passage of excessive smoke into an adjacent dwelling unit

would endanger the occupants of the adjacent unit. In view of the above, the standard

ASTM E 119 time-temperature curve was used in this test program, and performance criteria

were adopted as follows:

1. There should be no passage of flame through the wall as a result of the

DWV installation.

2. The temperature rise on the unexposed surface of the wall should not be

affected by the DWV installation and should not exceed 181 °C (325 °F)

at any measured point. This corresponds to the highest temperature

allowed at any point on the surface according to the ASTM test standard.

The temperatures recorded on the laterals are not regarded as wall sur- face temperatures.

3. Large quantities of smoke should not pass through the unexposed face.

This last criterion is not defined in quantitative terms but was based

on observations during the test which indicated when heavy smoke was

seen to be issuing from the construction.

The above three criteria were used to judge the extent to which the wall assembly

tested had met the requirements for the one-hour fire endurance. No hose stream tests

(optional in ASTM E 119) were conducted.

2. TEST PROCEDURE

2.1. Construction

2.1.1. Test 1 A one-hour fire-rated wall 10 feet high by 16 feet long, constructed of nominal'* 2x4 fir studs with one layer of 5/8-inch type X gypsum board on each side was built

into a test frame for the NBS wall furnace. Four plumbing chases with interior cross sections of 20 x 20 inches and heights of 12 feet were attached to one side of the wall.

This wall served as a common wall for each of the chases as seen in figure 1. The other three side walls of each chase were also constructed with 2x4 fir studs

with 5/8-inch type X gypsum board on each side. The chases were closed at the top and

bottom. The side of the common wall opposite the chases formed the closure to the NBS

wall furnace and was subjected to the standard ASTM E 119 fire exposure applicable to

construction assemblies [2] . This arrangement permitted the simultaneous testing of

four plumbing chases.

Chase 1, sketched in figure 2, had a 4-inch PVC stack and three 1-1/2-inch PVC laterals.^ One lateral near the bottom of the chase penetrated the wall into the furnace.

The furnace pressure at the point of penetration was +0.02 inches of water relative to the pressure in the chase. This represents a pressure which would likely be found about

20 inches above the floor in a room involved in fire, with no building stack effect.

Two laterals passed through the opposite wall of the chase, one at the same elevation as the lateral entering the furnace and one 8 feet above it. The lateral into the

furnace represented a kitchen sink or lavatory drain in the room of fire origin. The

other two laterals represented locations where the fire could pass from the chase into

other dwelling unit rooms on the same floor or on the floor above. The openings around

all of the laterals were sealed with plaster spackling and covered with escutcheon

plates. An expansion joint in the 4-inch stack was located at the simulated second

All lumber sizes refer to nominal dimensions in inches.

Throughout the report the word "lateral" is synonymous with "fixture drain" or "trap

arm" passing through the chase wall.

3
floor level. Water-filled PVC P traps were located at the end of each lateral.

Except for the ones in the furnace, these traps were held in place by wires to simulate

the attachment support represented by a sink. The bottom of the stack was attached to a 90-degree elbow which led out through the unexposed chase wall to the atmosphere. This

configuration represented an attachment to a vented sewer line. The top of the stack

extended 1 foot above the top of the chase and opened into the upper part of the test

building. Although the chase was sealed the stack was open at the top and bottom. This

permitted an appreciable induced airflow through the stack when the chase became hot.

A photograph of the installation attached to the rear wall of the chase is shown in

figure 3. The DWV piping and the chase construction were nominally identical to the construction being used in the multi-family units of some experimental factory built homes.

However, the chase did not contain other piping (e.g., copper hot and cold water supply)

or wiring. The kitchen sink drain system was chosen because it was deemed to be more

critical both in terms of the likelihood of a fire exposure and the potential fire

severity.

Chases 2 and 3 tested modifications of the construction in chase 1 which might

improve its fire performance.

Chase 2 was identical to chase 1 except that each of the laterals was enclosed in a sleeve from the hub of the tee to a point 1/4 inch outside of the chase wall where it was covered with an escutcheon plate. The sleeve was a section of 2-inch standard

weight galvanized iron water pipe. The intended purpose of the sleeve was to restrict

the burning and collapse of the lateral, and thus to protect the wall penetration.

The installation in chase 3 as shown in figure 4 was similar to that in chase 1 except that the PVC laterals were replaced by laterals of galvanized iron. They penetrated the chase wall at the same elevation but the connections of the laterals to the

stack were made at a location below the neutral pressure plane in the furnace which was

the simulated floor level in the chase. This necessitated the incorporation of a vertical section of a 2-inch galvanized iron pipe as seen in the photograph in figure 5. This modification was intended to counter the pressure-induced flow of hot furnace gases

into the stack.

Chase 4 contained no plumbing and had no penetration holes. It served as a control

to determine how much of the temperature rise in the chase was due to heat transmitted

directly through the walls. The exposed side of the wall before the test is shown in

figure 6. The principal construction features of this wall and chase arrangement and

all other assemblies are summarized in table 1.

2.1.2. Test 2 The construction of the wall and chase assembly was changed for the second test.

The wall segments enclosing the chases consisted of only a single layer of 5/8-inch type

X gypsum board nailed to the outside of the studs as illustrated schematically in figure

7. In this arrangement, the plumbing stacks inside of the chases would be exposed

directly to burning studs, and there was only one layer of gypsum board separating the

furnace and the stacks. This can be seen in the photograph of chase 5 in figure 8.

The DWV installation in chases 5 and 6 were duplicates of those in chases 1 and 2 of Test 1. In chase 7 a hubless cast iron stack was used with PVC laterals, as seen in

figures 9 and 10. The hubless cast iron stack was used again in chase 8 with galvanized

iron laterals to provide an all metal system for comparison. The unexposed sides of the

chases before the test are shown in figure 11.

2.1.3. Test 3 A comparison of the fire performance of PVC, ABS, copper, and cast iron DWV systems

installed inside of a typical dwelling separation wall was made in the third test. The

basic DWV configurations were repeated except that 2-inch stacks were used and they were confined within a 2 x 4 fir stud wall with one layer of 5/8-inch type X gypsum board on each side. Holes of sufficient size were cut into the board to accommodate the hubs of

the 2 X 1-1/2-inch reducing sanitary tees. The termination of the stacks at the top and

bottom of the wall was the same as it was when installed in the chases. The wall con- struction was such that the 5/8-inch plywood subfloor and the top and bottom 2x4

plates which would be present in an actual building installation were properly simulated

4
Table 1. Construction Details and Summary of Test Results

Test

No.

1-1

1-2 1-3

1- A

2- 1 2-2 2-3

2-4

Construction

Details

Stack Materials

20" X 20" Chases of 2" X

4" Wood Studs Covered with

5/8" Type X Gypsum Board Both Inside and Outside

Same as for Test No. 1 Except 5/8" Gypsum Board

Not on Inside of Chases

4" PVC

4" PVC

4" PVC None

4" PVC

4" PVC

4" Cast Iron, Hubless

4" Cast Iron, Hubless

Time to Failure (Minutes)

Lateral Materials

Wall Penetration

Flamethrough Surface Terap. Rise (181 °C) 1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" PVC/Steel Sleeve Sealed

1-1/2" Galvanized Iron'' Sealed

None None

1-1/2" PVC . Sealed

1-1/2" PVC/Steel Sleeve Sealed

1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" Galvanized Iron Sealed

> 60"

> 60"

> 60^^

> 60"

> 60"

> 60"

60°

60"

60"

60"

60"

60"

60"

60"

Heavy

Smoke

' 60"

> 60"

> 60"

> 60"

> 60"

> 60"

> 60"

> 60"

3-1 2" X 4" Wood Stud Wall

3-2 16" on Centers with 5/8"

3-3 Gypsum Board on each Face^

3- 4 (3-1/2" Cavity)

4- 1 2" X 6" Wood Stud Wall

4-2 16" on Centers with 5/8"

4-3 Gypsum Board on each Face

4- 4 (5-1/2" Cavity)

5- 1 Wood Stud Wall Formed with

5-2 Double Row of 2" X 4" Studs

5-3 On 10" Plate. See fig. 15

5- 4 (9-1/2" Cavity)

6- 1 2" X 4" Steel Stud Wall

6-2 16" on Centers See fig. 16

6- 3 Gypsum Board on each Face

5-4 (3-1/2" Cavity)

7- 1 2" X 6" Wood Stud Wall

7-2 16" on Centers^ See fig. 17 7-3 Gypsum Board on each Face

7-4 (5-1/2" Cavity)

2" PVC

2" Copper

2" ABS

2" Galvanized

Iron

PVC Copper

ABS

2" Galvanized

Iron

d pvc" Copper

ABS'^ Cast Iron, Hubless

2" ABS

2" ABS

2" ABS^

2" PVC

ABS

ABS PVC

PVC

1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" Copper Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Sealed

1-1/2" Galvanized Iron Sealed

1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" Copper Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Sealed

1-1/2" Galvanized Iron Sealed

1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" Copper Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Sealed

1-1/2" Galvanized Iron Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Not Sealed^

1-1/2" ABS Sealed

1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Sealed

1-1/2" ABS Not Sealed*

1-1/2" PVC Sealed

1-1/2" PVC Not Sealed*

> 60"

> 60"

42

> 60"

> 60

> 60

-- 60

> 60

55

> 60

27

> 60

28

19

25

56

> 60 29(27)j

> 60 30(28)^

> 51

> 60"

48

> 60"

> 60

> 60

> 60

> 60

55

> 60

> 60

51

60

> 60

> 60"

45

> 60"

> 60

> 60

> 60

> 60

42

> 60

23

> 60

25

40

60

60

60

8-1

8-2 8-3

8-4

Construction of Wall is Similar to that of Test 5 (9-1/2" Cavity)

ABS

PVC

ABS PVC

1-1/2" ABS

1-1/2" PVC

2" ABS

2" PVC

Sealed Sealed

Sealed

Sealed

4460

60

60

> 60

> 60

> 60

17

60

60

60

9-1 Construction of Wall is 2" Copper

9-2 Similar to that of Tests 2" PVC

9-3 4 and 7 2" ABS

9-4 (5-1/2" Cavity) 2" ABS

1-1/2" Copper

1-1/2" PVC** 1-1/2" ABS*' 1-1/2" ABs''

Not Sealed^

Not Sealed®

Not Sealed^

Not Sealed®

> 60

> 60

> 60

21

> 60

> 60

> 60

60

3434

5

10-1 Construction is Similar 2" ABS

10-2 To that of Test 6, with 2" PVC 10-3 Glass Fiber Insulation 2" ABS

10-4 (3-1/2" Cavity) 2" PVC

1-1/2" ABS

1-1/2" PVC 1-1/2" ABS

1-1/2" PVC

Sealed Sealed

Not Sealed®

Not Sealed®

25

5522

16

Estimated. Gas off at 45 min (Test 1), 50 min (Test 2), and 56 min (Test 3). With a drop in elevation before joining a double upright wye on the stack. ^Holes in gypsum board for hub of a 2" X 1-1/2" reducing sanitary tee. of 4" double sanitary tee penetrated gypsum wall board. ^Stack bottom closed, ^1/2 " oversized hole. ^1" oversized hole. ^Lateral offset from stack but located in same stud space. ^Lateral offset from stack but located in adjacent stud space, -'corrected (and uncorrected) time to failure due to slight departure from standard exposure.

5
at the "floor" locations. The wall construction and location of the stacks are shown in

figure 12. The cross section of the wall showing the DWV installation can be seen in

figure 13. A photograph of the wall under construction is seen in figure 14. The walls

did not contain other piping (e.g., copper hot and cold water supply) or wiring.

2.1.4. Test 4 The construction of the wall and the ABS , PVC, copper and iron DWV system in Test 4 was identical to that of Test 3 except that 2x6 fir studs were used instead of 2 x 4 fir studs.

2.1.5. Test 5

In Test 5 the DWV systems used in the same materials and configurations as Test 3,

but the stacks were 4 inches instead of 2 inches. The wall construction was similar to

the other two wall tests except that it was made up of a double row of 2 x 4 studs

attached to a 2 x 10 plate as shown in the sketch in figure 15. The 1-1/2-inch laterals

were connected to the 4-inch double sanitary tee at the lower part of the stack and to the

4-inch single sanitary tee near the top of the stack by means of appropriate reducers.

The hubs of the 4-inch tees protruded slightly through the holes in the gypsum board at

each side of the wall. While reducing double sanitary tees would normally be used for

this type of installation, the more space-consuming combination used in this test does occur occasionally in the field and represents a very severe case. The penetration

holes were sealed with spackling compound. The plates and the 5/8-inch plywood subfloor

at the floor and ceiling elevations were simulated in this test in the same manner as they were for the previous wall tests.

2.1.6. Test 6 A wall assembly was constructed of 2 x 4 steel studs with one layer of 5/8-inch

type X gypsum board on each side. The steel studs were placed 16 inches on centers and

the wall was divided into four isolated plumbing cavities by four double steel studs

with gypsum board strips attached to each stud lining the cavity. A ceiling-floor

assembly was simulated at the 9-foot level by the use of steel runner tracks and 6-inch

asbestos floor blocks. A ground floor assembly was simulated at the 2-foot level by

the use of steel runner tracks and one layer of gypsum board. Details and dimensions

of the wall construction are shown in figure 16.

The basic DWV configuration previously used was repeated except that 2-inch stacks were installed in each wall cavity. ABS was used in three wall cavities and PVC pipe

and fittings were used in the fourth cavity. Except for ABS installation No. 2, the

penetrations around all laterals were sealed with a plaster spackling compound and

covered with metal escutcheon plates. In installation No. 2, the hole in the gypsum

board was cut 1/2 inch oversize in diameter and was covered with an escutcheon plate

without sealing. The bottoms of all vertical stacks were left open except ABS installation No. 3. In this case the bottom was closed with a cap to simulate a clogged sewer

line

.

Individual water sprinkling systems were installed at the upper level of each plumbing cavity. The arrangement permitted flooding of an individual cavity in the case of

an early flame-through^ failure without disruption of the test for the remaining DWV

installations.

2.1.7. Test 7 This assembly, consisting of 2 x 6 wood studs was similar to that used in Test 4. A 5/8-inch plywood subfloor with 2x6 upper and lower wood plates were installed at

two levels. Details and dimensions of the wall construction and the location of the

DWV installations are shown in figure 17. The DWV plumbing configurations were the same as in Test 6. In wall cavities Nos. 1 and 2, ABS installations were used, with

'° "Flame-through indicates the passage of flame through some region of the unexplored

wall

.

6
3-inch and 2-inch stack sizes respectively. In wall cavities Nos. 3 and 4, PVC assemblies were used with 3-inch and 2-inch stack sizes, respectively. All laterals were

1-1/2 inches in diameter. The penetrations in the gypsum board around the laterals of

assemblies Nos. 1 and 3 were sealed with spackling compound and were covered with escutcheon plates while the penetrations for No. 2 and No. 4 were left unsealed and were covered

only with escutcheon plates. All stacks were left open to the atmosphere at the top and

bottom.

2.1.8. Test 8 The wall construction for Test 8 was similar to that used in Test 5. The DWV con- figurations were similar to those of other tests as shown in figure 13. ABS was used

in wall cavities Nos. 1 and 3 and with 1-1/2-inch and 2-inch lateral sizes, respectively

In wall cavities Nos. 2 and 4, PVC assemblies were used with 1-1/2-inch and 2-inch lateral sizes, respectively. All stacks were 4 inches in diameter and all penetrations in

the walls were sealed with spackling compound and covered with escutcheon plates.

Reducing sanitary tees were used so that the hubs did not penetrate through the wall as they did in Test 5.

2.1.9. Test 9 Variations in the stack configurations were introduced in Test 9. A comparison

with Test 4 showed the effects of sealing penetrations. The wall construction remained

identical to Tests 4 and 7 using 2x6 fir studs. All the DWV installations maintained

the same features of 2-inch stacks with 1-1/2-inch laterals. Where laterals penetrated

the gypsum board holes were cut 1 inch oversize in diameter, left unsealed, and covered

with escutcheon plates. Wall cavity No. 1 contained copper piping using the basic DWV

configuration as shown in figure 13. A kitchen cabinet with sink was installed on the

unexposed side of the wall assembly for this configuration. ABS was used in wall cavities 3 and 4 while PVC was used in wall cavity No. 2. Laterals made a right angle turn

into the vertical stack, but were included in the same stud space in installations Nos. 2 and 3. In wall cavity No. 4 the laterals and stack were in adjacent stud spaces con- nected by a pipe running through a stud. Details of the piping assembly and wall con- struction can be seen in figure 18. The top and bottom of all vertical stacks were left

open to the atmosphere.

2.1.10. Test 10

The construction of the wall for Test 10 was identical to that of Test 6 except

that a glass fiber insulation batt was installed in the stud cavities. ABS was used

in wall cavities Nos. 1 and 3 while PVC was used in wall cavities Nos. 2 and 4. The

basic DWV configuration was repeated for all assemblies except that 2-inch stacks with

1-1/2-inch laterals were used. All lateral penetrations of the gypsum wall were cut

1 inch oversize in diameter. The openings were sealed with spackling compound and

covered with escutcheon plates for installations Nos. 1 and 2. The openings around the

laterals to installations Nos. 3 and 4 were left unsealed and covered with escutcheon

plates. All stacks were left open at the bottom, and in an effort to control smoke

buildup in the test building, the open stacks were extended at the top to exhaust outside the building.

2.2. Instrumentation

The temperatures were monitored with chromel-alumel thermocouples at various points

on the surface of the pipes and tees, in the air inside of the pipe, and on the surfaces

of the walls and chases. The thermocouple locations for Tests 1 and 2 are described in

table 2 and are illustrated for chase 1 in figure 2. Selected thermocouple locations

for Tests 3 through 10 are described in table 3 and are illustrated in figure 13. Additional thermocouples within the stud spaces are shown in figures 16 and 17. Figure 19

shows the location of the unexposed surface thermocouples mounted under 6 x 6 x 0.4-inch

felted asbestos pads as prescribed in appendix 2 of ASTM E 119. These are designated

in this report as "ASTM thermocouples."

Gas concentrations in the wall cavities were measured by several techniques at a point 1 foot above the lower lateral. Concentrations of CO, HCl , and HCN in the chases

and in the wall cavities were determined with coiiunercial colorimetric detector tubes.

Non-dispersive infrared gas analyzers were used for continuous monitoring of CO and COj

and liquid diffusion cell oxygen meters were used for O^. Sampling lines between the

7
instruments and the wall cavities were trapped at room and dry ice temperatures to remove water and other condensable combustion products. In Test 6 HCl was also determined by collecting grab samples of gas with evacuated bulbs and subsequently analyzing

the water rinsings for chloride content with a chloride ion-selective electrode.

Additional instrumentation included the use of an anemometer for measuring airflow

through the vertical stacks. Pads of cotton were occasionally placed in contact with

the exposed surface of the chase wall in order to test for possible ignition from the

passage of hot gas through cracks or openings in the wall. The cotton pads were USP

absorbent, sterilized, surgical cotton.

Table 2. Thermocouple Locations for Each Chase

in Tests 1 and 2 (cf fig. 2)

1. On surface of lateral just inside of furnace.

2 . On surface of lateral just inside of the exposed wall at the chase.

3. On surface of lower lateral just outside of unexposed wall of chase

4. On surface of upper lateral just outside of unexposed wall of chase

5. Centered inside the upper portion of the 90° bend at the bottom of the stack.

6. Centered inside of the double sanitary tee.

7. Centered inside of the stack midway between the laterals.

8. Centered inside of the upper tee.

9. On the surface at the crotch of the double sanitary tee.

10. On the surface of the stack midway between the laterals.

11. In the air space between the stack and the exposed wall of the chase midway

between the laterals.

* 12. ASTM thermocouple near the top of the unexposed side of the exposed wall of the

chase

.

* 13. ASTM thermocouple near the top of the inside surface of the chase wall away from

the furnace.

14. ASTM thermocouple near the top of the outside surface of the chase wall away from

the furnace.

* 15. ASTM thermocouple on the unexposed surface of the exposed wall of the chase one foot above the lower lateral.

16. ASTM thermocouple on the unexposed surface of the chase wall away from the furnace

and one foot above the lower lateral.

* 17. Inside of the exposed wall on the surface of the unexposed layer of gypsum board

near the top.

18. Inside of the exposed wall on the surface of the exposed layer of gypsum board

near the top.

19. Same as 18 but in wall between chases.

20. Same as 17 but in wall between chases.

21. Same as 12 but in wall between chases.

Not used in Test 2.

8
Table 3. Selected Thermocouple Locations in

Tests 3 through 10 (cf. figures 13, 16, 17, and 19)

1. On surface of lateral just inside of furnace.

2. On surface at the crotch of the double sanitary tee.

3. On surface of lower lateral just outside of the wall on the unexposed side.

4. On surface of upper lateral just outside of the wall.

5. Centered inside of the stack at the simulated lower floor level.

6. Centered inside the double sanitary tee.

7. Centered in the stack midway between the laterals.

8. Centered inside the upper tee.

9. On the outside surface of the stack at the same elevation as thermocouple 7.

10. ASTM thermocouple 1 foot above the lower lateral.

11. ASTM thermocouple 1 foot below simulated ceiling level.

12. ASTM thermocouple 6 inches to the left of thermocouple 11.

13. On the surface of the stud closest to the stack, midway between the two layers of

gypsum board, and at the same elevation as thermocouple 7.

14. On the surface of the adjacent stud (not containing DWV stack).

9
Smoke meters which measured light transmission through the smoke over an 18-inch

vertical path were installed in the upper part of the chases in Test 1. The light source

was a tungsten filament lamp and the detector was a phototube with a type S-4 surface.

2.3. Conduct of Tests

Except for the placement of the thermocouples which were aligned with the stacks,

the hose stream test was not performed. These tests were conducted in accordance with

the fire endurance test procedure prescribed in ASTM E 119.

The test frame containing the wall assembly with the DWV installed or the combination wall and chase assembly were moved in front of the NBS wall furnace. The joints

between the test frame and the furnace were plastered to provide a seal. Two of the five

furnace exhaust vents were closed off in order to increase positive pressure inside the

furnace. The open area under the test frame through which secondary air passes into the

furnace was adjusted during the test to keep the furnace pressure at the level of the

lateral equal to +0.02 inches of water relative to the pressure at the same elevation in

the test room. The flow rate of natural gas to the furnace was controlled during the

test in order to follow the prescribed ASTM standard E 119 furnace time-temperature curve

as shown in figure 20. Instantaneous temperature readings were recorded using a fastscan data logging system. The duration between readings for a given channel was 2 minutes

or less. Gas samples for indicator tubes were collected about every 10 minutes. The

presence of flames or temperatures hot enough to ignite the cotton pad on the unexposed

surface of the chase was considered to be an indication of a failure as far as fire

penetration was concerned. The time at which these events occurred was recorded. Visual

observations (see appendix A) and color photographs were taken throughout the tests.

Although all tests were planned to last for one hour, some tests were stopped when the

heat or flame penetration reached a point where it was unsafe to continue. This occurred

in 45 minutes, 50 minutes, and 55 minutes in the first, second and third tests, respectively. The remaining tests all lasted for at least one hour. In Tests 6 through 9, the

fire test for a particular DWV installation was terminated by sprinkler flooding whenever

there was obvious flame-through. After completion of each test, the wall was pulled away

from the furnace and photographs were taken of the exposed wall and DWV systems.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Temperature Measurements

Figure 2 0 provides a comparison of the average furnace temperature for Test 1 with

the ASTM E 119 standard time-temperature curve. Furnace control was closely maintained

in all tests except one; in Test 7 it was necessary to add a correction factor to the

recorded failure times according to the procedure described in ASTM E 119. The correction required an adjustment of 2 minutes on the times to failure.

The highest temperature recorded in Test 1 on the unexposed wall of chase 1 was 43

°C (109 °F) and the highest temperature recorded on the laterals outside of this wall was

31 °C (88 °F) . For Test 2 the temperatures at similar locations for the other chases

were nearly the same and in no case exceeded 100 °C (212 °F) . Figure 21 compares both

the temperature of the unexposed surface of the chase walls and the temperatures of the

laterals at the point where they come through the surface with the maximum temperature

allowable on the unexposed surface, according to the ASTM E 119 test procedure. The

temperatures at similar locations for the other chases were nearly the same. Figures 22 through 5 3 provide a record of the temperature data for Tests 3 through

10. Thermocouples Nos. 3 and 4 recorded the temperatures on the lower and upper laterals

at the point where they come through the unexposed surface of the chase walls. The

horizontal lines indicate the allowable temperature rise (181 °C or 325 °F) for a thermocouple on the unexposed surface of a rated fire wall and indicate when the temperature

exceeded one of the criteria.

3.2. Cotton Pad Test and Flame-Through Time

There was no ignition of the cotton pad in contact with the unexposed surface of any

of the chases or with the laterals passing through the unexposed chase walls at any time

during the first two tests. In the third test the cotton pad in contact with the lower

10
ABS lateral ignited m 42 minutes. There was no ignition of the cotton pad associated

with any of the other DWV systems during the 55 minutes of this test even though the

surface temperature of the copper lateral was up to 500 °C. There was no ignition of

the cotton pads for any of the DWV systems in Test 4. In Test 5, flames came through

around the ABS lateral at 27 minutes and around the PVC lateral at 55 minutes. In this

test the 4-inch hubs of the PVC and ABS tees penetrated the wall. There was no ignition

of the cotton in contact with the metal laterals in Test 5. In Test 6, flames came out

through the laterals of all three ABS systems at 19, 25 and 28 minutes, respectively,

and through the PVC lateral at 56 minutes. In Test 7 flames came out around the unsealed

penetration at the ABS and PVC laterals at 27 and 28 minutes, respectively. In Test 8,

flames came through around the ABS lateral at 44 minutes and ignited a cotton pad. A

cotton pad was ignited at the lower ABS lateral in 21 minutes during Test 9. Although

the copper lateral reached 500 °C there was no ignition of the cotton pad. All four DWV

systems ignited the cotton pad during Test 10. Failure by flame-through or ignition

occurred at 22 and 25 minutes for the two ABS systems and at 16 and 55 minutes, respectively, for the two PVC systems.

3.3. Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations measured with the colorimetric tubes during Tests 1 and 2 are tabulated in tables 4 and 5. The concentrations of HCl and CO quickly went out of

range of the detecting tubes in the third test, which involved the smallest cavity

volume (2x4 wood-stud wall) . The CO and CO2 concentrations measured with the infrared

analyzers are shown in figure 54 for chase 1. The CO concentration for chase 5 is shown

in figure 55. For the PVC installation in Test 3 the CO concentration is presented in

figure 56 up to the time the measurements had to be stopped due to the buildup of water

in the inlet piping to the infrared analyzer. The results of gas concentrations measured

in the wall cavities for Tests 6 through 9 by colorimetric indicator tubes are presented

in tables 6 and 7. Some measurements in Test 6 using ion-selective electrodes indicated

HCl concentrations as high as 30 percent which is not inconsistant with the amount of PVC

in the cavity, but the method was not thoroughly checked out for this application. The

detector tubes for HCl and HCN had insufficient ranges for the concentrations encountered

within the wall cavities. The results of continuous monitoring of CO, CO2 and O2 are shown in figures 57 through 63 for Tests 6 through 10. In all ABS installations in which

a measurement was made, the curves show the typical increase of CO2 as the O2 concentration decreased and the final buildup of CO as the O2 content nearea depletion. No

continuous monitoring data could be obtained for the PVC installation in Tests 6 and 9 because the sampling line had a tendency to clog with smoke particulates and tarry

condensates. During Test 7 the same problem was encountered between 3 and 13 minutes.

In test 10, the following gas concentration readings were taken in the test building

at the 6-foot level at 30 minutes into the test: CO - 2,000 ppm, HCl - 25 ppm, HCN - 15

ppm. Due to the increased buildup of smoke and toxic gases, the observers left the area

and no further readings were taken.

3.4. Airflow Measurements

The anemometer readings of air velocity through vertical stacks are presented in

table 8. These readings were taken at the bottom of all open stacks in Tests 6 through

9. The zero air velocity readings are indicative of the times when vertical stacks

deformed in a manner to prevent passage of air through them.

3.5. Smoke Density

The transmission of light through the smoke in the upper section of the four chases

in Test 1 is compared in figure 64. Smoke meters were not used in any of the subsequent

tests

.

11
Table 4 . Gas Concentrations in Test 1

Time HCl CO

"^^"•^^^ Chase (ppm) (ppm)

4:15 1 8

6:50 1 12

8:00 1

9:45 1

10:00 1 0

2000

2500

11:10 2 100

12:30 1 0

13:00 2 60

14:25 2 >4000

15:40 1 0

18:45 2 0

20:35

33:30 1 0

36:00 2 15

40:20 1 10

44:30 1 .10

47:00 1 0

12
Table 5. Gas Concentrations in Test 2

Time HCl CO

mln: sec Chase (ppm) (ppm)

3:43 7 10

4:50 5 90

5:30 6 90

6:15 ^ 5 2800

7:15 6 3000

8:05 7 3200

9:00 8 >4000

10:15 5 600

15:15 6 3000

16:30 8 0

17:30 6 40

18:20 7 0

19:20 • 8 0

21:30 5 320

22:50 6 225

29:40 5 >4000

30:40 6 >4000

34:25 5 >500

13
Table 6. Gas Concentrations

Test 6

time ABS #1 time ABS #2 time ABS #3 time PVC #4

3:00 5,000 4:15 5,000 5:00 5,000 7:10 5,000

8:00 5,000 7:45 5,000 13:30 5,000 10:10 5,000

12:14 5,000 9:00 5,000 19:10 40.000 33:00

CO 17:30 20,000 13:15 5,000 21:40 30,000

ppm 19:30 40,000 17:50 50,000

23:00 40,000

28:00 30,000

5:00

8:00 trace

T c . r\r\ 1J . UU

nL.± on .in ZU . lU ~0 nnn ~Z , UUU

ppm 9 R • on , UUU

35:00

45:00

55:00

14:00 >150 14:15 >150 15:15 >150 18:00 ~ 1

HCN 24:10 >30

ppm 26:40 >50

1 _. 38:00 >150

Test 7

time ABS #2 time PVC #4

5:00 10,000 7:45 1,300

CO 8:30 10,000 11:00 1,300

ppm 13:00 2,500 16:45 1,300

17:00 32,500 22:00 >40,000

22:00 >40,000 26:00 > 70,000

4:00 150

HCl 6:30 100

ppm 12:00 225

15:30 340

23:30 > 1,000

24:30 > 2,000

14
Table 7. Gas Concentrations

Test 8

time ABS #1 time PVC #2

CO 5:45 3,000 8:30 3,000

ppm 11 : 45 3,000 14:15 2,500

17 : 15 4,000 20:00 2,000

24: 30 25,000 28:00 5,000

30:45 30,000 34:00 4,000

36:00 40,000 39:30 3,700

43:00 50,000 50:00 2,000

HCN 7 : 30 2 ppm 13:00 10

19:00 30

27:00 >180

33:00 >180

38: 15 >300

45:00

HCl 10:10 100

ppm 15:30 200

22:00 220

29:00 450

35:00 800

41:30 1,200

51:30 -2,000

Test 9

time ABS #3 time PVC #2

CO 3:50 10,000 5:10 10,000

ppm 9:20 2,000 10:30 5,000

14:30 2,000 16:00 5,000

20:00 12,000 30:00 55,000

29:00 25,000

57:00 60,000

HCN 6:00 15

ppm 11:30 10

17:10 10

27:30 >30

33:00 »30

58:00 30

HCl 7:15 100

ppm 13:30 300

17:50 550

21:40 1,120

24:20 1,400

26:45 1,400

28:50 2,000

31:00 >2,000

15
Table 8. Air Velocities Into the Bottom of Stacks (ft/mln)

Time

(mln

)

Test 6 Test 7 ABS #1 ABS #2 ABS #3 PVC #4 ARS ^5^1 raARSJ_J kJ #?/T X V ft J

3 140 230 * 550 200 490 100

6 0 0 120

10 1^0 340 100 480 100

13 195 0 0 500 180

19 500 0

22 0

25 520

30 0

Bottom of stack capped,

Time Test Test 9

lin

)

ABS #1 PVC #2 ABS #3 PVC #4 Cu #1 PVC #2 ABS n3 ABS #4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 160 520 240 380 0 0 0 0

7 560 580 360 490 125 135 110 120

10 560 460 380 460 180 160 140 140

15 560 510 400 550 160 170 145 180

18 50 165 170 160 180

20 0 460 350 550 170 175 145 180

23 200 180 50 50 200

25 100 50 480 600 100 50 50 190

30 50 50 520 620 90 30 50 185

35 100 50 380 560 75 20 60 160

40 0 0 500 0 0 0 70 145

45 70 80 60 70 120

50 0 0 0 40 60

55 0 0

16
4. DISCUSSION

4.1. DWV in Plumbing Chases

The first two fire tests were designed to determine whether PVC DWV systems could

be a potential factor in the spread of fire or smoke through a plumbing chase to other

dwelling units on the same floor or to the floor above; and if there were a fire spread

problem, how effective certain counter-measures would be. All openings around laterals were sealed. The tests showed that the systems as installed were generally acceptable

and hence, modifications were not needed. No flames and only a minor amount of smoke

penetrated into the "adjacent dwelling unit" areas during the test period. The maximum

temperature recorded on the unexposed wall of chase 1 was 43 °C (109 °F) and the highest

temperature recorded on the laterals at the unexposed side of this chase was 31 °C

(88 . The maximum temperatures at the equivalent locations in chase 5 were 95 °C

(203 °F) and 64 °C (147 °F) , respectively. These temperatures were rising very slowly

when the test was terminated at 45 minutes in the first test and 50 minutes in the

second test. It was not possible to ignite the cotton pads at any point on the unexposed

surface of the chases in either of these tests.

Neither of the first two tests could be continued for the full hour. The gas

supply to the furnace had to be shut off in 45 minutes due to a breakthrough of flames

between the wall and the test frame on the first test. This had nothing to do with the

chases or the plumbing and was corrected in the succeeding tests by adding additional

protection at these joints. The test assembly remained in place after the gas was shut

down and the chases were exposed to the burning studs for the remainder of the hour.

The second test was stopped (gas off) at 50 minutes when the unexposed surface of the

wall between chases 1 and 2 indicated a temperature of 483 °C (901 °F) and was rising

rapidly. Again, this was not due to the DWV installation. Figure 65 shows the vertical

crack in the third gypsum board panel which permitted a high heat transfer rate to the

back wall. The reason why the crack developed as early as it did is not known. The

test was stopped to examine the condition of the pipe at this time. Sprinklers which

had been installed in the chase were turned on as soon as the gas supply to the furnace

was turned off. The temperature rises of the unexposed surfaces of the walls between the

other chases were well below 181 °C (325 °F) at the time the test was terminated. It is

presumed that the satisfactory performance would have continued to at least 60 minutes

from the beginning of the test in the absence of a premature failure of furnace frame

seal in the first test and a wall failure not associated with the DWV in the second

test.

During the first test the concentration of HCl measured in the chases was an order

of magnitude lower than the CO concentration. In an actual installation it is likely

that the HCl will be essentially confined to the chase and much of it absorbed in the

moist walls. In the second test it was found that the CO levels in the chases containing

the metal DWV was as high as that in the chases containing plastic DWV due to the contribution of the burning wood studs.

There are obviously different physiological and toxic effects of HCl and CO on people. The suggested threshold limit values [3] are 5 ppm for HCl and 50 ppm for CO. These are safe limits at which a worker can perform 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. A

person can tolerate considerably higher values than these over the shorter exposure

times encountered in fires. Concentrations of 1,000 ppm of HCl are considered dangerous

if breathed from 30 to 60 minutes and concentrations of 2,000 of CO will produce uncon- sciousness in about 30 minutes [4]

.

Most of the smoke present in the observation room came out of the top of the stacks

which were vented into the top of the room and eventually descended to the level of the

observers. A lesser amount came from the leakage between the test wall and the furnace

test frame which would not have been a source in actual construction. There was a minor

contribution of smoke and toxic gases due to leakage around the lateral penetrations due

to cracks developing in the plaster seal. Although this source would be present in

practice, it did not appear to be a serious factor in these tests.

4.2. DWV in Wood-Stud Walls

Six full-scale tests were conducted on wood-stud walls with various DWV systems in

three basic types of wall construction. The principle variables were the depth of the

wall, the type and size of DWV and the sealing of the penetrations. The effect of an offset stack was also investigated. These tests were designed for the purpose of studying

these test parameters and correlating test results within the group. Table 1 provides a summary of the results for the entire ten tests.

17
In Test 3, PVC was compared with ABS and two metal DWV systems installed within a 2 X 4 wood-stud wall. The ABS pipe caused fire to spread to the unexposed side of the

wall in 42 minutes. Because of this early failure the condition of the wall was such

that the test had to be terminated after 56 minutes. For the other DWV systems, flame

did not spread to the unexposed side of the wall. A 181 °C (325 °F) temperature rise of

the pipe just outside of the unexposed wall occurred in 30 minutes for the copper, 37

minutes for the ABS, and 52 minutes for the galvanized iron. The temperature increases

were due simply to heat conduction through the metal laterals and heat conduction in

conjunction with flame spread in the case of the ABS lateral. The temperature in the

PVC pipe at the same location had increased only 120 °C (216 °F) after 55 minutes and was rising very slowly.

The failure based on the 181 °C (325 °F) temperature-rise criterion at any one of

the three ASTM thermocouples located on each section of the unexposed surface of the

wall, occurred at 48 minutes for ABS and 51 minutes for PVC. The highest temperatures

were at the highest elevations on the wall. There were no failures of the section of

the wall containing the metal piping systems. The sequence of events leading to the

fire penetration failures seemed to be: (1) flaming of the wood studs behind all of the

fire-exposed gypsum board joints in the furnace, (2) burning of the pipe inside the wall

cavity, and (3) disintegration and collapse of the exposed gypsum board.

The entrance of hot furnace gases into the wall cavity left by the burnout of the

pipe did not appear to be a major factor because the temperatures at 30 minutes at midheight were essentially the same for all the cavities. The damage to the section of the

wall containing the ABS piping occurred sooner and was more severe than it was for the

part of the wall containing the PVC piping. Those panels protecting the metal plumbing

did not break up, and the empty wall cavities adjacent to them were not approaching

failure at the end of the test.

The construction used in Test 4 was the same as that in Test 3 except that the 2 x

4 studs were replaced by 2 x 6 studs thereby providing a deeper wall cavity. In this

test the hubs of the sanitary tees did not protrude through the gypsum board. There were no failures due to excessive temperature rises or flame-through for either of the

plastic or metal DWV systems. The fire-exposed gypsum board remained intact almost to the end of the test.

In Test 5, the 4-inch stacks were enclosed in a double 2x4 wood-stud wall with

the studs secured to 2 x 10 plates. Four-inch sanitary tees were used, and their hubs

protruded through the gypsum board on each side of the wall. This simulated a 4-inch

diameter lateral penetrating the wall and created an especially severe situation.

Flames came out of the lower ABS lateral on the unexposed side of the wall in 27 minutes

An excessive temperature rise was recorded by one ASTM thermocouple on the section of

wall containing the PVC in 55 minutes. At the same time, the paper in one area of the

unexposed surface of the gypsum board burst into flame. At 55 minutes flames came out

of the lower PVC lateral on the same side of the wall. A large amount of smoke penetrated the ABS upper lateral at 23 minutes and the PVC lower lateral at 42 minutes.

When the lower part of the plastic stacks started to soften, the upper sections

began to sag pulling the laterals down with them. This caused the seals around the

lateral penetrations to rupture and allowed large quantities of smoke to escape. If

this smoke were confined in a normal sized room, the conditions there would be untenable

in a short time. This demonstrates one aspect of the importance of adequately supportin

the plastic stacks along their length.

The effect of cavity depth, stack diameter, and lateral diameter are illustrated in

table 1. Although a 1-1/2-inch lateral was actually used in Test 5, the 4-inch hub

penetrated the gypsum wall board so that the lateral was effectively slightly over 4 inches in diameter at the point of wall penetration. The comparison of the results of

Test 3 and 5 with Test 4 indicates the importance of providing adequate space for the

stack and the fittings. If this space is provided, it appears that both PVC and ABS may

be used with no serious decrease in fire performance; if it is not, the fire performance

may degrade appreciably. One lesson learned in these tests is the importance of using

reducing sanitary tees instead of using regular sanitary tees with reducers, at least in

those cases where the space is severely restricted. Although it appears logical that

there would be an economical advantage to using the reducing tees, it is possible for a supplier to fill orders for reducing tees by substituting regular tees with inserts. If

the space provided is only adequate for a reducing tee, the acceptance of a regular tee

with inserts could result in a serious deficiency from a fire standpoint.

18
In Test 7 was studied the effect of variations in installation parameters, increased

vertical stack diameter and open penetrations around laterals, in a 2 x 6 wood-stud wall

as compared with a similar wall assembly in Test 4. When the distance between the vertical stack and the wall was decreased in this test by increasing the stack diameter from

2 to 3 inches, the 2x6 wall with sealed penetrations barely passed the 181 °C (325 °F)

temperature-rise acceptance criteria. At 60 minutes, failure due to excessive temperature rise was recorded for PVC on the unexposed wall surface of thermocouple No. 10.

The open penetrations around the laterals for the 2-inch stack ABS and PVC DWV installations caused the fire to penetrate the wall at 27 and 28 minutes, respectively, whereas

no failure occurred for the corresponding DWV installations with sealed penetrations in

Test 4. A correction of +2 minutes was applied to the times in Test 7 to account for a slight departure from the standard exposure.

Test 8 repeated the double 2x4 wood-stud wall construction with the studs secured

to 2 X 10 plates. In the prior test, the sanitary tees had protruded through the gypsum

wall resulting in a 4-inch penetration in the wall. In this test reducing sanitary tees were used which did not protrude through the gypsum wall and therefore a less severe and more typical arrangement was tested. At 17 minutes, heavy smoke was coming out around the

upper P trap to stack 1. At 44 minutes flame- through occurred on ABS cavity No. 1 at the

lower lat-eral. Cavity No. 1 had included a reducing bushing from the tee to the 1-1/2-

inch lateral whereas cavity No. 3 had a 2-inch lateral connected to the reducing tee.

In Test 9 the DWV systems were enclosed in a 2 x 6 wood-stud wall assembly as in

Tests 4 and 7. Offset stack-piping configurations were used in cavities 2, 3 and 4 and

all systems had unsealed lateral penetrations through the gypsum wall. The introduction

of the different DWV configuration with the stack offset from the lateral resulted in no flame-through in cavities 2 and 3. When the direct stack-lateral configuration had been

used with unsealed penetrations in Test 7 with both ABS and PVC piping, flame-through

occurred.

Whereas the metal plumbing in these tests was not responsible for any failures of

the wall with regard to flame-through or excessive temperature rises on the unexposed

surface of the wall, there were temperature rises on the surface of the copper lateral

well over 181 °C {325 °F) due to its high thermal conductivity.

Should the ASTM E 119 maximum temperature-rise criterion on the unexposed surface

include the surface of the lateral? Until there is some demonstration that these high

lateral temperatures significantly increase the fire hazard, it would seem reasonable to

exclude the lateral temperature from the specification. However, if the surface of the

lateral is permitted to rise more than 181 °C (325 °F) , this relaxation must be defined

in relation to the extensive surface area of the wall. The restriction on the surface

temperature rise of a wall with one or more pipe openings can hardly be relaxed without

rethinking the requirements for walls in general. Furthermore, there is some justification for providing a larger margin of safety for the wall surface, in that materials

stored against it could substantially increase its temperature due to heat trapping. On

the other hand, heat conduction along the lateral to the water filled trap would reduce

this heat trapping effect on the surface of the pipe.

A fair test that should be applied to the pipe on the unexposed side of the wall,

however, is to determine whether it can ignite materials in contact with it. One can easily imagine times when there may be cloth draped over the drain pipe under a sink,

and other combustibles stored within an enclosed closet or vanity. Even though the

copper lateral reached 500 °C (932 °F) in Tests 3 and 9, the cotton pad in contact with

the pipe only browned and charred without igniting. In Test 9 the cabinet on the unex- posed side was filled with crumpled newspapers without ignition. Thus, there was no failure of the copper DWV according to the flame-through criterion.

The smoke and gas concentrations were measured inside of the wall cavities during

these tests. This location (1 ft above the lower lateral) was chosen to give a comparison between selected toxic gases characteristic of the burning plastics and the CO

generated by the burning of wood and paper in a well defined space. However, the actual

concentrations of gases in these spaces is not the important consideration from a lifesafety standpoint, but rather the levels that would be built up in adjacent occupied

rooms. Furthermore, the high levels in the confined spaces, along with the high temperature there, made the measurement problem difficult and often the measurements had to be

terminated early in a test.

19
To the extent a comparison could be made, the CO levels were about an order of

magnitude higher than HCl levels in the cavities containing PVC piping. Since the level

of CO present in the other cavities due bo the burning of the wood studs was of the same order of magnitude, the burning of the PVC only added to the potential toxic gas hazard

already in existence. The additional hazard should be considered in terms of the protected location of the pipe, and the confinement of the pyrolysis products during burning.

4,3. DWV in Steel-Stud Walls

Two full-scale fire tests were performed to examine the effect of plastic DWV

systems on the fire endurance of a wall constructed with 2x4 steel studs. Two of the

variables studied were the effects of sealed versus unsealed penetrations for the laterals coming through the wall and the effect of adding insulation batting to the stud

spaces which was done in the Test 10.

Test 6 had three ABS and one PVC DWV installations. In ABS cavity No. 1, the fire

penetrated the steel-stud wall at 28 minutes, which is earlier than a comparable woodstud wall (42 minutes: Test 3). Flame-through occurred at 19 minutes in ABS cavity No.

2 which had the unsealed penetrations around the laterals. Although the ABS stack in

cavity No, 3 was capped at the bottom to minimize the airflow, no significant difference

in the failure time between cavity No. 1 and cavity No. 3 was observed. An unexposedsurface temperature-rise failure was recorded at 51 minutes on the PVC installation.

Additionally, flame-through at the lower PVC lateral occurred at 56 minutes.

In Test 10 glass fiber batt insulation was installed in the stud spaces. One ABS

and one PVC DWV installation were left unsealed, while two comparable installations were

sealed. There was only a 3minute differential between the failure times for the unsealed

(22 min) and sealed (25 min) penetrations for the two ABS installations. The results of

Test 10 correlated with Test 6 wherein the failure due to flame-through occurred at the same time (25 min) for the ABS DWV installation with the bottom of the stack sealed off.

Comparing the PVC DWV installations, there was a significant time differential in the

failure time as a result of the unsealed penetration (16 vs 55 min) . With the sealed

penetration, the test results correlated well with Test 6 with only a one-minute difference in the failure times (55 vs 56 min) . No improvement in the wall performance was measurable as a result of adding the insulation, as failure times of the wall due to

flame-through correlated with the previous test on a wall without insulation.

The indicated gas concentrations reported for Test 6 (also other tests) may not be

representative of actual gas concentrations in the wall cavities because of measurement

difficulties as mentioned earlier. The HCl and HCN values obtained with colorimetric

indicator tubes are to be considered semi-quantitative only, since the high temperatures

within the wall cavities exceeded the prescribed operating temperature limits for the

indicator tubes.

Based on the tests described, involving DWV plumbing systems in fire-rated chases

and wall assemblies, a suggested test procedure and set of acceptance criteria with

respect to fire spread are given in appendix B.

5. SUMMARY

The following observations were drawn from the series of 10 full-scale fire tests

involving 3 9 piping assemblies within wall cavities and pipe chases. These observations

are based on the performance of the iron, copper, ABS and PVC drain, waste and vent pipe

in both walls and chases using the plvimbing configuration and construction details

described in this report. The observations are predicated on three failure criteria

which were established for the purpose o%iypiis research: flames coming through the

wall; excessive temperature rise at selected locations on the unexposed wall surface; or heavy smoke coming through the wall prior to a one-hour exposure time for the test. It

should be emphasized that these were research tests rather than rating tests.

5.1. The PVC DWV systems with 4-inch stacks and 1-1/2-inch laterals in 20-inch by

20-inch chases met the criteria for 60 minutes fire endurance (see Tests 1-1 and 2-1)

.

The annular openings around the laterals were sealed for these tests. Although not

tested, it appears likely that a similar ABS installation would also meet the criteria.

5.2. The one-hour fire-rated walls containing ABS and PVC pipe with back-to-back

laterals in line with the stack met the 60-minute criteria when all of the following

conditions were satisfied:

20
1. The annular openings around the laterals were scaled.

2. The wall cavity depth was 5-1/2 in or more.

3. The stack was limited to 2- or 3-in diameter. (See Tests 4-1, 4-3,

7-1 and 7-3.) A 4-in diameter PVC stack in a 9-1/2-in deep wall

cavity also met the criteria when the annual opening around the

lateral was sealed. (See Tests 8-2 and 8-4.)

5.3. The fire endurance of the wall containing PVC or ABS pipe with back-to-back

laterals in line with the stack was reduced when any of the following conditions existed:

1. The plumbing fittings (e.g., tees, wyes) penetrated the gypsum board. (See

Tests 8-1 vs 5-3 and 8-2 vs 5-1.) (See also Tests 3-1 and 3-3).

2. The annular hole around the PVC or ABS lateral was not sealed. (See Tests 4-3 vs 7-2 and 4-1 vs 7-4.)

3. The PVC or ABS pipe was used in a 3-1/2-in deep wall cavity with either wood

or steel studs. (See Tests 3-1, 3-3, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, and 10-1, 10-2,

10-3, 10-4.)

5.4. Offsetting the lateral from the stack in the same stud space for a 2 x 6 woodstud wall increased the time to flame passage. However, when the annular openings around

the lateral was not sealed, a considerable quantity of smoke was released into the room

at 34 minutes and the ABS and PVC systems failed this criterion (see Tests 9-2 and 9-3)

.

When the lateral was offset from the stack in an adjacent stud space, the heavy smoke

criterion was reached at 5 minutes and failure by flame-through occurred at 21 minutes

(see Test 9-4) . The effect of offsetting the laterals in 2 x 4 wood-or steel-stud walls

was not examined in these tests.

5.5. The performance of the PVC system was superior to the ABS type, both in time

to flame-through and in time to heavy smoke development in almost all the tests where a direct comparison was possible, (see Tests 3-1 vs 3-3, 5-1 vs 5-3, 6-1 vs 6-4, 8-1 vs 8-1 vs 8-2, 10-1 vs 10-2). These tests covered a variety of wall-cavity depths and stack

sizes. However, in each of the above cases, the comparison is based on the condition

where the annular hole around the lateral was completely sealed off with plaster spackling. When the annular hole was not sealed, the performance was difficult to compare

since the times to failure were short in both cases.

5.6. All copper, galvanized iron and cast iron systems installed in wall cavities,

a total of seven constructions, met the criteria for 60 minutes in every case. In six

tests, the openings around the lateral were sealed, (see Tests 3-2, 3-4, 4-2, 4-4, 5-2,

5-4) ; and in one test the opening around the lateral was not sealed (Test 9-1) . The

wall cavities in these tests were of three depths, 3-1/2 in, 5-1/2 in, and 9-1/2 in.

While the wall-surface temperature-rise did not exceed 181 °C (325 °F) the temperature

of the copper lateral reached 500 °C (932 °F) just outside of the wall.

5.7. Based on the results from this series of tests, plastic DWV Systems with

lateral sizes of 2 inches or less would not be expected to reduce the 1-hour fire endurance rating of wood-stud-and-gypsum board walls and chases in one- and two-story buildings

provided that:

1. the annular hole in the wall around the lateral is sealed (an adequate

inspection system may be required) , and

2. the stud space depth is sufficient to obviate the need for the hubs of any

tees or wyes in the vertical stack to penetrate the wall.

5.8. There was a quantitative difference in the fire performance of ABS and PVC

DWV systems. However, neither system degraded the one-hour fire rating of wood-stud-andgypsum board walls where the above conditions were followed.

5.9. This investigation covered only the fire performance of plastic (and metallic)

pipe in one-hour fire-rated chases and walls. It did not address the fire performance

of DWV in "high-rise" buildings nor DWV penetrating floor-ceiling assemblies. Further

studies may be needed to determine whether pressure differences due to the stack effect

in high-rise buildings will contribute to rapid fire and smoke spread. Also, there is a need for developing a procedure for quantitative measurements of smoke and gas accumulation in adjacent dwelling areas.

21
6 . ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in major part by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. We want to express our appreciation to the many people at the National

Bureau of Standards who helped on this project. In particular we are indebted to

Mr. James Houser for his advice on all phases of the construction and his participation

in each of the tests.

7 . REFERENCES

[1] Benjamin, I. A. and Parker, W. J., Fire Spread Potential of ABS Plastic Plumbing,

Fire Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 104-119 (May 1972).

[2] Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, ASTM Designation E 119-73, 1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 14, 508-525.

[3] Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants Adopted by ACG-121 for 1972,

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygenists, P. O. Box 1937,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45201.

[4] Sax, I. N. , Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Third Edition (Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1969).

22
APPENDIX A. VISUAL OBSERVATIONS DURING THE TESTS

Test 1

Time

min ; sec Observations

02:00 P-traps at chases 1, 2 and 3 have fallen away inside of the furnace. The

laterals of all three chases are flaming in the furnace.

03:30 Smoke is issuing copiously from the top of the stack in chase 1. 04:00 All of the paper burned off the exposed gypsum board wall.

05:00 Smoke and steam are issuing from the bottom of the stack in chase 2. 06:00 Considerable water coming out of the bottom of chase 3. 08:00 Flaming stopped at the lateral on the furnace side of chase 1. 10:00 Flaming still persists in the furnace at the lateral to chase 2. Smoke

and steam is appearing around the lower lateral where it penetrates the

unexposed wall of chase 2. 10:30 The chrome plated brass P-trap from chase 3 fell into the furnace.

13:30 The furnace lateral to chase 2 is no longer flaming.

20:00 Smoke is leaking out along the south edge of the wall. Smoke is coming

out of the bottom of the empty chase. There is flaming of the studs

along all three gypsum board joints in the furnace. There are popping

noises caused by the burning of the studs in the wall.

25:00 Smoke is issuing from all of the gypsum board joints on all of the chases.

27:00 Wall between chases is warm. 30:30 Popping continues. The burning studs are expelling sparks and cinders

into the furnace.

32:00 Flame is issuing from the upper joint between the wall and the frame on the unexposed side between chases 3 and 4 (not associated with fire

penetration through chase) . Smoke is continuing to issue from the top

of the stack in chase 1 but not in the others. The air velocities into

the bottom of the stacks were 400 ft/min in chase 1, 200 ft/min in

chase 2, and 300 ft/min in chase 3. 35:00 More water draining from bottom of stack in chase 3. Gypsum board is

separating on the furnace side of chase 4. 40:00 Smoke continues to issue from the top of stack in chase 1 and from leaks

between the wall construction and the frame.

41:00 Flames at joint between wall and test frame on the unexposed side are now 6 to 8 inches high. The gypsum board is separating along the whole

length of the upper wall in the furnace.

45:00 Flames are now 2 feet high at the joint between the wall and the frame.

Frame is being threatened. Embers are falling in the observation room. Gas to the furnace is cut off. Wall is permitted to burn for another 25

minutes

.

55:00 The gypsum board is burning on the unexposed surface between chases 1 and

2. (This is due to premature failure of seal at joint of furnace frame.)

There is considerable water draining from the bottom of the stack in

chase 1.

23
70:00

Time

min : sec 00:30

01: 30

03 : 00

03: 30

05:00

06:00

07 : 00

09:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

12:30

13:00

14 : 00

15:00

17 : 00

17:30

18 : 00

I

Test 1 (cont'd)

The wall was moved away from the furnace and hit with a spray of water

from the fire hose. The wall collapsed and fell. The stacks were observed to be fairly straight at the time when the wall was giving

away. (The collapsed state seen after the test was a result mostly of

the fall.)

Test 2

Observations

The number 5 P-trap on the exposed side is flaming.

Approximately at this time numbers 5, 6, and 7 P-traps on the unexposed

side fell into the furnace leaving molten flaming PVC at the exposed

openings

.

Smoke is emanating from the top of the stack of chase 7. Visible combustion products coming out of the bottom drain of chase 5. By its yellowish color and its smell, it appears to be HCl.

The gypsum board on the exposed side is completely charred. Smoke is

emanating out of the stack at the top of chase 5. Smoke is emanating around the lower P-trap (on the unexposed side) for

chase 7. There is still smoke out the stack at the top of chase 7. There is flaming at the P-trap on the exposed side of chase 8. Smoke is now emanat:^g around the top of P-trap of chase 7 (unexposed

side)

.

Smoke coming out of the tops of stacks 5, 6 and 7. Most of the smoke is

coming from stacks 5 and 7, and the most smoke of all appears to come from 5. There is still quite a bit of smoke around both unexposed P-traps on chase 7. The lateral on the exposed side of chase 7 is sealed off.

P-trap 8 is the only one still standing on the furnace side. Smoke

emanating out around unexposed laterals on chase 7 and also at the

bottom of the chase.

There is still quite a bit of smoke coming from the tops of 5, 6 and 7 chases. No smoke out the top of chase 8. Plastic has for the most part fallen out from the exposed side but has

effectively stopped up the openings.

The number 8 P-trap is still standing (from the exposed side) . The gypsum board to this point appears to have held its integrity on the exposed

side, but a red glow is visible at the vertical joints as viewed from

the inside of the furnace.

Smoke is emanating around the top P-trap of chase 6. Smoke is emanating

from the vertical joint between the wall and chase 5 on the south side.

Smoke is coming from behind chase 8 at the wall as viewed from the unexposed side.

Most smoke. out the stacks is now coming from the chase 6 stack.

There is still a red glow at the vertical joints as viewed from the

exposed side and also a red glow where the P-trap connections were (at

the opening)

.

24
Test 2 (cont'd)

19:00 Smoke is coming from the bottom of chase 5. 20:00 Smoke is now coming from the north joint between chase 7 and wall.

21:00 Still smoke emanating from around the upper laterals of chases 6, 7 and 8. 22:00 Smoke appears to be coming from behind chases 6, 7 and 8 at the wall

behind the chases. Smoke is coming from the hole two-thirds the way up

chase 5. 23:00 Much smoke out around the upper laterals of all four chases. Also smoke

out bottoms of all chases and around all four bottom laterals.

24:00 There are cracks (visible openings) at the joint between chase 7 and the

wall

25:00 There is a crackling sound caused by burning studs in the wall. There

are flames at all three vertical joints visible on the exposed side.

26:00 Smoke is coming out around all of the laterals (top and bottom) and at

the bottoms of the chases (especially 6)

27:00 There is a crack at the joint between chases and the wall about one-half

way up. The top P-trap for chase 5 is drooping as viewed from the outside. We neglected to use the wire supports for the traps on this test.

28:00 The bottom P-trap for chase 5 is now drooping. The top P-trap for chase

6 is drooping. There is a brownish ring at all of the upper laterals

(unexposed side) where the smoke is emanating.

29:00 Crackling sound from the inside of the wall.

30:00 There is still flames at the vertical joints on the exposed side. There

is still smoke out the tops of all chases and around the lower laterals,

but very little from the bottom of the stacks. The chase 6 bottom P-trap

is now sagging.

31:00 There is a visible opening (hole) where the P-trap was on the exposed

side for chase 7, but there is still PVC at the exposed side openings

for P-traps of chases 5 and 6. Flame at P-trap opening is still intact.

There is no smoke coming from around the bottom lateral on the unexposed

side of chase 7. 32:00 There is no smoke coming from around the top lateral, chase 5, unexposed

side. There is more loud crackling from the inside of the wall.

33:00 The only lateral that does not have a brown ring around it is the bottom

lateral for chase 8.

34:00 Still flaming at the vertical joints as viewed from the inside of the

furnace. The holes for chase 5 and 6 still appear to be stopped up on the exposed side; there is no PVC remaining at the exposed lateral hole

on chase 7. The P-trap of chase 8 inside the furnace is OK.

35:00 The vertical joint of the unexposed wall between chases 5 and 6 is

cracking

36:00 The vertical joint of the unexposed wall between chases 5 and 6 is

cracking

36:00 Much crackling from inside the wall or chases (especially 7). Cotton

wool test was run, on chase 7, just browning the cotton.

37:00 There is now nothing in the lateral holes on the exposed side except

the lateral and P-trap for chase 8 which is still intact.

38:00 There is still smoke out the bottoms of all chases. (A lot of crackling

noise on the inside of chases or wall.)

25
Test 2 (cont'd)

39:00 There is burning at the P-trap on chase 8, exposed side. There is still

flaming at the vertical joints.

40:00 The chase 7 P-trap is drooping at the top; the bottom P-trap is drooping

slightly. There is a blue flame at the iron pipe as viewed from the

exposed side. The gypsum board is opening at the vertical joints on the

exposed side, appparently due to shrinkage.

41:00 The top P-trap for chase 7 is apparently about to fall.

43:00 Smoke is beginning to fill the room. 44:00 For chase 8 the wall and P-traps are hot while at the end of the P-trap

the temperature appears to be ambient.

45:00 Top P-traps for chases 5 and 7 appear to be about to fall.

45:30 There is smoke out the top of stacks for chases 5, 6 and 7 but not

chase 8. 46:00 Smoke is really puffing out the tops of stacks 6 and 7 while some smoke

is coming from 5. There is still a blue flame at the P-trap at the

furnace side of chase 8. 47:00 Smoke is coming out of the bottom of the stack in chase 6. 48:00 At the joint at the wall between chases 5 and 6, a cotton pad ignition

test was performed and just a little browning occurred although there was a red glow visible in the joint.

49:00 All PVC top P-traps appear about to fall.

50:00 Smoke is coming out the drains at the bottoms of chases 5 and 6. The

glow at the crack in the wall (vertical) between chases 5 and 6 is

about 6 inches long. At this time the test was terminated. At the

termination of the test all three PVC P-traps 5, 6 and 7 top and bottom

were drooping. The top P-traps appear to be ready to fall. The bottom

P-traps are drooping somewhat less; 5 a lot, 6 not too much and 7 very

little. After the sprinkling of the chases, there was still burning at

the tops of the chases when the wall was pulled out. The vertical pipes

for 5 and 6 have melted and congealed around the thermocouple wires in

the lower third of the chase.

Test 3 Time

min : sec Observations

03:00 The ABS P-trap fell off in the furnace. The exposed ABS lateral into

the chase is sagging. The PVC P-trap is falling off. The PVC lateral

into the chase is sagging. The escutcheon plates around the ABS and

PVC have pulled slightly away from the wall. The ABS lateral coming

out of the escutcheon plate in the furnace is sagging. The copper and

steel are still in place.

05:10 Smoke is coming around the lower PVC lateral on the unexposed side.

05:30 * The paper on the gypsum board has ignited in the furnace. There is

burning at the ABS penetration. The escutcheon plate is falling off.

06:20 Flame is coming out of the ABS stack and smoke out of the PVC stack.

Slight smoke coming out of copper and cast iron stacks.

07:30 ' Scorching around PVC P-trap on unexposed side around the escutcheon

plate. Evidence that ABS piping is burning inside the chase.

26
Test 3 (cont'd)

09:00 Airflow: 160 feet per minute in galvanized iron stack, 100 in the ABS

riser, 150 feet per minute in the copper stack, 150 feet per minute in

the PVC stack. Flames coming out of chrome plated brass P-trap on the

galvanized iron lateral, on the exposed side.

13:30 More smoke coming around the escutcheon plate on the PVC lateral on un- exposed side. Slight smoke coming around the ABS lateral. These are

the lower laterals on the unexposed side.

14:20 Smoke continues to pour out of the top of the ABS stack, but not out of

the PVC stack.

15:00 The joint treatment on the gypsum board is still in place for the most

part, but starting to flake off. This is tape compound joint treatment.

The P-traps attached to the copper and galvanized iron laterals on exposed side are red hot in appearance but still staying in place, no apparent deflection. The opening into the exposed side of the wall has

closed off for the PVC whereas the ABS has burned off.

16:00 Smoke coming around the lower unexposed lateral on the ABS and continuing to pour out of the top of the stack.

16:30 Gas analysis was shut down for the ABS wall cavity. Water was pulled

into the sample receiving tubing.

17:20 Smoke is starting to come out of the bottom of ABS stack.

17:30 No airflow through the galvanized iron stack. On the copper stack we have 180 feet per minute, on PVC stack 180 feet per minute.

18:20 The PVC penetration on the exposed side is still melted over tending to

close off the penetration whereas the ABS is completely open.

19:30 The escutcheon plate around the galvanized iron lateral on the exposed

side has started to pull away from the wall. The escutcheon plate on

the copper lateral on the exposed side is still tight to the gypsum

board

.

20:00 Smoke is coming out of the top of the PVC stack as well as the ABS stack

now. Areas around the PVC and ABS lower laterals are scorching.

22:30 Ignition test at lower ABS lateral. No ignition of the cotton as yet.

24:30 Some burning at the joints between the gypsum board sheets on the exposed

side. The molten PVC stem going into the wall cavity is burning. The Ptraps on the copper and galvanized iron laterals are still in place

although they appear to be red hot, the escutcheon plates are still in

place on the copper, and slightly away from the wall on the galvanized

iron. There is flaming at all joints on the gypsum board.

24:30 Starting to hear wood burning inside chase.

25:30 Getting smoke around the upper lateral for the copper. This is the only

smoke coming out around any of the top laterals.

26:00 Paper on gypsum board around the escutcheon plate on the lower copper

lateral is charring. No charring is evident around the galvanized iron

lateral. The lateral at the top of the copper stack is charring the

paper. There is no other charring occurring at the other laterals.

28:30 The gas analysis equipment is shut down for the wall cavity containing

the PVC.

29:15 Getting smoke around the upper lateral for the copper. This is the only

smoke coming out around any of the top laterals.

30:30 Continuing to burn at the gypsum board joints, no breakup of any of the

board as yet. The P-traps for the galvanized and copper are still in

place. The escutcheon plate on the copper is still tight against the

gypsum board on the exposed side.

27
Test 3 (cont'd)

39:00 Airflow is 200 feet per minute into the copper stack, 200 feet per minute into the galvanized iron stack. Smoke is coming out of bottom of

both plastic stacks.

39:45 An ignition check is being made with the cotton pad at the top copper

lateral again. This is the only upper lateral that shows any indication

of smoke penetration and charring around the paper.

41:30 The extension of ABS stack above the wall fell off. Horizontal cracking

of the gypsum board at the south end of furnace on exposed side.

42:00 The PVC is burning pretty heavily at the lateral opening inside the furnace. The gypsum board on the south side is opening up inside the furnace. A piece fell out around the PVC penetration. The gypsum near the

ABS opening inside the furnace ite tending to pull away from the studs.

Flame-through at the lower ABS lateral on the unexposed side. Trap was still filled with water.

44:15 The wall board on the exposed side of the ABS stack has fallen into the

furnace. There is heavy burning inside the wall.

45:00 ' Heavy smoke around the lower ABS lateral. Again the only charring at

the upper part of the unexposed wall seems to be around the copper

lateral

.

52:00 The studs are burning, gypsum board is falling off considerably on the

exposed side. Still no flame-through at any of the penetrations other

than the previously reported lower ABS lateral. All other unexposed

laterals are in good shape. There is still smoke and heat coming around

the top and bottom escutcheon plates for the copper and at the lower

escutcheon plate for the PVC.

52:30 Flame-through at gypsum board joint on unexposed wall north of ABS trap.

56:00 Gas off, end of test. Continued flaming on gypsum board joint, no other

flame penetration at any of the P- traps other than the previously reported

• ABS. Charring around lower PVC lateral. Slight charring at the top PVC

lateral. No charring around the laterals for the galvanized iron.

Post fire

analysis: After pulling the wall frame out of the furnace the PVC stack is still in

place burning, and the ABS stack has been completely consumed. The

copper and galvanized iron are still standing.

Time

Test 4

min : sec Observations

01:30 PVC P-trap on the exposed side is scorched.

01:35 ABS P-trap has fallen off on the exposed side.

02:05 The paper on the gypsum board on the exposed side has ignited.

03:00 The PVC P-trap has fallen away from the wall on the exposed side.

03:30 The ABS lateral on the exposed side has melted and closed at the

escutcheon plate.

05:15 The PVC lateral on the exposed side has also melted and closed off the

opening into the stack.

07:30 Smoke is coming out of the top of the ABS stack. Exposed ABS lateral

has burned away completely.

28
Test 4 (cont'd)

14:00 Smoke is continuing to come out the top of the ABS stack.

16:30 There are flames at the openings to the PVC and ABS cavities in the furnace; the escutcheon plates are still in place at both entrances.

18:00 The pump is shut down to the gas analysis equipment for the ABS.

21:00 Steam or light smoke is coming out of the top of the PVC stack.

23:00 The joint compound on the exposed side is starting to flake off and some flaming of the paper is occurring at the joints.

25:00 Flaming is noted at the joints of the gypsum board on the exposed side.

27:00 There is burning inside the cavity containing the copper.

34:45 The escutcheon plate fell away from the opening left by the PVC lateral

on the exposed side. Flaming is noted at this penetration. The escutch- eon plate at the ABS opening is still in place.

37:00 Heavy flaming at the opening to the PVC stack on the exposed side.

42:00 The joints are burning badly on the exposed side. The joint compound

treatment has fallen away.

45:00 There is no breakup of the gypsum board on the exposed side.

47:00 A piece of gypsum board at the top fell down and knocked the tail piece

off the P-trap attached to the copper lateral on the exposed side.

(Note: gypsum board which fell was from protected wood molding at the

top of test frame not from the wall itself.)

50:00 Flame broke through at the edge of the test frame on south side.

52:45 The gypsum board is starting to break away from the studs at the joints near the PVC stack.

62:00 The most severe scorching on the unexposed side is at the upper copper

lateral

.

64:00 Test shut down.

Post fire

analysis: The plastic stacks were completely burned out at the end of the test

which was run for 65 minutes. The laterals were intact where they

penetrated the unexposed side of the wall, but they were completely

sealed off at this point due to char formation in the interior of the

pipe.

Test 5 Time

min: sec Observations

ABS trap in the furnace is gone.

PVC trap in the furnace is gone.

Smoke coming around upper ABS lateral.

Smoke out top of PVC stack.

Smoke out through south joint between wall and test frame.

Flames out of top of PVC stack.

Metal traps are gone.

29

01- 00

02 00

03 00

04 00

04 30

08 00

08 30
Test 5 (cont'd)

10:00

12:00

12 : 30

13:00

16:00

20:00

23: 00

24 : 00

25:00

26:00

27:00

29 : 00

30:00

35:00

38 : 00

42 : 00

48 : 00

52 : 00

53: 00

55:00

60: 00

Post fire

analysis

:

Time

min : sec 00:35

02:00

Flames out top of ABS stack.

Joints OK on gypsum board.

Trap being pulled inward by the stack.

Flames out ABS hole in the furnace.

Can see flames in cavity through the cracks in the spackle around ABS

lower lateral.

Flame appears to be sucked into hole left by ABS lateral in the furnace.

Voluminous quantities of smoke coming out upper ABS lateral. This could

easily fail test based on limiting smoke criterion.

Lower ABS trap being pulled in.

Smoke out of bottom of ABS stack.

Sparks issuing from top of wall where hubless case iron stack passes

through the top plate.

Flames broke out through lower ABS lateral.

Lower ABS trap and lateral were removed and hole boarded up.

HCl concentration greater than 2,000 ppm at bottom of stack. Water was applied to ABS cavity for 30 seconds. This effectively stopped the fire

in the cavity.

Cracking of spackling plaster around lower PVC trap. Tape has fallen

away from gypsum board joints but joints are still intact.

HCl concentration greater than 2,000 around lower ABS lateral. Lower

PVC trap being pulled inward.

Tremendous smoke out around lower PVC lateral.

Gypsum board between PVC and furnace breaking up. Gypsum board falling into furnace around PVC.

Gypsum board between PVC and furnace has essentially all fallen in.

Paper on unexposed wall in front of PVC burst into flame at threequarters height. Flame out around PVC lateral.

Test over. Gas turned off.

The fire in the ABS section of the wall was effectively stopped by an internal sprinkler system at 33 minutes. The test was stopped at

60 minutes. Both plastic stacks had been consumed as well as the lower

laterals and traps. The upper laterals had been pulled inward but were

still intact. The upper PVC lateral caught fire and burned about

5 minutes after the test was over.

Test 6

Observations

Inlet P-trap at stacks 1, 2 and 3 are aflame.

White smoke (possibly steam) issuing from the vicinity of the top of

stack 1.

30
Test 6 (cont'd)

03:00 P-traps at stacks 1, 2 and 3 have fallen away inside of the furnace.

03:15 Smoke is emanating from the top of stack 2 and from the vicinity of the

lower P-trap of stack 2. 03:20 Smoke from top of stack 3. 04:00 Smoke coming out at the bottom of stack. Smoke issuing from the tops

of stacks 2, 3 and 4. 04:30 Flames appeared momentarily at the top stack 2. 04:30 Opening around lower lateral of stack 2 smoke.

05:00 Paper surface of the exposed gypsum board wall has turned black.

06:00 Smoke coming out at the bottom of stack 1 only.

06:30 Smoke is still issuing from the bottom of stacks 1 and 2. No smoke is

observed at the bottoms of the other two stacks. Smoke is also ema- nating from the tops of stacks 1, 2 and 3. No smoke is coming from the

top of stack 4. 09:00 Along the bottom of the stacks, only stack 2 is still issuing smoke. No

smoke is present around all four lower P-traps. Some smoke is observed

around the upper P-traps of stacks 1, 2 and 3. No smoke is noticed at

the upper P-trap of stack 4. (#4 stack stops smoking at top.) Smoke

is issuing copiously from the tops of stacks 1, 2 and 3. No smoke is

coming out of stack 4. 12:20 Much smoke is coming from the bottoms of stacks 1 and 2. Only a glowing

red stub remains of the inlet P-trap for stack 4. Gypsum wall below the

inlets of stacks 2 and 4 are aflame.

13:00 Top of stack 4 starts smoking again.

14:00 Gypsum wall around the lower escutcheon plate for stack 2 is turning

brown. The P-trap is sagging. Smoke is issuing from the wall around the

lower escutcheon plate for stack 3 and the P-trap is also sagging.

15:30 Wall area around the upper escutcheon plate for stack 3 is now turning

brown

.

16:15 Smoke is observed around the lower escutcheon plate for stack 1. Wall

areas around the lower and upper escutcheon plates for stack 4 have not

been affected.

19:00 Flame broke through around the lower P-trap of stack 2 and is extinguished with a water spray.

20:00 Furnace inlet for stack 2 appears dark. The other three inlets are reddish yellow in color. Wall area around the upper escutcheon plate

for stack 4 has burned brown. Only the wall surfaces around the lower

P-traps for stacks 1 and 4 and the upper P-trap for stack 1 have not

been affected.

24:30 Smoke is issuing copiously from the area around the lower escutcheon

plate for stack 3. 25:10 Flame is coming through around the lower escutcheon plate for stack 3.

26:30 Flaming around the lower plate for stack 3 is extinguished with a water

spray. Furnace inlets for stacks 2 and 3 appear dark. The other two

inlets are yellowish in color.

28:00 Lower P-trap for stack 1 has just dropped out. Flames are shooting out.

Flames are also re-emerging at the lower escutcheon plate areas of

stacks 2 and 3.

31
28:30

29:15

30: 30

32: 30

37 : 35

40: 00

45:30

47:30

53:00

55: 30

55 : 55

57 :00

Post fire

analysis

:

Time

min : sec

00: 25

00:40

01:20

01:35

03:15

04:00

Test 6 (cont'd)

Flames extinguished at all three locations. Glass wool is used to plug

the breakthrough area around the lower plate of stack 1. Flames emerging periodically around the lower plates of stacks 2 and 3. Paper joints between the exposed panels of gypsum board have peeled off.

Breakthrough area around the lower plate for stack 1 is restuffed with

glass fiber. The flame through areas for stacks 2 and 3 are being

filled with glass fiber.

PVC stub at the inlet is still there and is still glowing yellow in

color. Wall surface around the lower escutcheon plate for stack 4 has

not been affected. Wall areas around all four upper escutcheon plates

have burned brown. Exposed surface of the gypsum boards still appear

to be in good condition.

Smoke is coming from a break-through hole near the bottom of stack 4. Gypsum charred around upper lateral of stack 4. PVC stub at the inlet to stack 4 has dropped off. Much smoke is issuing

from the area around the lower escutcheon plate of stack 4. Paper has blackened and has lifted around the lower escutcheon plate of

stack 4. Exposed gypsum board above the inlet of stack 3 is buckling slightly

towards the furnace.

Lower escutcheon plate for stack 4 is red hot on its north side. A

smaller glowing red area is also present a short distance above the plate.

Cotton pad is applied to the glowing red areas. Flaming occurs in the cotton pad on the lower plate of stack 4. Test terminated.

Water is sprayed on the unexposed wall surface. Wall assembly is wheeled

into the open. Entire exposed surface is cracked, but otherwise looks in

good condition. Both upper corners on the exposed side are still flaming.

Flames are still present within the walls originally containing stacks

1, 2 and 3. Water is sprayed over the furnace side of the wall. No ABS

piping residue remains. Little PVC ash is seen near the lower part of

the assembly. Several of the steel studs were twisted.

Test 7

Crackling noise.

Inlet P-trap to stacks 1 and 4 are aflame. Smoke issuing from vicinity

of lower P-trap to stacks 2 and 4. Looking back into furnace, all four inlets now aflame.

Inlet trap to stack 2 has completely come off. Inlet trap to stack 4 has also dropped, leaving a stud. Inlet P-trap for stacks 1 and 3 are drooping severely.

Only inlet trap to stack 3 still attached. Heavy smoke was emanating

from top of stack 4. Smoke issuing copiously from top of stacks 1, 2 and 3. Only a little

smoke now coming from top of stack 4.

32
Test 7 (cont'd)

04:20 Inlet trap to stack 3 has come off.

05:00 Heavy smoke from top of stack 1. Only a little smoke now issuing from

the other three stacks. Smoke observed from the vicinity of the lower

escutcheon plates for stacks 2 and 4. No smoke seen at corresponding

locations for stacks 1 and 3. 05:15 Gypsum boards inside furnace have turned brown. Joints between boards

are still intact.

07:30 Smoke continuing to come from lower escutcheon plate areas of stacks 2 and 4. No smoke yet observed around lower plates of stacks 1 and 3. 08:30 Reflection of flames seen at bottom of stack 1. Loud roar also heard at

that location.

09:40 Flames observed several times from top of stack 1. 10:00 Cotton pad applied at vicinity of lower plate of stack 4. No ignition.

11:30 Inside the furnace the inlet stub to stack 4 still there. Inlets 1, 3 and 4 are brightly lit while inlet to stack 2 appears dark.

12:40 Smoke issuing from bottom of stack 1. Area around escutcheon plate of

upper P-trap to stack 4 is turning brown.

13:40 Looking inside furnace, inlets to stacks 1 and 2 appear dark. Inlets

to stacks 3 and 4 appear yellowish in color.

14:30 Areas around upper escutcheon plates for stacks 2 and 4 are brown in

color. There is no discoloring of the upper plate areas for stacks

1 and 3. 15:30 Paper joints between gypsum boards inside furnace are still intact.

16:40 Smoke coming from bottoms of stacks 1 and 2. Only little smoke from

bottom of stacks 3 and 4. 17:45 Cotton pad applied at vicinity of lower plate of stack 4. No ignition.

18:15 Escutcheon plate areas around lower traps to stacks 2 and 4 turned

brown. No discoloring around the other lower escutcheon plates.

19:00 At escutcheon plate areas around upper traps, only those for stacks

2 and 4 have discolored,

19:45 Cotton pad applied to plate area at lower trap to stack 4. Pad turned

brown, but no ignition,

21:05 Condition unchanged inside furnace. Cotton pad applied around lower

plate to stack 4. 21:45 Cotton pad applied to plate area at lower trap to stack 2. No ignitions

at either location.

22:45 Cotton pad again applied at lower plate of stack 4. No ignition.

24:00 Looking inside furnace, paper joints between gypsum boards for stacks 1 and 2 are flaming.

26:00 Heavy brown smoke issuing from bottom of stack 3. Light smoke coming

from bottoms of stacks 1, 2 and 4.

27:08 Flames emerging from vicinity of escutcheon plate on lower P-trap to stack 2. 27:45 Flame-through near plate on lower trap to stack 4. Water being sprinkled

inside wall sections housing stacks 2 and 4.

33
Test 7 (cont'd)

28:35 Conditions unchanged inside furnace.

31:00 Flame coming out lateral (inlet) 1 into furnace stub on inlet to stack 4 still present.

32:35 Flame issuing from lateral (inlet) 3 into furnace.

32:55 Crackling of studs. Inlet to stack 3 has widened. Flames emerging from

inlets 2 and 3 into furnace.

38:00 Paper joints flaming between gypsum board for stacks 3 and 4. Flames

coming out from all four inlets into furnace.

41:30 Inlet stub to stack 4 almost gone.

50:00 Gypsum boards between stacks 3 and 4 have pulled away from studding.

59:45 Cotton pad applied at browned area adjacent upper plate of stack 1. No ignition.

62:00 Test terminated.

70:00 Wall section wheeled out into the open and hosed down with water.

Post fire

analysis: Large sections of gypsum boards for stack 3 and 4 fallen off. Pieces

of gypsum board for stack 1 have just fallen off exposing the studding.

Gypsum board for stack 2 is intact. All exposed wood studding severely

charred. Much of studding only partially standing.

Time

Test 8

min : sec Observations

01:00 Exposed P-traps to stacks 1 and 3 are aflame.

01:15 All exposed P-traps are now aflame.

02:00 Steam and smoke emanating from stacks 2 and 4. 02:30 All traps have fallen into furnace.

03:00 Heavy black smoke coming from stacks 1 and 3. 03:10 Yellow smoke coming from stacks 2 and 4. 04:30 Paper face to gypsum board igniting.

05:45 Smoke emanating from around edges of wall.

07:30 Heavy smoke pouring from stacks of all four stacks.

08:00 Spackling tape loosening from exposed wall joints.

09:00 Light smoke emanating from stacks 2 and 4. Heavy smoke still coming

from stacks 1 and 3. Large door was opened to clear smoke from test

room. 09:30 Escutcheon plates to laterals 1 and 3 of exposed wall have fallen inside

furnace

.

11:00 Light smoke coming from around lower P-trap to stack 4. 12:00 Inside the furnace, plugs remain of molten PVC laterals to stacks 2 and 4 .

34
Test 8 (cont'd)

14:00 Viewing into the furnace it appears that interior studding is now burning

in stacks 1 and 3. 14:30 Heavy smoke still coming from stacks 1 and 3. Upper P-traps to stacks 1,

2 and 4 have smoke coming from around escutcheon plate.

15:00 Smoke emanating around edges of stack 4. 15:30 Flames observed from top of stack 1. 17:00 Thick black smoke pouring out from upper P-trap to stack 1. 18:00 Continued dripping of ABS in stack 1. 20:00 Molten plugs remain in place in laterals 2 and 4. Holes where laterals

penetrated walls are clear for stacks 1 and 3. 22:30 Thick black smoke continuing to pour out stacks 1 and 3. Only light

smoke from stacks 2 and 4. 23:00 Smoke coming from bottom of stack 3. Smoke coming from around lower

P-traps to stacks 1, 2 and 4. 27:00 Spackling tape has pulled away from exposed wall along most joints.

28:00 Cotton pad applied to lower P-trap cavity 2. Pad turned brown, but no ignition

28:40 Only a light white smoke now coming from stacks 1 and 3. 29:00 Continued dripping of ABS particles in stack 1. 30:00 Exposed gypsum wall is now buckling inward towards furnace.

32:10 Smoke coming from bottom of stack 4. 33:40 Heavy smoke coming from stacks 1, 3 and 4. 35:10 Blackening around escutcheon plate to lower P-trap of stack 1. 40:00 Moderate amount of smoke coming out stack 2. Heavy smoke coming from

stack 4. 40:30 Bottom pads tested on lower P-traps to stacks 2 and 4. No ignition.

41:00 Crackling of studs and loud popping sounds coming from interior of wall.

44:00 Lower P-trap to stack 1 has fallen away and interior of furnace can be

seen. Cotton pad applied and ignited by flames.

45:00 Water sprinkled inside wall sections housing stack 1.

47:15 Charring to upper P-trap stack 2 apparent.

48:00 Exposed wall to stack 4 has failed by falling into furnace.

49:00 Exposed wall to stack 2 has failed by falling into furnace (lower half).

53:30 Cotton pads tested on lower P-traps to stacks 2, 3 and 4. No ignition.

59:00 Stack 2 fell into the furnace.

65:00 Test terminated.

75:00 Wall wheeled out into the open and hosed down with water.

Post fire

analysis: Fire had destroyed interior wall to all stacks. All exposed wood

studding was charred and no plastic pipe remained in stacks. Hose

stream broke through unexposed wall.

35
Test 9 Time

min : sec Observations

01:15 Exposed P-traps for stacks 2, 3 and 4 are aflame.

02:30 Exposed P-traps to stacks 2 and 3 have fallen into the furnace.

02:45 P-trap to stack 4 fell into the furnace.

04:00 All of the paper burned off the exposed gypsum board wall.

05:00 Heavy black smoke emanating from around escutcheon plate to stack 4. There is smoke charring to the wall.

06:00 Charring is evident around all of the escutcheon plates.

06:45 Smoke and steam are issuing from cavity 4. 09:10 Unexposed lower P-trap to stack 4 is starting to deform.

10:00 Continuous gas sampling was stopped.

10:45 Light white smoke coming from cavities 2, 3 and 4. 12:00 Looking into the furnace it was noted that a clear hole is left where

the ABS laterals were whereas the PVC lateral has melted and formed a molten plug where the pipe penetrates the wall.

14:45 The copper P-trap is turning red.

17:00 Smoke and steam issuing around the edges of the test frame and wall.

19:00 Unexposed P-traps to stack 4 is melting and smoking heavily.

21:00 P-traps to stack 4 has dropped off wall and f lame- through occurred

igniting cotton pad.

24:50 Active burning of the interior wall is evident. Popping sounds and

heavy smoke coming from stacks.

26:00 Popping continues. All studs seen to be burning.

27:00 P-traps to stacks 2 and 3 are deforming.

30:00 Furnace room filling with smoke.

31:15 Cabinet to stack 1 was open--pipe was very hot and cabinet was smoke

filled.

34:00 Heavy smoke coming from P-traps to stacks 2 and 3.

39:00 Copper P-traps inside furnace has dropped off wall.

46:00 Copper pipe in cabinet to stack 1 is at 481 °C. Crumpled newspaper in

cabinet has charred, but not ignited.

48:45 P-traps to stacks 2 and 3 are severely deforming.

54:00 Smoke continuing to emanate from cavities 1, 2 and 3.

60:00 P-traps to cavities 2 and 3 are still intact.

65:00 Test concluded.

Post fire

analysis: Fire destroyed sections of exposed wall. All of the studs were severely

charred and only minor amounts of plastic pipe remained in PVC cavity 2. However, the copper piping remained intact.

36
Test 10

Time

min : sec 01:45 Light gray smoke coming out of smoke box.

02:00 P-traps on exposed wall surface are aflame,

02:25 All P-traps have fallen into furnace.

04:00 Some smoke coming out P-traps to stacks 1 and 4. Some additional water

was added to these P-traps as they were apparently not full.

05:00 Thick gray smoke pouring out the smoke box.

06:00 Some smoke coming out the top of ABS stacks 1 and 3. 07:30 Smoke leaking out the lower P-trap to stack 1 through the sealed penetration . 08:45 Heavy smoke coming from smoke box and from around upper P-trap to

stack 3. 09:30 Heavy thick smoke coming out the bottom of stack 1. 10:10 Viewing into furnace, flames can be seen inside cavities 1 and 3. 10:30 Brown staining of the paper around the upper P-trap to stack 3. 14:00 Smoke leaking out the side of the steel studs through the penetration

holes

15:30 Flaming of upper P-trap to PVC stack 4. 16:30 A molten plug of PVC can be seen where the lateral penetrates the wall

to stacks 2 and 4.

'

17:00 Thick gray smoke continuing to come from ABS stacks 1 and 3. Light

white smoke coming from PVC stack 4 P-traps.

19:00 ABS P-traps to stack 3 have severely deformed. Scorching around PVC to

stack 4. 22:00 ABS upper P-trap to stack 3 dropped off and flame-through occurred.

Failure in cavity 3 by cotton pad test.

25:00 Lower ABS P-trap to stack 1 dropped off wall and flame-through occurred.

Reading of 2,000 ppm CO.

26:00 Upper P-trap to stack 1 dropped off.

31:00 Readings of 2,000 ppm CO at the 6-foot level continue. Cotton pad test

for cavity 4 failed to ignite pad.

35:00 Flame-through occurred igniting cotton pad at lower P-trap to PVC

stack 4. 36:00 Upper P-trap to stack 4 dropped off wall. There is a horizontal crack

at about the center of the gypsum board to ABS cavity 3 on the exposed

side

40:00 Technicians are all wearing smoke masks or air-packs at this time.

Room is filled with dense smoke.

48:00 Upper PVC P-trap to stack 2 is deforming.

50:00 A one-foot vertical crack in the gypsum board above the penetration to

the furnace has occurred in cavity 2.

55:00 Upper PVC P-trap to stack 2 dropped off and we have flame-through the

penetration

37
Test 10 (cont'd)

56 : 00

57:00

58 : 00

The unexposed wall has bowed and deflected about 2 inches at the center

between cavities 1 and 2 and also between cavities 3 and 4. Lower PVC P-trap to stack 2 dropped off.

The exposed wall to cavity 1 cracked and pieces dropped out into the

furnace

.

60:00 End of test.

Post fire

analysisThe wall was pulled out from the furnace at 6 5 minutes. In cavities

1 and 3 the pipe had burned and dripped to the bottom of the cavity

and continued to burn. A small amount of insulation remained at the

bottom of the cavity. In cavities 2 and 4 the exposed wall had cracked

but remained in place. Using a pike pole the wall was pulled apart.

Charred remains of the skeleton of a PVC pipe were in place along with

most of the insulation which had charred, but not completely burned as

in cavities 1 and 3.

38
APPENDIX B. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE ASTM E 119

STANDARD FIRE ENDURANCE TEST PROCEDURE AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

FOR DWV PLUMBING CHASES AND WALLS

Suggested Test Procedure

1. Construct a mock-up of the actual installation preserving all of the essential

features such as pipe material, pipe size, piping configuration, chase and

wall cavity dimensions, inlet pressure, etc. For a chase assembly up to

30 inches in width, place a thermocouple under a felted asbestos pad on the

unexposed surface at 3 feet above simulated floor level, at 1 foot below

simulated ceiling level, and at two equally spaced distances in between.

For wall assemblies 9 or more feet in width, place a minimum of 9 thermocouples

under felted asbestos pads on the unexposed surface. Place four thermocouples

at the centers of the quarter sections, place one thermocouple at the center

of the specimen and place four thermocouples in line with each of the vertical

stacks, and one thermocouple 1 foot above each of the laterals.

2. Fire-expose the side of the assembly for which the fire rating is required to the prescribed ASTM E 119 time-temperature exposure in a standard wall test

furnace. If the exposed wall includes a lateral penetration, the lateral

must enter the furnace, and the furnace pressure relative to the adjacent

test area at the inlet must be equal to the product of 0.001 inches of water

times the intended height of the lateral above the floor of the room in inches.

(This pressure is applicable to cases where stack effect is not appreciable.)

Suggested Acceptance Criteria

1. None of the ASTM thermocouples located on the unexposed surface of the chase

or wall may exceed 181 °C (325 °F) temperature rise during the fire rating

period. The average temperature rise of all of the ASTM thermocouples on the

unexposed surface must not exceed 139 °C (250 °F) . (This is similar to the

ASTM Standard E 119 test criteria.)

2. No flaming and no hot gases which could ignite a cotton pad at any point on the unexposed surface of the chase or wall shall occur within the fire-rated

period

At present, there is no standard or established method for quantitative mea- surement of the smoke passing out through any lateral, through the area adjacent to the lateral, or through the hole left by the lateral.

39
APPENDIX C. SI CONVERSION UNITS

In view of the present accepted practice in this country in building technology, common U.S. Units of measurement have been used throughout this report. In recognition

of the position of the United States as a signatory to the General Conference on Weights

and Measurements which gave official status to the metric SI system of units in 1960, we assist the readers interested in making use of the coherent system of SI units by

giving conversion factors applicable to the U.S. units used in this report.

Length

1 in = 0.0254 metre

1 f t = 0. 3048 metre

Pressure

1 in of water = 249.08 newtons/metre

Velocity

1 ft/min = 0.00508 metres/s

* Temperature

Temperature in °F = 9/5 (temperature in °C) + 32 °F

* Both temperatures are presented together in the text.

40
|—„oz

LxJ CO<Io o o 2o

>- o

to:

u. o

CO

cn

UJ a: ' UJ<

UJ 1 < < I

UJoX o 3m UJ < ^

UJ 1 < < X

cn CJ

UJfew X^ cn < cn

i>cn £L

(0oco

•H

-pu

QJ <+-t CO w

Q)Wu

0)p. •H

a.

•H

41
ESCUTCHEON PLATE

Figure 2. Sketch of chase

1 showing thermocouple (T/C)

locations

.

42


Figure 5. Photograph of

laterals in chase 3.

45

QQ X 2

2 < fl: cn ^ > <5

(/) o ^ c3

H

GQ

cn< lO

LlI < X

H

3 _l

GQ LJ

< I— < X

cn o

<

2 q:

a: ^

i>in a.

< UJ ^ <

!3

<

UJ

CD

IDX

X b: o i_ (/) <

£ < F 5 o cn

>

X LJ ^ CO

•H

c

to

o

^ • 0) CN •H> +J

cn

o

•

(U W

•H

47

Figure 9. Sketch of chase 7.

49
50

n NOdI CT"

ate

oo

: 13 X Oh

J.

a n S8V

a:2

Q- 1- a d3dd03 n~

Ului

a n D

52
COUPLING TO HOLD STACK

I 1/2 P-TRAPS-^

7 - 0

T/C 11 & 12

5/8" TYPE X GYP BD^

BOTH SIDES

2 STACK

OPEN

!S1

STEEL SHELF

SIDE

AIR

SPACE '0-0'

T/C 6

ESCUTCHEON

PLATE

PLASTER

-TEST FRAME

y//A

Figure 13. Cross section of wall

showing DWV installation and

thermocouple locations in test 3.

53
H-i . O CO

xi -p a M

fd Q) o c o

Cl4

O

•H

+J • u

CD

W

•H

Cm

54
a.

55
56
<*1 X

UJ

Q.>-

I-o

UJo - < ~ q: ^ 3ZO

OooO

•-zo ooo

>-

-IQ.

UJ

CL>

lOlOO

-3

_=Jt zoo-3

-9- £

,9X,E ooo

>-

-IQ.

lOico

,9X.2

O UJ o

(0

(0

CM<

12^

,1

II 

.21

_i

0) •H

rd

C

C •H O

-H CQ -P (U O tH P Oi • u HI r-

+J 0 w O +J c O 0 g 0) o u •p

0) rH }-< iH <-) 0

fd M-l [S 0 dJU • c (d 0

iH

H CO +J

CD o rH

Hi 0 (d

57
a.

D

a

D

S9V

<M SO10 o o

A.

a

z

LlI UJ X z

ex

sav X)

0=5

() ( ) ( ) q:

OAd

n: M3dd00 X)

o^

1 4J 0 W

O CU -p

f-i iH 0

^

tn 0 H

W a

iH •rH •H

03 -P

(U Q

• 0

00 •H

iH 4JO

CU a

^1 u

58
Q.>

o

(O

«) _x.

CJ

(C =01

-EiaC]2

[]

cvjT] 2C3

=d] 2:]

!2C]

(e:

._tj3

2C]

.21

59
1000^
] OGC'

90(

Q 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4- UPPER LATERAL + 1 4 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 6 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

600.

700.

o 600j

o 500.

a 400_

300_4

:oo_

181 °C RISE

100_

0

1 0 20

T I IE! (11 N ) 4 0 50 60

Figure 21. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures for

chase 5.

61
1000_

900_

© 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL + ] 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

<J> 12 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600_

o

CD

UJ- 500.

UJ

CE

oc

Q_ 400J

300_

200_

100_

10

TiriE( niN)

40 ^0

Figure 22. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in PVC

installation (cavity 1) in test 3

62
1000_

900_

®

+

X

3 LOWER LATERAL

4 UPPER LATERAL

J 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

] ] UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

] 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600.

CD

UJ- 500.

lij Z3

IxJ Q. 400.

UJ

300_

200.

100_

e-®

10

TinE( niN)

40 ^0

Figure 23. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 3

63
1000

900_

LOWER LATERAL

UPPER LATERAL LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

TinE(niN)

Figure 24. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in copper

installation (cavity 2) in test 3.

64
1000_

900_

+

X

3

4

10

1 1 12

LOWER LATERAL

UPPER LATERAL LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600_

CD

LiJ - 500 J

oc

t—

croc

lUa. 400.

LU

300_

200_

100_

181 °C RISE

TiriE(niN)

Figure 25. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

galvanized iron installation

(cavity 4) in test 3.

65
1000_

900_

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 ] UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

•l- 12 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

300.

700_

600_

500

a AQd^

300_

200 J181 °C RISE

10 30

T il E f n I N

)

Figure 26. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

PVC installation (cavity 7)

in test 4.

66

60
000.

900_

O

+X

3 LOWER LATERAL

4 UPPER LATERAL

1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

• UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

8Q0_

700.

600_

UJ

ha:

or. bj

Q.. t:bj

500_

400 -t

300_

:oo. 181 °C RISE

30

Figure 27. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

ABS installation (cavity 3)

in test 4,

67
\ 000

900 _

O 3 LOWER LATFRAL

4 UPPER LATERAL

-I- 1 0 LOWER asTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800.

700.

600 _

;oo_

a 400.

30Q_

200.

100_

181 °C RISE

10 20 30

TI^E^ MIN

40 1^ SO

Figure 28. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

copper installation (cavity 2)

in test 4.

68
] coo

0 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL

0 10 ?0 30 40 50 'so

Figure 29. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

galvanized iron installation

(cavity 4) in test 4.
CD 3 LOWER LATERAL

.-J-. 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE N LINE WITH STACK

O ! 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

0 10 20 So 40 So 'so TI lEf niN ) Figure 30. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in PVC

installation (cavity 1) in test 5.

70
1 OGO

O 3 LOWER LATERAL

4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 11 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

SOO <r> 12 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

700_,

600_

0 10 S 3d 40 ^0 'so tiie:( niN]

Figure 31. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

ABS installation (cavity 3) in

test 5.

71
1 000

800.

700_

600.

o

° 500.

LiJ

ZDhcn

LiJ a. 400.

0 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

0 1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

300.

200.

00_

181 °C RISE

10 30 4 0 60

Figure 32. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

copper installation (cavity 2)

in test 5.

72
00(

700.

600_

° 500.

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL

-I- 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

<L> !2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE 10 LEFT OF STACK

300_

:oo L 181 °C RISE

I 00_

1 n 20 30

TIMEmiN )

4 0 50 BO

Figure 33. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

hubless cast iron installation

(cavity 4) in test 5.

73
1000

950

900

8 50

800

750

700

650 o

toUJ 600

Q

LU 550

CC3

500

UJ

Q. 450 ^ 400

O

A

-fX

o

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

3 Lower Lateral

4 Upper Lateral

10 Lower ASTM Thermocouple

11 Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

12 Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

20 25 30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

45 50 55 60 65 70

Figure 34. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

ABS installation (cavity 1) in

test 6.

74
1000

950

900

850

800

750

700

650 O

J3 600

Q

UJ 550

q:

z>5 500

rv1-1— UJ

al 450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

O

A

-+X

O

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

3

4

10

I I 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

50 55 60 65 70

Figure 35. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in

ABS installation (cavity 2) in

test 6.

75
Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

45 50 55 60 55 70

Figure 36. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperature in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 6.

76
1000

950

900

8 50

800

750

700

O

A

-fX

o

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

3

4

10

I I 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

o

CD

uj 600

a

LU 550

tr 500

DCUJ

ol 450

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

45 50 55 60 65 70

Figure 37. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in PVC

installation (cavity 4) in test 6

77
1000

950

900

8 50

800

750

700

O

A

-fX

o

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

3

4

10

I I 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

— 650

S 600

Q

uj 550

CE3^ 500

UJ

a! 450

QJ

t- 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

45 50 55 60 65 70

Figure 38. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in ABS

installation (cavity 1) in test 7.

78
1000

950

900

8 50

800

750

700

650 O

S 600

Q

UJ 550

(T. 5 500

UJ

al 450

UJ^ 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermccoupls in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

25 30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

50 55 60 65 70

Figure 39. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in ABS

installation (cavity 2) in test 7.

79
1000

950

900

8 50

800

750

700

LJ 600

Q

Id 550

(r. 5 500

u.

UJ

CL 450

UJ 400

©

+

X

TC 3 Lower Lateral

4 Upper Lateral

10 Lower ASTM Thermocouple

11 Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

12 Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

20 25 30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

45 50 55 60 65 70

Figure 40. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in PVC

installation (cavity 3) in test 7.

80
Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

0 ^ Vo 15 20 25 5o ^5 40 45 ^0 ^0

^

^0

TinE CMIN)

Figure 41. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatures in PVC

installation (cavity 4) in test 7.

81

500_

450_

-I- X

o

TC 3

10

1

1

12
Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

TIME tMIN)

Figure 42. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperature readings

in ABS installation (cavity 1) in

test 8. Qo

450_

400_

350_|

+

X

o

TC 3

4- 10

I I 12
500_

450_

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

0 10 15 20 25 30 35

TIME tniN)

Figure 43. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperature readings

in PVC installation (cavity 2)

in test 8.
1000

950

900

8 50

800

750

700

650 O

l3 600

Q

U 550

cc

z>5 500

UJ

a! 450

LlI 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

O

A

X

o

TC

TC

TC

TC

TC

3

4

10

I I 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Therniocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

181 ''C RISE

25 30 35 40

TIME (MIN)

45 50 55 60 65 70

Figure 44. Unexposed lateral and ASTM

surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 8.

84
500_

© TC 3 Lower Lateral

'S^ 4 Upper Lateral

-I- 10 Lower ASTM Thermocouple ^ I I Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

H ^ ^2 Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

400_

350_

300_

- 250_

0 ^ 5^ 15 fo S S ^5 40 45 ^0 &0 &5 ^70 TIME tniN)

Figure 45, Unexposed lateral and ASTM

surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 4) in test 8.

85
500

450_

CD+

X

<!>

TC 3 Lower Lateral

4 Upper Lateral

10 Lower ASTM Thermocouple

11 Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

12 Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

400_

350_

300_

15 20^^0 "Ts 40 45 ko fes TIME (MIN}

Figure 46. Unexposed lateral and ASTM

surface temperature readings in

copper installation (cavity 1) in

test 9-

86

60 65
500

450_

O TC 3

4-X

4 10

1 1 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

350_

To Ts fo 25 ^0 35 40 45 Eo Es" TIME (MIN)

Figure 47. Unexposed lateral and ASTM

surface temperature readings in PVC

installation (cavity 2) in test 9.

87

60 65
500

450_

o TC 3 Lower Lateral

4 Upper Lateral + 10 Lower ASTM Thermocouple

X I I Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

o 12 Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

400_

0 5 10 l"5 20~^~2S To S 40 45 bo Es ^0 ^5 ^70 TIME (dlN)

Figure 48. Unexposed lateral and ASTM

surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 9.

88
500_,

0 S I'd i"5 20 25 5o ^5 40 45 ^5 ^0 65 ho

TIME (MTN)

Figure 49. Readings in ABS installation (cavity 4) in test ^

89
750_

7ao_

650_

600_

550

500_

450_

P 400_ UJCD^ 350

crS 300

UJ 250_

150_

100_

TC 3

410

1 1 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

To 15 fo ^5 5o Ss"

TIME inlN)

Figure 50. Unexposed lateral and ASTM

surface temperature readings in ABS

installation (cavity 1) in test 10.

90
750

700_

650_

600_

550_

500_

450_

CD^ 350_|

acS 300J

Q250_

200--

150_

100.

50 _

©

X

TC 3

4. 10

1 1 12

Lov/er Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left oL Stack

ISr RISE

To 15 fo S Ss"

TIME IMIKl

Figure 51. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperature readings

in PVC installation (cavity 2) in

test 10.

91

60 65
750_

7Q0_

650_

600_

550_

500_

450_

p, 400 UJ

^ 350

CCS 300

UJ 250_

200

150_

100_

50 _

®

X

TC 3

4 10

1 1 12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

20 25

TIME

Figure 5?^^ Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperature readings

in ABS installation (cavity 3)

in test 10.

92
7S0_

700_

o

+

X

TC 3

4 10

1

1

12

Lower Lateral

Upper Lateral

Lower ASTM Thermocouple

Upper ASTM Thermocouple in Line with Stack

Upper ASTM Thermocouple to Left of Stack

Figure 53. Unexposed lateral and

ASTM surface temperatura readings

in PVC installation (cavity 4) in

test 10.

93

0 5 10 15 20 25

TIME (MINUTES)

Figure 55. Carbon monoxide concentration in chase 5, test 2.

95
10 15

TIME (MINUTES)

gure 56. Carbon monoxide concentration in PVC installation

(cavity 1) in test 3.
—CO AND CO2 DETERMINED BY IR

® CO DETERMINED BY COLORIMETRIC INDICATOR TUBES

O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER

24 —

<

orIo

o

o

20

16

12

O2

12 16

TIME, minutes

28

Figure 57. Gas concentrations in

ABS installation (cavity 1) in

test 6.

97
—CO AND CO2 DETERMINED BY IR

O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER
CO AND CO2 DETERMINED BY IR

CO DETERMINED BY COLORIMETRIC INDICATOR TUBES

O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER

TIME, minutes

Figure 59. Gas concentrations

in PVC installation (cavity 4)

in test 7.

99
I

CO AND CO2 DETERMINED BY IR

O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER

24

^ 20

UJ

o

o

o

16

12

Q

\

0

12 16

TIME, minutes

Figure 60. Gas concentrations in ABS

installation ';cavity 3) in test 8.

28

100
I —CO AND CO2 DETERMINED BY IR —-— O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

TIME, minutes

Figure 61. Gas concentrations in

PVC installation (cavity 4) in

test 8.

101
— CO ANDCO2 DETERMINED BY IR

O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

TIME, minutes

Figure 62. Gas concentrations in ABS

installation (cavity 3) in test 10.

102
— CO ANDCO2 DETERMINED BY IR

O2 DETERMINED BY DIFFUSION METER

TIME, minutes

Figure 63. Gas

installation

concentrations in

(cavity 4) in test

103

PVC

10.
ALL PVC

PVC WITH STEEL SLEEVE

PVC WITH IRON LATERAL

EMPTY

TIME (MINUTES)

Figure 64. Smoke transmission in

test 1.

104

100

I - CHASE I 2- CHASE 2

3- CHASE 3

4- CHASE 4
IS

toOe

^(COa • >1<N

4-) W

(U 0) W -P oX o w• 0)

0)

-p

LD

0)>^P -P tn (0 •H

105
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS BSS-72

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Fire Endurance of Gypsum Board Walls and Chases

Containing Plastic and Metallic Drain, Waste and

Vent Plumbing Systems

5. Publication Date September 1975

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) w. J. Parker, M. Paabo, J. T Scott, D. GrosS:

and I. A. Benjamin

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 4908387

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as Item 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-619228

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) The use of plastic pipe in plumbing systems of multiple- occupancy buildings has raised

considerations regarding fire safety. To provide needed data, ten full-scale fire

endurance tests were performed involving a total of 39 plumbing chase and wall

assemblies containing plastic and metal drain, waste, and ven*" (DWY) systems

typical of installations serving one or two story buildings.

Two tests were conducted using plumbing chase configurations simulating kitchen sink

drain systems. The PVC DWV piping in these installations did not contribute to spreajl

of fire from one side of the construction to the other.

Six fire endurance tests were conducted in which the performance of ABS, PVC, coppe

and iron was compared directly in kitchen sink drain systems as installed in wood-stuci

and gypsum-board walls. The stacks ranged from 2 inch to 4 inch in diameter and the

laterals from 1-1/2 inch to 4 inches. In these tests it was noted that the plumbing

configuration and wall construction details, particularly the sealing of plumbing

penetrations, seriously affected the fire endurance of the barrier. Satisfactory

performance was achieved when certain conditions were met.

In the two tests involving nominal 2 by 4 steel- stud- and- gypsum-board walls it was

determined that the one-hour fire resistance rating of the wall was reduced considerably

when ABS or PVC DWV was installed within it using the construction details described

in this report. These details included back to back 1-1/2- in diameter laterals feeding

directly into 2- in diameter stacks.

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)

ABS; DWV; fire endurance; fire spread; fire test; gases; plastic pipe plumbing;

PVC; smoke.

18. AVAILABILITY [x] Unlimited

I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

|x ! Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government P.rLntin^ Q£fice

Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. C13- 29 / 2^:72

I I Order F rem National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

114

22. Price

$1. 80

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74
Announcement of New Publications in

Building Science Series

Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Grovemment Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402

Dear Sir:

Please add my name to the announcement list of new publications to be

issued in the series : National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series.

Name

Company

Address

City State Zip Code

(Notification key N-S39)

TimeWasWhen

BieigyWas

Cheaper

...but that's all changed now.

Today, increased energy costs—caused by in- creasing demand—boost the price of consumer

goods, fuel inflation, and hurt our balance of payments.

That's why conserving energy is a must today,

especially for you in the business and industry

community which uses two thirds of our nation's energy. Now . . . there's a book to tell you how to do

it. It's called EPIC—the Energy Conservation

Program Guide for Industry and Commerce. Pre- pared for you by the Commerce Department's

National Bureau of Standards in cooperation

with the Federal Energy Administration. EPIC is a comprehensive handbook that can

help you establish or improve an energy conservation program in your organization. Not only industry and commerce but also hospitals, universities, research institutes, ANY or- ganization that uses energy—and has to pay

the bills—will want a copy of EPIC. EPIC outlines in detail the steps in setting up

an energy conservation program.

It contains a checklist of more than 200 Energy

Conservation Opportunities—suggestions to save

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National

energy in a dozen different areas.

EP/C's»: actual case histories of energy saving

actions help you estimate your potential for saving energy—and reducing costs. And EPIC contains much more—financial analysis procedures to evaluate projects, sources of information on energy conservation, engineering

data and factors, an energy conservation bib- liography.

Make EPIC part of your plan to control energy use and costs. Make EPIC part of your contri- bution to using energy resources wisely ... so we can keep America working and growing.

To order your copy of EPIC, send $2.90 per copy (check, money order or Superintendent of Documents Coupons) to Super- intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Ask for NBS Handbook

115, EPIC, 013.11:115.

Discount of 25% on

orders of 100 copies or more.

OIBtST COMBtVAnOH

PROGRMH CUnU FOR

IDUSTflT AMD COMMHCf

Bureau of Standards FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION / Conservation and Environment

6 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1975 O - 593-271

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National Bureau

of Standards research and development in physics,

mathematics, and chemistry. It is published in two sections, available separately:

• Physics and Chemistry (Section A)

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on

standards of physical measurement, fundamental constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times a

year. Annual subscriptionj Domestic, $17.00; Foreign,

$21.25.

• Mathematical Sciences (Section B)

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design, numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry, logical design and programming of computers and computer

systems. Short numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.00; Foreign, $11.25. DIMENSIONS/NBS (formerly Technical News Bulletin) —This monthly magazine is published to inform

scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and technology, with primary emphasis on the work at NBS, The magazine highlights and reviews such

issues as energy research, fire protection, building tech- nology, metric conversion, pollution abatement, health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.45; Foreign, $11.85.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and

industrial practice (including safety codes) developed

in cooperation with interested industries, professional

organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of confer- ences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such

as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides

quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide

program coordinated by NBS. Program under authority

of National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical

Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS

by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth

St. N. W., Wash. D. C. 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical infor- mation developed at the Bureau on building materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete

in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under pro- cedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of the standards is to establish nationally

recognized requirements for products, and to provide

all concerned interests with a basis for common under- standing of the characteristics of the products. NBS

administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing organizations. Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding stand- ards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations). Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas

of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological

marketplace.

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for

outside sponsors (both government and non-govern- ment). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper

copy or microfiche form.

Order NBS publications (except NBSIR's and Biblio- graphic Subscription Services) from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402. BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey

bibliographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service A literature survey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $20.00; foreign, $25.00.

Liquefied Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00. Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature

survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the pre- ceding bibliographic services to National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Electromagnetic Metrology Current Awareness Service Issued monthly. Annual subscription: $100.00 (Special rates for multi-subscriptions). Send subscription order and remittance to Electromagnetics Division, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colo. 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, S300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-21 5 SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK