U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE

TECHNOLOGY

ADMINISTRATION

National Institute

of Standards and

Technology

NISTIR 6132 Fire Safety of

Passenger

Trains,

Phase I: Material

Evaluation (Cone

Calorimeter)

Richard D. Peacock

Emil Braun
Fire Safety of Passenger Trains, Phase I: Material Evaluation (Cone Calorimeter)

NIST IR 6132
NISTIR 6132 Fire Safety of Passenger

Trains

Phase I: Material

Evaluation (Cone

Calorimeter)

Richard D. Peacock

Emil Braun

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

March 1999

U.S. Department of Commerce

William M. Daley, Secretary

Technology Administration

Gary R. Bachula, Acting Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Raymond G. Kammer, Director
Bibliographic Information

Abstract

As part of the passenger equipment rulemaking required by Congress, the Federal Railroad

Adminstration (FRA) has proposed that its existing fire safety guidelines be made mandatory. A

major conclusion of a FRA-funded 1993 study by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) was that the use of fire hazard assessment techniques, based on modeling and

supported by measurement methods based on heat release rate (HRR), could provide a more

credible and cost-effective means to predict real-world fire behavior of passenger train materials

than the current approach. 

A comprehensive three-phase fire safety research program is being conducted by NIST under the

sponsorship of the FRA Office of Research and Development to demonstrate the practicality and

effectiveness of HRR-based test methods and hazard analysis techniques when applied to

passenger train fire safety. The results of the research program will assist the FRA in

determining appropriate fire safety requirements for the final passenger equipment rule.

This document presents the Phase I results of the program which focused on the evaluation of

passenger rail car interior materials using Cone Calorimeter test data. A summary of U.S.

transportation agency requirements for various types of vehicles is also provided. An update of

U.S. and European passenger train fire performance requirements and related research is

included.

Keywords

Fire safety; fire models; fire test methods; heat release rate; passenger trains; railroads; smallscale fire tests; transportation

Ordering Information

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

NIST IR 6132

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

197 pages (March 1999)

For sale by the 

National Technical Information

Service

Springfield. VA 22161
iii

Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Recent Train Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2 Heat Release Rate (HRR) and Fire Hazard Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1.3 Previous FRA Passenger Train Fire Safety Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.3.1 1993 U.S. and European Passenger Train Fire Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.3.2 1984 FRA/Amtrak Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.4 Overall Project Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.5 Overall Project Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.6 Phase I Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.6.1 Phase I Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.6.2 Phase I Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

2. Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 U.S. Passenger Train Fire Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 Other U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.1 Rail Transit Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.2 Motor Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2.3 Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.2.4 Passenger Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.3 U.S. Fire Safety Requirements Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.4 European Passenger Train Fire Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.5 European Passenger Train HRR and Hazard Analysis Research . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

3. Passenger Train Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Typical Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.1 Coach/First Class Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.2 Cafe/Lounge and Dining Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.1.3 Sleeping Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.1.4 Miscellaneous Component Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.2 Materials Selected for Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

4. FRA-Cited Test Method Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 ASTM E 162/D 3675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.1 Application and Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.2 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.2 ASTM E 648 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4.2.1 Application and Performance Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.2.2 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
iv

Contents (cont.)

Section Page

4.3 FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.3.1 Application and Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.3.2 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.4 ASTM E 662 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.4.1 Application and Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.4.2 Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.5 Previous Passenger Vehicle-Related Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.6.1 Flammability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.6.2 Smoke Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

5. Cone Calorimeter Test Method Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Exposure Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.1.1 Exposure Conditions in Current Generation Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.1.2 Exposure Conditions in Unwanted Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.1.3 Chosen Exposure Conditions for Cone Calorimeter Testing . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2 Cone Calorimeter Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2.1 Individual Component Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.2.2 Component Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

5.2.3 Previous Passenger Vehicle-Related Cone Calorimeter Test Data . . . 5-13

5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

6. Comparison of Small-Scale Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Flammability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1 ASTM E 162 and ASTM D 3675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1.1 Comparison Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.1.1.2 Comparison Between ASTM E 162/D 3675 and

ASTM E 1354 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6.1.2 ASTM E 648 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6.1.2.1 Comparison Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6.1.2.2 Comparison Between ASTM E 648 and ASTM E 1354 . . . . 6-6

6.1.3 FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.1.3.1 Comparison Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.1.3.2 Comparison Between FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM E 1354 . . . 6-8

6.2 Smoke Emission – ASTM E 662 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

6.2.1 Comparison Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.2.2 Comparison Between ASTM E 662 and ASTM E 1354 . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

6.3 Comparison with Previous U.S. Passenger Vehicle-Related Fire Test Data . . 6-14

6.4 Test Result Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
v

Contents (cont.)

Section Page

7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 U.S. Transportation Vehicle Requirements and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.1.1 U.S. Rail Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.1.2 Other U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.1.3 U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire-Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.2 European Fire Safety Requirements and HRR Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7.3 Amtrak Material Test Data Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7.3.1 FRA-Cited Test Method Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.3.2 Cone Calorimeter Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.3.3 Comparison of FRA-Cited Test Method Data and 

 Cone Calorimeter Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6

7.4 Application to Phase II Tasks and Overall Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

Appendix A. FRA Flammability and Smoke Emission Requirements for Intercity

 and Commuter Rail Car Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B. U.S. Rail Car Fire Safety Test Methods and Performance Criteria . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C. Cone Calorimeter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D. Cone Calorimeter Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

vii

Figures

Figure Page

3-1. Amtrak Coach Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3-2. Carpet and Resilient Rubber Floor Covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-3. Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-4. Cafe/Lounge Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3-5. Dining Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3-6. Sleeping Car Compartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3-7. Coach Seat Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

5-1. General View of the Cone Calorimeter (ASTM E 1354, ISO 5660) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5-2. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR for Two Foam Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5-3. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR for Two Upholstery Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5-4. Cone Calorimeter HRR-Cotton Muslin Interliner (Sample 1b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

5-5. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR - Two Seat Assemblies with Sample lc 

 Fabric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5-6. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR - Two Seat Assemblies with Sample 2c

 Fabric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

6-1. Comparison of Is as Measured According to ASTM E 162 / D 3675 and Peak

 HRR as Measured in the Cone Calorimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6-2. Comparison of Char Length as Measured According to FAR 25.853 (a) to the 

 Ratio of Time to Ignition and Peak HRR as Measured in the Cone Calorimeter . . . . 6-9

6-3. Specific Optical Density as Determined From the Specific Extinction Area . . . . . . . 6-12

6-4. Comparison of ASTM E 662 Ds (4.0) and Calculated Cone Calorimeter Ds (1.0) . . . 6-13

Tables

Table Page

2-1. U.S. Flammability and Smoke Emission Requirements for Passenger Rail

 Cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-2. FAR 25.853 Aircraft Interior Cabin Material Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2-3. Major U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

3-1. Selected Passenger Train Materials Evaluated in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

4-1. ASTM E 162/D 3675 Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4-2. ASTM E 648 Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4-3. FAR 25.853 (a) Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4-4. ASTM E 662 Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
viii

Tables (cont.)

Table Page

5-1. Fire Exposure Conditions for FRA-Cited Test Methods and in Typical Fires . . . . . . . . 5-6

5-2. Summary Cone Calorimeter Individual Material HRR Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5-3. Summary Cone Calorimeter Individual Material Smoke Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5-4. Summary Cone Calorimeter HRR and Smoke Data for Selected Component

 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

6-1. Passenger Rail Car Material Small-Scale Test Data Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
ix

PREFACE

In 1984, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued fire safety guidelines that

recommended the use of certain flammability and smoke emission test methods and performance

criteria for intercity and commuter rail cars. Those guidelines were identical to Urban Mass

Transportation Administration (UMTA), now Federal Transit Administration (FTA),

recommended practices for rail transit vehicles, also issued in 1984. The FRA issued revised

guidelines in 1989 that used terms and categories to more closely reflect passenger train design

and furnishings; smoke emission performance criteria for floor coverings and elastomers were

also included. As part of the passenger equipment rulemaking process required by Congress, the

FRA has proposed that the guideline requirements be made mandatory for existing, rebuilt, and

new rail cars. 

In 1993, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) completed a comprehensive

evaluation of the U.S. and European approaches to passenger train fire safety, sponsored by the

FRA. The evaluation was directed by the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

(Volpe Center), Research and Special Programs Administration, USDOT. A major conclusion of

the NIST study was that the use of fire hazard and fire assessment techniques, based on

mathematical modeling and supported by measurement methods using heat release rate (HRR),

could provide a more credible and cost-effective means to predict actual passenger train material

fire behavior.

The Volpe Center then developed a comprehensive three-phase passenger train fire safety

research program to be conducted by NIST under the sponsorship of the FRA Office of Research

and Development (R&D). This research program is directed at providing the scientific basis for

using a systems approach to maintain and improve the level of passenger train fire safety. The

focus is to demonstrate the practicality and effectiveness of HRR-based test methods and hazard

analysis techniques when applied to passenger trains. The Cone Calorimeter test method (ASTM

1354) provides small-scale data measurement of heat release rate, smoke emission, specimen

mass loss, and combustion gases. This quantitative data can be used to evaluate the performance

of individual component materials and assemblies and as inputs for fire modeling. Such

modeling allows consideration of other factors in addition to material flammability, as well as

fire-safety tradeoffs in design and performance for the entire system. This approach is consistent

with ongoing efforts to develop performance-based fire codes in the United States and Europe. 

This document presents the results of the first phase of the program focused on the evaluation of

passenger train interior materials using the Cone Calorimeter test method. The Cone Calorimeter

test data were compared with data from FRA-cited small-scale test methods to determine relative

material fire performance. In Phase II, the Cone Calorimeter quantitative test data will be used as

an input to a computer model as part of a fire hazard analysis. Phase III will involve real-scale

testing of a full-size rail car to verify the use of the fire hazard analysis based on the computer

model.

The results of this research program will assist the FRA in developing appropriate fire safety

performance requirements for inclusion in the passenger equipment final rule.

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Direction and technical review of the Phase I interim report were provided by Steven R.

Ditmeyer, Director; Claire L. Orth, Chief, Equipment and Operating Practices Division; and

Thomas N. Tsai, Senior Project Engineer; all of the Federal Railroad Administration, Office of

Research & Development; and Robert M. Dorer, Chief, High-Speed Ground Transportation

Division and Alfred E. Barrington, Chief, Safety and Environmental Technology Division, John

A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center). 

Stephanie H. Markos, Volpe Center, provided overall project technical direction, specific

oversight of Phase I task progress, and technical review of all Phase I work products. She also

provided major assistance in preparing Chapters 2 and 3 of this interim report. 

Douglas Karan, Senior Interior Designer, Office of Engineering - Equipment Design, Amtrak and

James P. Gourley, former Amtrak Senior Fire Protection Engineer, provided invaluable

engineering assistance by furnishing copies of flammability and smoke emission test data,

samples of typical Amtrak passenger rail car interior materials, and review and comments on the

draft Phase I interim report. 

Constantine P. Sarkos, Richard E. Lyon, and Timothy R. Marker, Fire Safety Section, Aircraft

Safety R & D Branch, William J. Hughes Technical Center, Federal Aviation Administration; 

Roy Field, Office of Safety and Security, Office of Program Management, Federal Transit

Administration; Charles Hott, Special Vehicle and Systems Division, Office of Crashworthiness,

Safety Performance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and Lt. Andrew

L. Grenier and Lt. Anthony T. DiSanto, Lifesaving and Fire Standards Division, Office of Design

and Engineering, Marine Safety and Environment directorate, Office of the Commandant, United

States Coast Guard USCG); and Louis Nash, Marine Fire and Safety Research Branch, Applied

Engineering Division, USCG R&D Center; all provided valuable information and assistance

concerning their agency’s fire safety requirements and related research efforts. 

A Peer Review Committee was established to guide the development of this research program. 

Members of this committee include: Douglas Karan, Amtrak; James P. Gourley, formerly of

Amtrak; Vytenis Babrauskas, Fire Science and Technology, Inc.; Merritt M. Birky, U.S. National

Transportation Safety Board; John Devlin, Schirmer Engineering Company; Arthur G.

Bendelius, Parsons, Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.; Thomas W. Fritz, Armstrong World

Headquarters; Arthur F. Grand, Omega Point Laboratories; Gerald Hoefsteader, Bombardier

Corporation; David A. Marchitello, formerly of Chestnut Ridge Foam, Inc.; William R. Segar,

ADtranz ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation; James M. Surless, Long Island Railroad; and

Joseph B. Zicherman, Integrated Fire Technology/Fire Cause Analysis, Inc.; all of whom

provided important input during the progress of the Phase I tasks. Their scientific and practical

knowledge, candid discussions relating to fire safety and rail transportation vehicle material

selection, as well as their comments on the draft Phase I interim report, are also greatly

appreciated.

Finally, the authors extend special thanks to Cassandra L. Oxley, Planner’s Collaborative/EG&G

Services, for her extensive editorial coordination in preparing this report for publication, and to

Barbara Siccone, Planners Collaborative and Carmen Knox, Camber Corporation, who provided

formatting expertise/typing support, and graphics assistance, respectively.

*

 Current address: Hughes Associates, 3610 Commerce Drive, Baltimore, MD 21227

1-1

Fire Safety of Passenger Trains,

Phase I: Material Evaluation (Cone Calorimeter)

Richard D. Peacock and Emil Braun*

National Institute of Standards and Technology

1. INTRODUCTION

Fire safety is an area of particular interest for both conventional intercity and commuter passenger

trains and new, often more lightweight high-speed trains. A systems approach to fire safety

addresses rail car design and materials, detection and suppression systems, passenger evacuation,

and their interaction. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is sponsoring a three-phase

research program directed at providing the scientific basis for using this systems approach to

maintain and improve the level of passenger train fire safety. This report describes the results of

Phase I which focused on the evaluation of rail car interior materials using data from existing

FRA-cited test methods and an alternative test method using the Cone Calorimeter [1]. 

In 1984, the FRA issued passenger train fire safety guidelines that recommended the use of

certain flammability and smoke emission test methods and performance criteria for intercity and

commuter rail cars [2]. Those guidelines were identical to Urban Mass Transportation

Administration (UMTA), now Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommended practices for

rail transit vehicles, also issued in 1984 [3]. The FRA issued revised guidelines in 1989 that used

terms and categories to more closely reflect passenger train design and furnishings; smoke

emission performance criteria for floor coverings and elastomers were also included [4]. 

Appendices A and B, respectively, contain a table listing the current FRA-cited test methods and

performance criteria and more descriptive information. As part of the passenger rail equipment

rulemaking process required by Congress, the FRA has proposed that passenger train materials be

required to meet these test methods and performance criteria [5].

Currently, the U.S. and European approaches to passenger train fire safety rely primarily on

individual small-scale test methods to evaluate material fire performance. However, a 1993 study

by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), sponsored by the FRA, concluded
**Fire hazard: the seriousness of the exposure conditions which threaten the physical well being of the

occupant. The hazard may come from various sources, for example, smoke inhalation, direct flame burn,

injuries due to trauma (e.g., ceiling collapse), high temperatures, or the inability to escape due to lack of

visibility or the presence of irritant gases which may affect breathing and visibility.

1-2

that an alternative approach could provide a more credible and cost-effective means to predict the

fire performance of passenger train materials [6]. This alternative approach employs fire hazard**

assessment techniques, using fire modeling based on test methods using heat release rate (HRR)

data. An extensive effort sponsored by the European Railway Research Institute (ERRI) is also

underway to relate small-scale and real-scale fire performance using HRR and fire modeling.

Based primarily on small-scale test methods which demonstrate fire characteristics of individual

materials, the FRA and other similar requirements form a prescriptive set of design specifications

which historically have been used to evaluate transportation vehicle material fire performance. 

This approach provides a screening device to allow interested parties to identify particularly

hazardous materials and select preferred combinations of individual components; material

suppliers can independently evaluate the fire safety performance of their own materials. 

However, in most ground transportation applications, end-use assemblies have not been tested. 

Considerable advances in fire safety engineering have been made since the original development

of the current FRA-cited test methods and performance criteria. While much of the data obtained

from those test methods provide a relative ranking of materials under the specified exposure

conditions, quantitative data which can be used for fire modeling and hazard analysis is not

available. In addition, the 1993 NIST study and several other studies have concluded that the

impact of material interactions and changes in real-scale passenger vehicle interior geometry are

also critical factors to be evaluated in predicting actual fire behavior. These factors cannot be

evaluated through small-scale tests alone.

To assess the feasibility of applying HRR test methods and fire modeling and hazard analysis

techniques to U.S. passenger trains, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

(Volpe Center) developed a comprehensive three-phase fire safety research program to be

conducted by NIST. 

This interim report presents the Phase I results of the NIST research which involved the conduct

of ASTM E 1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials
1-3

and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter) [1] tests to

evaluate the fire performance of materials currently used in U.S. passenger trains. 

The Phase II interim report will present the results of the input of Cone Calorimeter and other

HRR and smoke data into a computer fire model to analyze the overall contribution of materials

to the fire hazard used in a particular rail car application. The Phase III interim report will

present the results of full-scale tests conducted to verify the results of Phases I and II. A final

report will integrate the three interim reports and present recommendations to the FRA. 

A Peer Review Committee consisting of representatives from passenger train system operators,

rail car builders, material manufacturers, and test laboratories was established to provide

technical advice on the project test plan, results, and practicality of recommendations.

1.1 RECENT TRAIN FIRES

U.S. passenger train accidents involving major fires occurred near Silver Spring, Maryland in

1996 and near Mobile, Alabama in 1993 [7][8]. The National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) identified emergency evacuation, communications, and locomotive fuel tank integrity as

major safety issues in both accidents. In the 1996 accident, three train crew and nine passenger

deaths were caused by fire when a Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC) train and an Amtrak

train collided; 26 passengers were injured. The NTSB commissioned a special study which

tested MARC interior materials [9]. (The results of the MARC tests will be discussed in Chapter

6 of this report.) While noting that some MARC rail car interior materials did not meet “federal”

(i.e., FRA/FTA) flammability and smoke performance criteria, the NTSB questioned the

usefulness of the tests in predicting the fire safety of the car interior environment since the

guidelines do not provide for the “integrated use” of materials. The 1993 accident occurred when

an Amtrak train derailed on a misaligned bridge. Forty-two passengers and five train crew died

(including two service crew members of smoke inhalation); 173 persons were injured. 

A 1982 Amtrak train fire in Gibson, California caused two passenger deaths and two serious

passenger injuries; numerous passengers and train crew were also treated for smoke inhalation. 

The NTSB investigation determined that the probable fire cause was a discarded cigarette in a

sleeping compartment seat cushion. Several areas of concern were identified, including

materials, fire detection, ventilation, passenger evacuation, and communications [10]. 
1-4

In 1996, a “shuttle” train fire occurred in the Channel Tunnel between England and France. The

train carried 200 trucks; two train crew, truck drivers, and other passengers were riding in a

separate coach. Although all persons were evacuated uninjured, several rail shuttle and truck

cars were destroyed and the tunnel was severely damaged. Among the issues identified in the

investigation report were fire detection, emergency evacuation, and communications [11].

A 1994 VIA Canada passenger train fire at Brighton, Ontario injured 46 persons, most while they

were evacuating the train. The fire, caused by the ignition of leaking locomotive fuel, destroyed

the train club car and extensively damaged a coach. Emergency evacuation and fuel tank

integrity were identified as safety issues [12].

Several British Rail train fires have resulted in casualties. A 1995 passenger train fire resulted

from a ruptured locomotive fuel tank near Maidenhead, England. One person was killed by

another train after exiting the InterCity Express train to escape the fire; five others were injured

from smoke inhalation or other causes. Recommendations were made to improve material fire

resistance, toilet plumbing, emergency equipment, communications, and fuel tank integrity

[13][14]. 

A 1983 British Rail train fire severely damaged two coach cars along half their length. The

stated cause of the fire was a discarded cigarette in a “foam-type gangway unit,” the fire then

spread along the roof line. Recommendations were made for redesign of the car roofs and

evacuation instruction improvements [15]. Finally, a 1978 fire in a British sleeping car led to 11

passenger deaths and injuries. Ignition of soiled bed linens stored next to an electric heater

resulted in the complete loss of one sleeping car and heavy smoke damage to a second sleeping

car. Material flammability, heater design, smoke detection, emergency egress, and crew training

were identified as important issues in that fire [16].

The FRA has addressed passenger train safety through recent rulemaking processes. In addition

to specific fire safety items, including materials, fire hazard analyses are required in the proposed

passenger equipment rule [5]. FRA has also issued final and proposed rules pertaining to

emergency preparedness and radio communications [17][18]. In addition, fuel tank integrity is

addressed in the proposed passenger rail equipment rule. A special National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) task force is also examining passenger train fire safety; Chapter 2 describes

that effort in more detail. In addition, the Volpe Center is conducting a passenger train

evacuation study which uses a systems approach to evaluate emergency exits, lighting, and signs. 
1-5

1.2 HEAT RELEASE RATE (HRR) AND FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS

Better understanding of the underlying phenomena governing fire initiation and growth has led to

the development of HRR test methods which can better predict the real-scale burning behavior of

materials and assemblies [19]. 

HRR is considered to be a key indicator of fire performance and is defined as the amount of

energy that a material produces while burning. For a given confined space (e.g., rail car interior),

the air temperature is increased as the HRR increases. Even if passengers do not come into direct

contact with the fire, they could be injured by high temperatures, heat fluxes, and/or smoke and

gases emitted by materials involved in the fire. Accordingly, the fire hazard to passengers of

these materials can be directly correlated to the HRR of an actual fire.

HRR and other data measurements generated from oxygen consumption calorimeters (e.g., Cone

Calorimeter) can be used as an input to evaluate the contribution of a material's overall

contribution to the fire hazard in a particular rail car application. Fire modeling and hazard

analysis techniques allow evaluation of a range of design parameters, including material

flammability, geometry, fire detection, fire suppression, and evacuation, as well as design

tradeoffs which may arise from combinations of the parameters. However, further tests and

assessment are considered necessary to evaluate the suitability of fire modeling and hazard

analysis techniques for application to typical passenger train fire scenarios. Testing a range of

materials according to HRR test methods will also allow evaluation of the ability of a predictive

fire model to minimize, but not eliminate, the need for real-scale tests to assess overall passenger

train fire performance. Limited real-scale tests may still be required to verify the accuracy of fire

hazard analysis calculations, particularly when dramatically new designs or materials are

incorporated into new passenger rail cars.

Quantitative fire modeling and hazard analysis techniques have the potential of providing

significant cost savings. Alternative protection strategies can be studied within the hazard

analysis framework to give the benefit-cost relation for each. In addition, measures are evaluated

as a system with their many interactions, including the impact of both structure and contents. 

Providing these alternatives promotes design flexibility which reduces redundancies and cost

without sacrificing safety. New technology can be evaluated before it is brought into practice,

thereby reducing the time lag currently required for acceptance. Thus, quantitative hazard

analysis can be a powerful complement to existing passenger train fire performance requirements

and a useful tool in evaluating improvements to them.
1-6

Several independent sources support this new direction for passenger train fire safety. Studies by

ERRI [20] [21]; Cappuccio [22], Barnett [23], and Parker [24] on transit system analysis;

Schirmer Engineering Corporation on Amtrak stations, tunnels, and train cars [25]; and Burdett,

Ames, and Fardell on the King's Cross subway station fire [26], all recommend the use of HRRbased test methods, incorporated with fire modeling and hazard analysis, to assess potential

hazards under real fire conditions.

1.3 PREVIOUS FRA PASSENGER TRAIN FIRE SAFETY STUDIES 

Previous passenger train fire safety studies sponsored by the FRA are summarized below. Part of

the purpose of the current NIST research program is to extend the research from the earlier FRAsponsored studies and other related studies to account for the effects of material interaction and

rail car geometry on overall passenger train fire safety. 

1.3.1 1993 U.S. and European Passenger Train Fire Evaluation

The 1993 NIST study included a comprehensive evaluation of the U.S. and European approaches

to passenger train fire safety [6]. French, German, British, and International Union of Railways

(UIC) fire performance requirements were reviewed to determine their comparability. The

current European approach to fire safety uses test methods similar in approach to the FRA. In

addition to material test methods, the effects of vehicle design, detection and suppression

systems, and emergency egress were reviewed. NIST concluded that hazard analysis using HRR

data could provide a more credible and cost-effective means to evaluate passenger train material

fire performance. Chapter 2 of this interim report summarizes and updates the U.S. and

European approaches to passenger train fire safety information provided in the 1993 report. 

1.3.2 1984 FRA/Amtrak Study

In addition to the 1993 report cited above, the FRA funded an Amtrak material fire safety study

which was published in 1984 [27]. That earlier study included a series of tests to assess the

burning behavior of materials used for Amtrak passenger rail car interior furnishings. Smallscale laboratory tests of individual materials using various interior components and full seat

assembly tests were conducted, along with eight real-scale mock-up tests (four of these fully

furnished). 
1-7

The comparison of small-scale flammability and smoke emission test data with real-scale test

data showed that the small-scale tests were able to adequately predict the effect of changes in

materials within the same real-scale geometry. However, when the geometry of the real-scale

test mockup was changed, the chosen small-scale tests failed to predict the effect of the changes. 

In particular, the addition of a full-length carpet covering to the underside of the overhead

baggage rack made ignition easier; this led to more rapid fire growth and spread, as well as full

involvement of the mock-up compartment.

HRR test results were also included in that study. Small-scale, seat assembly, and real-scale

mock-up test data were compared. The relative fire performance of the materials (from lowest

HRR to highest HRR) was consistent in mock-up tests (for a given geometry of the real-scale

mock-up). 

The FRA/Amtrak study identified several material and design features considered important for

fire safety. Along with specific design recommendations for luggage rack and wall coverings,

and armrests, the report suggested a possible rail car interior evaluation protocol as follows:

• A small number of real-scale tests to determine a set of acceptable materials for

the geometry of the rail car, and

• A series of small-scale tests to evaluate alternative materials. Materials which are

equal or better than the materials tested in the real-scale rail car could be

substituted without further real-scale testing.

The 1984 Amtrak material test data represented the results of only a limited number of tests. The

effects of changes in component materials, material interaction, and rail car geometry were

identified as important issues requiring further study.

Since 1984, better understanding of the relationship between small-scale and real-scale tests has

led to small-scale test methods which can successfully predict end-use burning behavior of

materials. Thus, the primary use for real-scale tests now is to verify small-scale test data.

1.4 OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The overall project objective is to fully demonstrate the practicality and effectiveness of HRRbased test methods and hazard analysis methodology when applied to passenger train fire safety. 

The results of this project are intended to provide: (1) the FRA with additional information to
1-8

use in finalizing the fire safety provisions in the proposed passenger equipment rule, and (2) car

builders and passenger train system operators with increased design flexibility to permit

incorporation of innovative materials and designs in future passenger rail cars. The successful

application of this alternative approach could provide a more cost-effective way to evaluate the

real-world fire performance of passenger train materials.

1.5 OVERALL PROJECT TECHNICAL APPROACH

To evaluate the applicability of fire modeling and hazard analysis when applied to passenger

train design, appropriate HRR data must be obtained, fire modeling and hazard analysis

conducted, and the results of the methodology tested against real-scale fire simulations designed

to verify the predicted outcome. This research consists of the following three phases:

• During Phase I, selected rail car interior materials were evaluated using the Cone

Calorimeter test method. The use of this test method and resulting HRR data have

been reviewed with respect to current FRA-cited tests, performance criteria, and

flammability and smoke emission data to compare the relative performance of

current materials. This report documents the results of the Phase I research tasks.

• During Phase II, the applicability of fire modeling and hazard analysis techniques

to predict rail car fire hazards and mitigate those hazards will be evaluated. Realscale tests of assemblies such as seats will be conducted to obtain component fire

performance data. The evaluation will include changes in rail car design and

materials, detection and suppression systems, and passenger evacuation, to assess

the relative impact on fire safety for a range of design parameters.

• During Phase III, selected full-scale proof tests of passenger rail car equipment, in

actual end-use configuration, will be performed to verify the predicted system

performance against the small-scale and real-scale assembly tests and hazard

analysis studies.

1.6 PHASE I REPORT

This report describes the results of Phase I of the NIST work effort. The Cone Calorimeter was

investigated as an alternative test method which could provide multiple measures of fire

performance for component materials and assemblies using a single test method. These

measures include:
1-9

• ignitability,

• HRR, and

• release rate for smoke, products of combustion, and toxic gases. 

The use of a single test method resulted in all materials being evaluated under comparable fire

conditions. The measured properties were obtained under identical fire exposure conditions. In

Phase II, the Cone Calorimeter quantitative test data will be used as an input to fire hazard

analyses using a computer fire model.

1.6.1 Phase I Scope

This Phase I report describes the results of the following major tasks:

• A review of U.S. transportation vehicle requirements and related research. 

• A review and update of European regulations and research efforts related to

passenger train fire safety.

• Evaluation of currently available passenger train materials using the Cone

Calorimeter test method. This task included selection of a range of interior

materials, testing of the materials according to ASTM 1354, and analysis of the

test data with respect to the existing FRA performance criteria.

1.6.2 Phase I Report Organization

Chapter 2 briefly reviews the current U.S. and European approaches to passenger train fire safety

and summarizes other passenger transportation vehicle fire safety regulations and research. 

Chapter 3 describes typical U.S. passenger train materials and the specific materials evaluated

during Phase I. 

Chapter 4 reviews the data for the materials described in Chapter 3 when tested according to the

following existing FRA-cited test methods: 

• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

— E 162, Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Energy

 Source [28]
1-10

— D 3675, Surface Flammability of Cellular Materials Using a Radiant

 Energy Source [29]

— E 648, Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a

 Radiant Energy Source [30]

— C 542, Specification for Lock-Strip Gaskets [31]

— E 662, Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid

 Materials [32], and

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

— 14 CFR, Part 25, Subsection 25.853 (a) Compartment Interiors [33].

Chapter 5 discusses fire exposure conditions and contains the test data for each of the passenger

train interior materials tested according to the Cone Calorimeter (ASTM E 1354) [1]). Chapter 6

presents a comparison of data from FRA-cited individual test methods and the Cone Calorimeter

test method. Chapter 7 summarizes the overall results of the Phase I work effort. The impact of

results on the next phases of the research program is also discussed.

Appendices A and B contain additional information relating to current FRA-cited test methods

and performance criteria. Appendix C provides an overview of the Cone Calorimeter test

method. Appendix D contains detailed Cone Calorimeter test data for each of the 30 component

materials evaluated in this report.
2-1

2. TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The majority of the FRA guideline (and proposed rule) requirements for U.S. passenger train fire

safety consist of small-scale test methods and performance criteria for individual materials. The

objectives are to prevent fire, retard its growth and spread, and provide adequate evacuation time

for passengers and crew. The FRA requirements form a prescriptive set of design specifications

for selecting materials. In addition to small-scale flammability and smoke emission test methods,

the FRA requirements include a large-scale fire endurance test for car flooring assemblies [34]. 

Design, detection and suppression, and evacuation requirements are also specified to a limited

degree. Chapter 4 and Appendix B further describe the FRA-cited test methods and performance

criteria. 

For the purpose of this report, the term “requirements” is used generically to include: 

regulations, standards, rules, specifications, guidelines, recommendations, and recommended

practices. Regulations and rules are the only requirements that can be and usually are legally

enforceable unless other requirements are included in contracts or jurisdictional codes.

This chapter provides an overview of U.S. passenger train material selection requirements and a

review of other U.S. transportation vehicle fire safety requirements and related research. 

Additional information on European passenger rail equipment requirements and research efforts

not available at the time of the 1993 NIST study is also included.

One objective of using materials which demonstrate low flammability and smoke emission is to

provide time for passengers to evacuate a potentially hazardous situation. Accordingly,

emergency egress requirements for selected U.S. transportation vehicles and selected European

rail vehicles are also noted. 

2.1 U.S. PASSENGER TRAIN FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

Interest in improving passenger train fire safety is not new. From 1906 to 1928, the Pennsylvania

Railroad undertook an ambitious program to replace its wooden rail car fleet with all-steel cars

due to a concern for safety and fire prevention [35]. Emphasis in recent years on passenger

comfort and aesthetic appeal has led to the increased use of synthetic materials [36]. Use of

plastics in rail car interiors started in the early 1950s [37] [38]. Over the years, concern has been 
2-2

raised over the flammability and impact on fire hazard of these materials in end-use

configuration, although they are generally tested individually only in small-scale [39].

Specific requirements for intercity passenger rail car material flammability first appeared in

1966 [35]. These rail car specifications dictated “flame tests” for seat foam materials before the

material use would be approved for the original Metroliner passenger rail cars.

In 1984, the FRA issued fire safety guidelines for intercity passenger and commuter rail train

materials [2] identical to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) (now Federal

Transit Administration (FTA) test methods and performance criteria for rail transit vehicles also

issued in 1984 [3]. The FRA issued revised guidelines in 1989 to use terms and categories to

more closely reflect passenger train design and furnishings and provide smoke emission

performance criteria for floor coverings and elastomers [4]. The individual test methods measure

one or more of four different fire performance phenomena: ignition resistance, flame spread, 

smoke emission, and fire endurance. The requirements are based in large part on two small-scale

test methods: ASTM E 162, Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Energy Source

[28] (with a variant, ASTM D 3675 for cellular materials [29]) and ASTM E 662, Specific Optical

Density of Smoke Generated by Solid Materials [32]. Several other requirements are specified

for individual material applications. All of the test methods are designed to study aspects of a

material's fire behavior in a fixed configuration and exposure, with the exception of ASTM E 119,

Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (a large-scale fire endurance test) [34]. 

Chapter 4 and Appendix B describe the test methods and performance criteria in more detail. 

The proposed FRA passenger equipment safety rule [5] would require that interior materials meet

the FRA guideline fire safety requirements. Various fire hazard analyses of existing and new rail

cars are also required; consideration of the need to provide sufficient time to safely evacuate the

train is noted. (While this discussion focuses on materials, the FRA currently requires that each

passenger car be equipped with four window emergency exits to assist passengers in escaping

from an emergency, such as a fire [40]. In addition, the proposed FRA passenger equipment and

final emergency preparedness rules contain additional provisions for passenger evacuation.)

For comparison purposes, Table 2-1 lists FRA [4][5], FTA [3], Amtrak [41], and National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit Systems [42] material

requirements. The majority are nearly identical; different provisions are noted. The draft

flammability and smoke emission specifications for rail transit vehicles, originally developed by

the Volpe Center in the 1970s [43], provides the basis for all requirements (see Section 2.2.1). 
2-3

Table 2-1. U.S. Flammability and Smoke Emission Requirements for Passenger Rail Cars

MATERIALS FLAMMABILITY SMOKE 

Category a Function a Test Procedure Performance Criteria Test Procedure 

Passenger seats,

sleeping and dining car

components

Cushions, mattresses ASTM D 3675 IS & 25 ASTM E 662 

Seat frames, mattress frames ASTM E 162 IS & 35 ASTM E 662 Ds 

Seat and toilet shroud, food trays ASTM E 162 IS & 35 ASTM E 662 Ds Seat upholstery, mattress ticking and covers, curtains

FAR 25.853(vertical)

Flame time & 10 s

Burn length & 6 in ASTM E 662 

D

Panels

Wall, ceiling, partition, tables andshelves, windscreen, HVAC ducting

ASTM E 162 IS & 35 ASTM E 662

Ds 

ASTM E 119 as appropriate 

 c ASTM E 662

Window, light diffuser ASTM E 162 IS & 100 ASTM E 662

Flooring

Structural ASTM E 119 nominal evacuation time, at least 15 min n.a. Covering

ASTM E 648 C.R.F. ' 5 kW/m2 d

ASTM E 6622 f Ds 

ASTM E 162 e IS & 25

Insulation Thermal, acoustic ASTM E 162 IS & 25 g ASTM E 662 

Elastomers Window gaskets, door nosing, diaphragms, roof mat ASTM C 542 Pass ASTM E 662 Ds 

Exterior Plastic

Components End cap roof housings ASTM E 162 IS & 35 ASTM E 662 Ds 

Component Box Covers Interior, exterior boxes ASTM E 162 IS & 35 ASTM E 662 Ds 

SOURCE: FRA Guidelines (1989) [4], NPRM (1997) [5]

FTA Recommended Practices (1984) [3]Amtrak Specification No. 352 [41]NFPA 130 (1997) [42] 

a Categories and functions follow the FRA guideline practices are similar, but not identicalb FTA and NFPA 130 requirement is Ds (1.5) & 100; 

c "May use test criteria for floors or criteria appropria and magnitude of the major ignition, energy, or fued Amtrak requirement is C.R.F. ' 6 kW/m2

e NFPA 130 onlyf FRA onlyg Amtrak requirement is IS & 35
2-4

These small-scale test methods and performance criteria are used to evaluate individual

component materials and not necessarily end-use assemblies. For example, Amtrak seat cushions

consist of cover fabric, interliner, and foam. The requirements for each component material are

different; each is tested individually and not as part of an assembly. The upholstery cover fabric

and interliner are tested according to FAA FAR, Part 25, subsection 25.853 (a) (Appendix F, Part

I) [33] for ignition resistance, while the foam is tested using ASTM D 3675 for flame spread and

heat generation. All three components are tested using ASTM E 662 for smoke emission. 

Small-scale tests of individual component materials have advantages over assembly and

real-scale tests. This type of test is especially useful as a screening device to select materials. 

Such individual testing allows individual parties to select preferred combinations of components

and allowing material suppliers to independently evaluate the adequacy of their own products. 

However, the inability of the small-scale test methods and performance criteria to account for

interactions between materials and for different end-use geometries is a major concern.

The previously cited Amtrak Specification 352 has recognized the need to evaluate individual test

data in the context of the intended use of the material. Additional factors include but are not

limited to quantity of material, configuration, proximity to other combustible materials,

compartment volume, ventilation, presence of ignition sources, fire protection systems, and

occupancy. Accordingly, Amtrak requires that the test data be combined with other information

to develop a fire hazard assessment to select materials on the basis of function, safety, and cost.

Assembly and real-scale tests provide the advantage of material assessment in an actual end-use

configuration. This is critical to permit the evaluation of the effects of material interaction and

geometry in an end-use condition. However, such larger-scale testing does have disadvantages. 

Real-scale tests of complete assemblies are often several orders of magnitude more expensive

than small-scale tests. In addition, the advantage of providing an overall assessment of the fire

behavior of a material also can represent a disadvantage. By quantifying the outcome of the fire

without a knowledge of the factors leading to the resulting fire and without relating the observed

fire behavior to basic material properties, little insight into the intrinsic performance of the

materials may result [44]. 

The 1984 FRA/Amtrak study, described earlier in Section 1.2.2, included a series of tests to

assess the large-scale burning behavior of materials used as furnishings for passenger rail coach

car interiors [27]. That study identified material test requirements and design features important 
2-5

for fire safety. The effects of changes in component materials, material interaction, and rail car

geometry were identified as important issues requiring further study.

In response to the proposed operation of a German magnetic levitation (maglev) high-speed train

technology in Florida, the FRA sponsored studies published in 1991 and 1993 which identified 

fire issues for further analysis [45][46]. The FRA then sponsored a new NIST effort to compare

U.S. and European approaches to passenger train fire safety. The 1993 NIST report included a

comprehensive review of French and German passenger train fire safety requirements [6]. 

2.2 OTHER U.S. TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The overlap in fire safety requirements is not limited to rail transportation vehicles. In 1981, the

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) published a report which recognized the potential

for similar requirements in multiple modes of transportation [47]. Fire protection and control,

material controls, engine components, structural components, procedures, and buildings were all

identified as areas for potential cooperation and common requirements between different

transportation modes. 

The USDOT Research and Special Programs Administration also recently published a report

which examined materials research programs across all USDOT administrations. The report

contains a discussion of common directions and technologies in research and development related

to motor vehicles, rail cars, aircraft, and ships and is intended to highlight areas for potential

cooperation in order to accelerate the use of advanced materials in transportation applications. 

Material fire safety is one area highlighted [48]. 

The remainder of this section reviews other U.S. transportation vehicle fire safety requirements

and related research.

2.2.1 Rail Transit Vehicles

In the early 1970s, UMTA (now FTA) initiated an effort to evaluate and improve transit vehicle

fire safety. As part of that effort, selected flammability and smoke emission test methods and

appropriate performance criteria were published as draft guideline specifications [43].
2-6

In 1975 and 1978, rail transit car fire hazard evaluation reports for the Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Administration (WMATA) and Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) systems

[49] [50] were published.

The WMATA subway car fire evaluation consisted of individual small-scale tests of several

interior materials and seven full-scale tests to determine the overall effects of an assembled

system as compared to the fire characteristics of the individual components. The intent was to

assist WMATA in assessing the potential fire hazard in new Metrorail subway cars. One

criterion was that the ignition not spread from the area of origin. While the small-scale test

results indicated that the car interior may not be readily ignited by very small ignition sources, the

full-scale test results showed that the materials failed to perform in their end-use configuration as

would have been predicted. The evaluation report noted that the nylon-covered polyurethane seat

cushions and PVC acrylic wall linings were a potential source of hazard since fire spread did

occur beyond the area of origin. Hazardous levels of smoke were generated in four minutes for

the polyurethane cushions and nine minutes for the neoprene/vinyl cushions. The report

recommended that WMATA compare the time for development of dangerous smoke levels and

fire spread from the area of origin and the time required to stop and evacuate the car. 

Consideration of neoprene material for the polyurethane cushions was suggested. 

The UMTA-sponsored BART rail car evaluation included the review of interior and exterior car

design, communication system, materials (tests and performance), fire detection and suppression,

fire statistics, and scenarios. The report noted that the nylon/vinyl-covered polyurethane seats

represented a significant hazard based on earlier tests; to improve evacuation time, their

replacement was suggested. In addition, an intumescent coating for wall and ceiling liners, as

well as floor assembly fire hardening were also recommended. In 1979, the BART Transbay

Tube fire resulted in one firefighter death and 58 injuries from smoke inhalation and cyanide

poisoning. The NTSB accident report found that the floor and seat cushions contributed to the

severity of the fire and recommended that UMTA promulgate regulations establishing minimum

fire safety standards for the design of rail transit cars [51].

In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published general guidelines for the use of

flammable materials in rail transit vehicles [52]. Those guidelines recommended the use of only

those polymeric materials that, by testing and comparison, were judged to be the most fire

resistant and that have the lowest smoke and toxic gas emission rates. The NAS guidelines

further suggested these be used sparingly, consistent with comfort and serviceability. 
2-7

Also in the 1970s, Professor E.E. Smith and co-workers at Ohio State University (OSU) proposed

a computational model for predicting fire growth in rail transit vehicles [53][54]. HRR data were

used to describe limits on the combustibility parameters of products that should be used. To

determine limits, a maximum loading of combustibles in terms of fuel, and smoke-producing or

gas-generating items was calculated using test data and model predictions of the course of a fire. 

The model was based on a simplified ignition concept, one not consistent with current-day

understanding of ignition and flame spread [55]. The necessary HRR data were obtained from

the OSU apparatus (ASTM E 906 Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release

Rates for Materials and Products) [56] and compared to real-scale fires. Most notable was a

conclusion that small-scale tests are more reliable than real-scale fire tests for screening

individual rail transit vehicle materials. In contrast, the primary purpose of real-scale testing is to

evaluate the effects of material interaction and geometry in an actual train fire.

In 1982, UMTA funded an assessment of BART efforts to improve the fire safety of its rail

transit cars [57]. The BART “fire hardening” program consisted of removing ignition sources,

substitution of more fire-resistant materials (many of which met the original draft guideline

specifications), addition of a special fire-resistant coating on the undersurface of the car floor, and

the placement of fire stops at strategic places in the walls and ceilings. The final report

concluded that full-scale tests showed that an arson fire was no longer expected to spread from

the area of origin with the use of replacement interior materials and that removal of the

equipment ignition sources and floor fire hardening would allow more time for passenger

evacuation. 

In 1984, UMTA published recommended practices for rail transit vehicle materials selection [3]

based on the draft guideline specifications which contained flammability and smoke emission

tests and selected performance criteria; seat components such as upholstery, cushion, shroud, and

frame were included. The seat cushion material performance criteria effectively eliminated the

use of polyurethane cushions. The fire endurance criterion required the structural floor to resist

flame penetration and maintain its integrity for twice the nominal time it would take under

normal circumstances to bring the train to a complete stop from the maximum speed, plus the

time it would take to evacuate passengers to a safe area. The minimum time value criterion

required was 15 minutes. The recommended tests are voluntary and intended to provide a

screening device to identify particularly hazardous materials. (Note: The test procedures and

performance criteria contained in the current FRA fire safety guidelines (and proposed rule) and

NFPA 130 were adapted from the 1984 UMTA requirements.)
2-8

In 1987, UMTA published a review of BART “C” rail transit car fire safety characteristics [58]. 

BART fire experience, specifications and other documentation, materials, and small- and fullscale fire test data were examined for the prototype “C” car. Small-scale test material data for the

original, fire-hardened, and prototype BART cars were compared. The results of a full-scale test

of a partially furnished car were reviewed. The final report concluded that BART had made a

reasonable effort to identify and address ignition sources and that fire prevention and containment

principles had been used. It was also concluded that BART had tried to minimize the fire threat

through materials and equipment selection. The report did recommend that certain additional

ignition sources be considered and that materials used in the actual “C” car production be

reviewed to identify any necessary revisions to the BART hazard analyses.

In 1991, the National Materials Advisory Board published a report sponsored by UMTA which

discussed a rationale for assessing the potential toxic hazards of transit materials [59]. That 

report indicated that engineering calculations that define a fire scenario, fire growth, and toxicity

data for the materials being evaluated should all be considered.

In 1992, FTA published a study which presented an engineering management tool for fire safety

analysis [23]. The tool was intended to evaluate the trade-offs of material “self-termination,” and

manual and automatic suppression. The report concluded that the most important area for

research is the development of a better understanding of fire growth. Recommendations included

further study of small-scale tests such as the Cone Calorimeter, extension of room fire computer

models for application to trains, and large- or full-scale tests of actual rail vehicles.

The majority of the flammability and smoke emission test methods and performance criteria for

rail transit vehicle interior materials contained in NFPA 130 [42], are identical to the FRA

guidelines, the Amtrak specification, and the UMTA/FTA recommended practices. In addition,

NFPA 130 encourages the use of tests that evaluate materials in certain subassemblies and the use

of full-scale tests. NFPA 130 also includes requirements for ventilation, electrical fire safety, and

communications. Furthermore, NFPA 130 specifies station, trainway, vehicle storage and

maintenance area, and emergency procedure requirements, as part of a systems approach to fire

safety.

As an option, NFPA 130 contains a “hazard load analysis” in an appendix, which can be used to

evaluate overall material flammability in a rail transit vehicle. Based on previously cited work by

Smith, a heat release rate test is utilized to determine a 180-second average heat release and

smoke emission (the ASTM E 906 apparatus is specified for use in an example calculation). 
2-9

These values are multiplied by the exposed surface area for each material and totaled. Finally,

the total values are divided by the volume of the vehicle to obtain “fire and smoke load” for the

vehicle per unit volume. A suggested performance criteria of “3000 KJ/m3

 (80 BTU/ft3) is

included as the maximum allowable loading to assure that a self-propagating fire will not occur

with an initiating fire consisting of the equivalent of 1 lb (0.45 kg) of newsprint or 8 oz (0.23 kg)

of lighter fluid.” However, it is not clear how the author of the original work arrived at the

suggested performance criterion; he acknowledged that such a “hazard load” calculation did not

provide a complete description of a fire [60].

A NFPA 130 Passenger Rail Equipment Special Task Force has reviewed the standard and has 

prepared recommended text revisions to include intercity passenger and commuter rail cars

within its scope. The NFPA 130 Task Force is monitoring the progress of this current NIST fire

safety research. The Task Force plans to take advantage of the project results when deciding on

recommended revisions for material tests and performance criteria.

An ASTM committee has been developing a “Rail Transportation Fire Hazard Assessment

Guide.” When completed, this guide will provide information on the use of standard test

methods and fire engineering techniques to assess the fire hazard of rail transportation vehicles. 

However, full-scale validation of the methods has not yet been performed and is not currently

planned by ASTM.

2.2.2 Motor Vehicles

Nonmetallic interior materials, including seat assemblies, of all motor vehicles sold in the United

States must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of

Interior Materials - Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses [61]. 

In the FMVSS No. 302 test method, specimens are mounted with their exposed surfaces facing

down, in a horizontal orientation in a rectangular burn chamber. A small diffusion burner flame

is applied from below to one end of the exposed surface of the test specimen. The time of flame

spread between two marked points on the specimen holder is used to calculate the flame spread

rate. A maximum flame spread rate of 4 in (10 cm) per minute is specified for all motor vehicle

interior components exposed to the passenger compartment. Since its inception in 1968, this

standard has been applied to school buses as well as cars, trucks, and general purpose buses and

passenger vehicles.
2-10

In 1975, the fire safety of a transit bus supplied by the Washington (DC) Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority (WMATA) was studied [62]. The objectives were to determine: the minimum

ignition source necessary to initiate a fire in the bus and the means by which a fire once started, is

most likely to grow and spread. A series of small-scale tests conducted with the nylon-covered

polyurethane seat cushions showed that accidental ignition by a cigarette or dropped match was

unlikely. However, seats could be ignited with one or two matches, if applied at the proper

location (e.g., by an arsonist). Full-scale tests showed that, if ignited, fire growth and spread in

the bus was primarily from seat to seat or seat to wall liners, which then led to full bus fire

involvement. Between one and two minutes after the polyurethane was ignited, dense smoke

filled the bus, seriously reducing visibility. Among the study conclusions were: full-scale tests

were necessary to determine the interaction of materials and their performance under actual fire

conditions, and the level of passenger safety could be determined in part by comparing the time

required by evacuation with the time between initial ignition and the ignition of the polyurethane

foam. The report stated that the level of fire safety could be improved by removing or protecting

the polyurethane seat cushion.

In 1988, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an Advanced Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in which upgrading of FMVSS 302 as it applied to large

buses, including school buses was considered [63]. NHTSA requested responses to a number of

questions relating to: fireproofing a vehicle interior to withstand a fuel-fed fire, fire causes, type

of bus which should be covered, improvement of products in terms of flammability resistance,

impact of these improvements on the seat padding requirements in FMVSS 222, appropriateness

of the existing horizontal test, use of a systems approach to replicate a real-world fire, toxicity,

cost benefits, etc.

In 1990, NHTSA commissioned an investigation of the state-of-the-art in seating materials which

could be used for school buses and to develop the data necessary for the agency’s use in possible

rulemaking actions to upgrade No. FMVSS 302 [64]. Since seats represent the largest potential

source of combustible load, six different seat assemblies having a range of fire performance were

examined in school bus interior tests. Small-scale tests (Cone Calorimeter, Lateral Ignition and

Flame Spread Test [LIFT], and National Bureau of Standards [NBS] Toxicity Protocol) were

performed on the materials. Assembly tests using a large-scale calorimeter were conducted on

single seat assemblies. Real-scale tests were performed using a simulated bus structure

measuring 7.9-ft (2.4-m) wide by 6.9-ft (2.1-m) high by 27-ft (8.2-m) long and three seat assemblies. Small-scale, assembly, and real-scale test data were analyzed to compare seat materials

with respect to ignitability, flame spread, HRR, smoke generation, and toxicity. All of the seat
2-11

assemblies tested passed FMVSS 302. However, three of the six assemblies produced lethal or

incapacitating conditions in a school bus enclosure. One of the assemblies produced HRR values

an order of magnitude greater than the other assemblies. Results from Cone Calorimeter sample

tests showed peak HRR values ranging from 270 kW/m2

 for a fire-retardant polyurethane foam

with a cover fabric meeting the FTA (and FRA) guideline performance criteria to 500 kW/m2

 for

a baseline school bus seat with vinyl-covered polyurethane foam. Large-scale test data ranked the

seat assemblies in the same order as the small-scale tests.

Computer fire modeling was used in the school bus study to evaluate the development of

hazardous conditions in a compartment. It was employed to assess:

• the effects of different ignition sources and the resulting hazard due to

temperature, irradiance, and toxicity; and

• the relative importance of the hazard causes (i.e., temperature, irradiance, and

toxicity).

The 1990 report concluded that small-scale tests alone were unable to provide a simple method

for material selection that was consistent with all the real-scale test data. Like the 1984

FRA/Amtrak rail car study, small-scale and assembly tests of school bus seats could not account

for the effects of varied geometries in actual bus interiors. A test protocol for seat assembly

evaluation was proposed that combines enclosure fire testing (which provides measurement of

HRR and gas concentrations) with a fire hazard analysis protocol to determine the time-tountenable conditions in actual vehicle geometries. Under the proposed protocol, tested seat

assemblies would be rejected if untenable (nonsurvivable) conditions developed in the test

enclosure. 

In 1991, NHTSA issued a request for comments which discussed the 1990 research study and the

comments that it had received relating to the rulemaking proposed in 1988, and announced the

intention to limit any potential regulatory changes to the fire resistance properties only of school

buses [65]. NHTSA requested further comments relating to the 1990 study, availability of

alternative small-scale tests, full-scale testing, UMTA recommended practices, costs, vandalism,

etc. In 1992, NHTSA issued a revision to FMVSS 217 (requiring additional emergency exiting

for school buses to allow swifter egress in accidents, including collision and fires [66]. The

FMVSS 302 rulemaking has been on hold since 1993. 
2-12

In 1993, FTA issued final fire safety recommended practices for selecting transit bus and van

materials [67]. The majority of the recommended flammability and smoke emission test methods

and performance criteria are similar to those which FTA had previously issued for rail transit

vehicles. None of the rail or transit bus and van recommended practices are regulatory in nature. 

2.2.3 Aircraft

The majority of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) fire safety requirements for aircraft

interior materials are contained in 14 CFR, Part 25, Subparts 25.853 and 25.855 (see Table 2-2)

[68]. These requirements (referred to as FARs [Federal Airworthiness Regulations]) specify a

variety of test methods for passenger compartment and cargo compartment interiors including

small-scale burner tests, an oil burner test, a HRR test, and a smoke emission test.

FAR 25.853 (a) requires that, regardless of passenger capacity, all interior materials (including

finishes or decorative surfaces must be tested according to Federal Test Method Standard 191

[69]). This small-scale test applies to seats, panels, liners, and ducting; performance criteria for

flame time, burn length, and rate of flame spread vary accordingly. 

In an actual aircraft post-crash fire, the ability of seats (typically made of a polyurethane core

surrounded by a fire blocking layer) to conform to the oil burner test required by FAR 25.853 (c),

was determined to be a significant factor in the high passenger survival rate [70].

In addition, for aircraft with a capacity of more than 20 passengers, FAR 25.853 (d) requires that

interior ceiling and wall panels (other than light fixtures and windows), partitions, some gallery

structures, and large cabinets meet a HRR test and a smoke emission test (Appendix F, Parts IV

and V, respectively).

The required HRR test uses a version of the ASTM E 906 (OSU) test method (modified to

improve its repeatability) and limits the maximum HRR to 65 kW/m2 . In addition, the total heat

release during the first two minutes of the test is limited to 65 kW-min/m2

. These values were

chosen based on comparisons with real-scale tests in order to eliminate materials which led to a

shorter time to flashover in the real-scale tests [71].

The average density of material smoke emission (Ds) is required to not exceed 200 after 4

minutes using ASTM F 814 (a variation of ASTM 662, which uses a modified sample holder to

allow testing of thermoplastic materials) [72].
2-13

Finally, FAR 25.855 requires that cargo compartment panels meet the oil burner test. However,

the heat source is 91 kW/m2

 and the time period is 5 minutes.

The FAA has also published a report which contains explanatory information for fire safety tests

and performance criteria for each aircraft component [73].

In addition to material fire performance requirements, the FAA requires passenger evacuation

from an aircraft in 90 seconds [74]. The FAA also specifies additional requirements for the

number, type, and location of emergency exits [75], and other emergency evacuation components.

Table 2-2. FAR 25.853 Aircraft Interior Cabin Material Requirements

COMPONENT TEST CONDITIONS CRITERIA

 All Interior

 Materials

 25.853 (a) 

 Appendix F, Part I

 FTMS 191 

 Vertical, horizontal,

 and 45o

 angles

 Bunsen or Tirrill burner

 1 1⁄2 in flame

 1500o F

 Various exposure times

 Ceiling panels, etc.:

 Average burn length < 6 in (15 cm)

 Average flame time after removal <15 s

 Floor covering, etc.:

 Average burn length < 8 in (20 cm)

 Average flame time after removal <15 s

 Plastic windows, signs, etc. 

 Average burn length < 2.5 in (6.3 cm) 

 

 All Seat Cushions* (including

 blocking layer 

 and upholstery)

 25.853 (c) 

 Appendix F, Part II

 Kerosene oil burner

 119kW/m2

 

 2 minutes

 3 samples 

 For 2/3 of samples tested, the burn

 length must not reach the side opposite

 the burner or 17 in (42.5 cm)

 Average weight loss must not exceed 10%

 2/3 of total # of samples must not

 exceed 10% weight loss

 Interior Ceiling and

 Wall Materials,

 Partitions, Galley

 Structures**

 25.853 (d)

 Appendix F, Part IV

 Modified ASTM E 906

 Radiant flux of 3.5 W/cm2

 5 min

 3 samples

 Average peak HRR limited to 65 kW/m2

 

 Total average HRR after 1st 2 min limited

 to 65 kW-min/m2

 Interior Ceiling and

 Wall Materials,

 Partitions, 

 Galley

 Structures**

 25.853 (d)

 Appendix F, Part V

 ASTM F 814 

 (modified ASTM E 662)

 3 samples

 Ds < 200 at 4 min

NOTES: * In addition to 25.853 (a) 

 ** More than 20 passenger capacity
2-14

2.2.4 Passenger Vessels

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) fire performance requirements for U.S. flag passenger vessel

materials vary according to the number of passengers, vessel gross tonnage, and length and are

contained in 46 CFR, Subchapters H, K, and T [76][77][78]. Certain revisions to Subchapters K

and T were issued on September 30, 1997 [79]. 

Due to variations between the types of passenger vessels, it is not possible in this interim report 

to provide a complete summary of all USCG fire-related regulations. The following text

highlights several requirements similar to those for other U.S. transportation vehicles.

Subchapter Q, Part 164 also provides test method specifications and performance criteria for

approved “noncombustible” and “fire-resistive” materials used onboard passenger vessels [80]. 

For example, Subpart 164.008 requires that bulkhead panels pass ASTM E-119 for 30 to 60

minutes for integrity depending on use and 15 minutes for thermal insulation. Subpart 164.009

provides definitions of common “noncombustible” materials and includes the test procedure

which other materials must pass to be considered noncombustible. For very thin interior finishes,

Subpart 164.012 describes flame spread and smoke limit requirements of 20 and 10 respectively

according to ASTM E-84 Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building

Materials [81].

Subchapter H applies to any U.S. flag passenger ship of 100 or more gross tons. Subpart 72.05

relies primarily on structural fire endurance (e.g., passive) requirements and uses the traditional

approach of dividing ships into main vertical zones to limit fire spread and protect escape routes. 

Accordingly, structural components (bulkheads and decks) must be constructed of steel or

approved noncombustible materials and meet various fire endurance and time performance

criteria, depending on the location and function of spaces protected. In addition, fire barriers and

lining materials are required to be noncombustible; and furnishings are to be of USCG approved

“fire-resistive materials.” Ceilings and linings must be of approved noncombustible materials. In

certain accommodation spaces, thickness limits and use restrictions are stated for combustible

veneers. Frames of freestanding furniture and other furnishings (e.g., chairs and sofas) are

required to be entirely constructed of USCG approved noncombustible materials; draperies are

required to be made of fire-resistive fabrics. Rugs are required to be wool or other material

which has fire-resistive equivalency. In passageways and stairway enclosures, all chair and sofa

upholstery and padding must be of approved fire-resistant materials. 
2-15

The construction and arrangement requirements contained in Subchapter K, Subpart D, apply to

any U.S. flag passenger ship which is less than l00 gross tons and either carries more than 150

passengers or with overnight accommodations for 50 or more passengers. Structural fire

endurance requirements are similar to Subchapter H requirements, except as noted therein. In

addition, mattresses and bedding components must comply with the flammability requirements in

16 CFR, Part 1632 Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads [82] and

contain no polyurethane foam. Ceilings, linings, or other interior trim, furniture and furnishings,

and rugs and carpets must meet Subpart 72.05; the latter may meet either ASTM E-84 or ASTM

E-648 [30]. In addition, draperies, curtains and other similar furnishings must meet NFPA 701

Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Resistant Textiles and Film [83]. The maximum fire

load limit of combustibles must not exceed 3 lb/ft2

 (15 kg/m2) for a low-risk area and 7.5 lb/ft2

(37.5 kg/m2) for a high-risk area. Insulation must be noncombustible. 

With some exceptions, Subchapter T, Subpart D, applies to any U.S. flag passenger ship less than

100 gross tons and which carries 150 or less passengers or with overnight accommodations for 49

or fewer passengers. It should be noted that vessels of this class include those with wooden,

fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP), or aluminum, as well as those with steel hulls. A major provision

in these requirements is that the structural provisions allow the use of FRP materials including

composite laminate construction, if they meet certain ASTM E-84 criteria. General purpose resin

may be used if it does not meet those ASTM E-84 provisions only if certain other conditions

(e.g., limit ignition sources and provide fire detection and extinguishing system) are met;

however, general purpose resin cannot be used if the vessel has accommodations for more than

12 persons. 

Deviation from the USCG regulations is required to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety on

a case-by-case basis [84].

The USCG structural fire protection Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC 9-97)

provides guidance for typical acceptable methods of complying with the regulations [85]. The

NVIC reflects current fire protection technologies and includes summary tables of tests and

performance criteria, as well as more detailed information for construction and arrangement. 

Alternative approaches are described which could be used to fulfill the structural protection

requirements cited in the regulations. For example, the use of fire blocking layers placed over

foam padding is permitted if tested for effectiveness according to California Technical Bulletin

133 (TB 133) Flammability Test Procedure for Seating Furniture for Use in Public Occupancies

[86]. 
2-16

The USCG requires that all vessels provide at least two means of escape from all passengeraccessible areas. Additional requirements relate to the vertical travel distance, stairway sizing,

and several other provisions relating to emergency egress. For higher passenger density dinner

excursion and gambling vessels, NVIC 8-93 provides a description of equivalent alternatives for

meeting requirements for means of escape, main vertical zones, and safe refuge areas [87]. One

provision allows the main vertical zone to be longer if the fire load is limited to 3 lb/ft2

(15 kg/m2) and automatic sprinklers are provided. 

The United States is a signatory to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which

publishes passenger ship requirements for fire safety and means of escape in the International

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) [88]. Those fire safety requirements are similar

to the USCG regulations but apply to vessels that carry more than 12 passengers and operate on

international voyages. The IMO has recently adopted a new Fire Test Procedures Code [89]. The

tests in that Code must be used by all signatory countries effective in 1998. The SOLAS

provisions for means of escape are similar to the USCG regulations. 

The USCG allows the use of the IMO International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC

Code) as an alternative for small passenger vessels less than 100 gross tons which carry more

than 150 passengers [90]. The HSC Code defines a new “fire restricting” class of materials

which can be qualified by two International Organization for Standardization (ISO) HRR test

methods [91][92]. ISO 9705 is specified for bulkheads and wall and ceiling linings; certain

performance criteria in terms of average and peak HRR, as well as average and maximum smoke

emission rates, are provided. ISO 5660 uses the Cone Calorimeter for furniture items (not

including upholstery and fabrics) and other components; however, the IMO does not specify

performance criteria. To fill that gap, the USCG is conducting a research project to identify what

the appropriate classification criteria should be for U.S. flag ships. 

As a result of U.S. regulatory reform, the USCG initiated and chaired an NFPA technical

committee to develop consensus standards as an alternative to the current regulations and NVICs

[93]. Various NFPA 301, Code for Safety to Life From Fire on Merchant Vessels requirements

are described for vessels carrying more than 12 passengers [94]. Materials requirements are

similar to the USCG regulations and the NVIC 9-97 with some exceptions. The passenger

capacity, type of service (day or overnight), and whether or not the space is protected with

automatic sprinklers determine flame spread limits. NFPA 301 means-of-egress provisions

appear to be adapted for the marine environment from NFPA 101 Life Safety Code [95] and

depend on the number of passengers and whether or not overnight accommodations are provided. 
2-17

NFPA 301 includes an appendix which is intended to allow the vessel designer and operator to

comply with the Code while accommodating new or unique vessel uses or incorporating new or

transfer technology. The appendix provides a standardized hazard analysis and risk assessment

methodology to use in demonstrating equivalent safety. The methodology includes a description

of several analysis techniques (e.g., preliminary hazard analysis, fault tree analysis, criticality

analysis), data inputs (e.g., vessel physical description, design and operating assumptions and

conditions), hazard correction measures, verification and documentation of equivalence. 

Since the recently adopted NFPA 301 will be subject to continuous revision (most likely in three

year cycles), it will more easily be kept current with new technologies.

2.3 U.S. FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS COMMENTARY 

A considerable overlap exists for passenger transportation vehicle fire safety requirements; they

are prescriptive and intended to prevent fire ignition or retard fire growth and spread. The FRA,

Amtrak, FTA, and NFPA all specify identical small-scale test methods and similar performance

criteria to evaluate the flammability and smoke emission properties of individual component

interior materials used in rail vehicles (see Table 2-3). The FRA has proposed that the test

methods and performance criteria cited in its existing guidelines be required for new or rebuilt

passenger rail equipment. The proposed rule also requires that a fire hazard analysis be

conducted for existing, rebuilt, and new cars.

The NFPA 130 standard contains identical tests and similar performance criteria for rail transit

vehicle interior materials and describes a “hazard load analysis” method which can be used to

evaluate overall material flammability. Although a heat release test is included, it is not clear

how the author of the original work arrived at the suggested performance criterion. Moreover,

the geometry of the vehicle and placement of combustibles in the vehicle can play a significant

role in actual exposures of a given material. The NFPA 130 “hazard load analysis” method is an

attempt to provide a simplified and semi-quantitative analysis to assess the overall contribution to

fire hazard of the materials used in interior linings and fittings. The method recognizes HRR as

the key variable in fire hazard and ties performance to real-scale test results. However, adding

values for all exposed materials in a vehicle to obtain a hazard load assumes that every part of

every material ignites and burns simultaneously. In reality, different propensities for ignition,

flame spread, and heat release make this a highly conservative approach. Current fire hazard

modeling techniques and correlations can provide a more realistic assessment of the contribution

of materials to the overall fire hazard.
2-18

Table 2-3. Major U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire Performance Requirements

MODE COMPONENT PROPERTY TEST PROCEDURE CRITERIA

Surface (cars, trucks, & buses)

NHTSA

All nonmetallic interior materials Flame Spread 49 CFR 571.302

FMVSS 302

Rate: 4 in/min

Surface Mass TransportationVehicles (passenger trains, rail & bus transit)

FRA, FTA

Seat materialsPanel, partition, wall, ceilingElastomers

Flame ResistanceFlame SpreadFlame Spread

14 CFR 25.853 (a)(Upholstery)ASTM E 3675 (Foam)ASTM E 162ASTM C 542

Flame Time: 15 s Burn length: < 6 inIs : = 35

Is : = 25Pass

Floor covering Flame Spread ASTM E 648 CFR >.05 watts/cm2 (5 kW/m2)Seat materials, panels, walls, partitions, ceiling (also elastomers & floor covering - FRA)

Smoke Emission ASTM E 662 Ds (1.5): = 100 Ds (4.0): = 200

Floor structure Fire Endurance ASTM E 119 Pass: 15 min nominal evacuation time

Air (Commercialaviation aircraft) FAA

Cabin & cargo compartment materials: seats, panel, liner, ducting

Flame Resistance

1. Vertical

2. Horizontal3. Degree

14 CFR 2525.853 (a)

Flame time: 15 sFlame time of drippings: 3 sBum length: 6 in

Seats Flame Resistance 25.853 (c)

Oil Burner (2 min)

Burn length: < 17 in Weight loss: < 10%

Cabin & compartment liner Fire Endurance 25.855

Oil Burner (5 min)

No flame penetrationPeak temperature 4 in (102 mm) above s

 (204°C)

All large area cabin interiormaterials (more than 20 passengercapacity)

Heat ReleaseRate

25.853 (d)ASTM E 906

Peak HRR in 5 min: 65 kW/m2

Total HRR in 2 min: 65 kW-min/m2

Smoke Emission ASTM F 814 Ds (4.0): = 200

Marine (Commercial passenger vessels) Divisions, bulkhead panels, decks, floor Fire Endurance 46 CFR 116.415 Standard Fire Test Class A: 1 h Class B: 30 minSubchapter K (See also Subchapter H & T) Ceilings, linings, trim, interior finishes, decorations Noncombustibility 46 CFR 116.422 (a) 46 CFR 164.009 USCGSee also IMOResolution MSC. 61 (67), 1996

Certain interior finish, veneer, trim, decorationsFurnishings

Flame SpreadSmoke Emission

46 CFR 116.422 (b)CFR 164.012(ASTM E 84)46 CFR 116.423

Is: = 20 Ds: = 10

Additional volume limitations/use restrictio veneersApproved

 - Sofas, other materials - Frames

Fire ResistanceNoncombustibility

46 CFR 72.05.5546 CFR 164.009

 - Drapes, curtains Fire Resistance NFPA 701 Small-scale char length: (1) 3.5 - 5.5 in a

 specimens (2) 4.5 - 6.5 in max for each Large-scale char length: varies (folded or 

 - Carpet (wool or equivalent) Flame Spread ASTM E 84 or E 648 Is: = 75 or CRF: <.08 watts/cm2 (8 kW

Smoke Emission ASTM E 662 Ds: = 100 or Ds : = 450
2-19

The NFPA 130 Passenger Rail Equipment Special Task Force is monitoring the progress of this

current NIST fire safety research. The Task Force plans to take advantage of the project results

when deciding on recommended revisions for material test methods and performance criteria.

NHTSA motor vehicle requirements use a small-scale test method for all interior nonmetallic

materials to provide a screen against materials which ignite easily or initially burn rapidly. 

However, that test has not been shown to be effective in predicting fire hazards for larger

vehicles such as transit buses and vans. Since NHTSA determined that additional extensive

research would be required before revising FMVSS 302, the agency required additional exits to

be installed on new school buses. 

Current FAA aircraft flammability requirements for interior materials specify small burner tests,

oil burner tests, a HRR test, and a smoke emission test. The FAA small burner test method is

also specified by the FRA for seat upholstery, mattress covers, and curtains; however, the FAA

requires that all interior finish materials be tested. The oil burner test method specified for seat

cushions represents a severe initiating fire exposure in a postcrash scenario where passenger

evacuation must be accomplished within 90 seconds. However, this fire severity is not typical of

the majority of passenger train fires and available evacuation time for train passengers is longer

in most cases. Accordingly, the fire hazard and environment are quite different for passengers

using the two transportation modes. The FAA HRR test method uses an apparatus similar to the

Cone Calorimeter; however, the apparatus is not adaptable for fabric testing. More importantly,

the use of the FAA test and performance criteria would eliminate many of the materials currently

used in passenger trains. The Cone Calorimeter provides a more accurate measurement of HRR

(see Chapter 5); this is particularly important in the use of such data as inputs in computer fire

models to perform fire hazard analysis. 

The existing USCG passenger vessel fire safety requirements primarily rely on passive structural 

fire barriers and separation to prevent or limit fire spread and allow for emergency egress. 

Several material tests and performance criteria are similar to those cited by the FRA. The USCG

permits designers to submit an engineering analysis to evaluate materials used in relation to the

vessel environment. This case-by-case approach allows the use of alternatives which provide an

equivalent level of safety and meet the intent of the fire protection regulations. The NVIC for

structural fire protection also describes alternative approaches to meeting the current USCG

regulations. For high-speed craft, the USCG permits the use of two ISO codes that use HRR test

methods to evaluate materials; a research study is underway to identify appropriate HRR criteria

for furniture used on U.S. flag vessels.
2-20

The NFPA 301 Code includes material requirements that vary depending on the type of service 

provided to passengers and whether areas are protected with automatic sprinklers. In addition,

that code allows for the use of a hazard analysis approach to accommodate new or unique vessel

uses or for incorporating new or transfer technology. 

The FAA and USCG have both accepted the use of HRR as a means to evaluate material fire

performance for aircraft and marine vessels. Although the passenger hazards and environment

are different, the results of the NIST passenger train research study will assist the FRA in

formulating comparable material performance criteria using HRR. 

2.4 EUROPEAN PASSENGER TRAIN FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

German passenger train fire safety requirements are based on a systems approach to fire safety. 

DIN 5510, Preventive Railway Fire Protection in Railway Vehicles, published by the German

Standards Institute (DIN), requires that the supporting structures, fittings, and linings of

passenger trains be selected and arranged to prevent or delay danger to passengers, crew, and

rescue personnel caused by the development, propagation, and spread of fire [96]. The highest

level of protection is required for trains which cannot be evacuated anywhere along the track,

e.g., in tunnels.

A series of tests to evaluate material performance must be used to prove compliance with the

DIN requirements. These tests provide a means to prevent the fire or retard its growth and

spread.

The German requirements appear to include test methods and criteria to address the flammability

of most materials in a manner at least as strict as the U.S. requirements. Criteria for insulation

materials are notably missing from the German requirements. Insulation material criteria are

appropriately included in the U.S. requirements since such materials are in widespread use in the

rail industry [97].

The French approach to preventing a fire or retarding its growth and spread is similar to its U.S.

counterpart, in that materials are individually considered. French requirements rely heavily on

material controls [98] [99]. However, the French approach uses a complex system based on

several classification indices, each derived from several test results. The French requirements

then classify the materials based on the perceived risk to occupants. In practice, it is not clear 
2-21

how such a classification is achieved. In addition to materials, emergency egress requirements

are specified [100]. 

The International Union of Railways (UIC) Code 564-2, Regulations Relating to Fire Protection

and Fire-fighting Measures in Passenger-carrying Railway Vehicles or Assimilated Vehicles

Used on International Services, covers passenger rail car design for international service in

Europe [101]. There is considerable overlap between this code and the French requirements. As

a general guideline for vehicle design, the UIC Code 564-2 states that: “the coach design and

interior fittings must above all prevent the spread of fire.” To address this provision, a set of

material test methods is included, similar in intent and implementation to the French

requirements, which cover vehicle design (to reduce potential ignition), compartmentation (to

prevent spread of fire from one vehicle to another), electrical systems, fire detection in engine

compartments, fire extinguishers, fire alarms, and emergency egress (via door and window

design).

Judging the equivalence of the French and UIC requirements to the U.S. requirements is much

more difficult. Although test methods are similar to those used in the United States, the complex

array of performance criteria in the French standards make an exact comparison of the pass-fail

criteria impossible. Litant concluded that the French requirements do not provide an

improvement over the U.S. rail guidelines [102]. The French specification does not include

requirements for fire barrier endurance testing. Since the majority of passenger rail car fires

originate beneath the car floor, such testing is appropriately included in the U.S. requirements.

The British Standard Code of Practice for Fire Precautions in the Design and Construction of

Railway Passenger Rolling Stock (BS 6853) [103][104] defines two categories of vehicle use:

• Trains which require higher resistance to fire (underground, sleeping cars, 

unmanned operating trains), and

• All other vehicles.

BS 6853 includes fire performance provisions for material selection, compartmentation

(particularly in sleeping cars), electrical equipment, and cooking equipment. Small-scale testing

for material selection uses a variety of British Standard tests on individual component materials

to evaluate material flammability and smoke emission. BS 6853 states that certain passenger

trains require a higher resistance to fire and includes those trains operating in confined situations

(underground or on elevated structures), those carrying sleeping cars, or unmanned operation
2-22

trains. A fire hazard assessment provision states that fire behavior should be judged by product

characteristics, e.g., ignitability, rate of surface spread of flame, rate of heat release, smoke

generation, combustion gases, and release of other harmful products. Design considerations

which should also be taken into account when selecting products are the material quantity; its

position, configuration, and orientation in the vehicle; interaction of materials, air flow,

proximity to ignition sources, etc. Real-scale testing is recommended when “the proposed

construction represents a significant departure from the normal practice.” Fire endurance

requirements are similar to the U.S. Provisions for “aiding passenger and crew escape” including

emergency exits and lighting are also included.

2.5 EUROPEAN PASSENGER TRAIN HRR AND HAZARD ANALYSIS 

RESEARCH

Several European countries have active programs to improve passenger train fire safety

evaluation. A great deal of effort is being expended to relate small-scale and real-scale

performance by the use of fire modeling. This work is being conducted by individual countries 

(France, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom) and in coordinated activities under the sponsorship 

of the European Railway Research Institute (ERRI) and the Commission for European

Standardization (CEN).

The British Rail (BR) small-scale test program is targeted at developing a database of HRR data

for all rail materials in current use [105]. BR’s Cone Calorimeter work is supplemented by realscale assembly tests in a Furniture Calorimeter as part of the ERRI research effort [106]. 

Assemblies tested in the Furniture Calorimeter include: seat assemblies, sidewall and ceiling

panel assemblies, catering refuse bags and contents, plastic towel dispenser units, and vending

machines. No other test method data are available for the materials.

The Furniture Calorimeter testing uses the methods specified in the British Standards Institute

(BSI) documents for the fire evaluation of mock-up upholstered furniture. These methods use

small wood cribs as the ignition source. The UK government trend toward privatization of its

rail industry has led to an increase in the rehabilitation of older equipment instead of the

complete replacement of rolling stock. This has limited the availability of newer materials and

assemblies available for testing.

However, BR has also conducted several real-scale test burns of existing coaches and sleeping

cars. While much of this work has been performed for internal use, some tests have been
2-23

performed under the auspices of the ERRI activities. All of these tests relate to rail car fires on

open trackways. 

Other real-scale fire tests of rail cars located in tunnels have been conducted as part of the

Channel Tunnel safety work leading up to the operation of shuttle trains carrying passengers and

motor vehicles between England and France [107].

In the process of testing representative materials using a Cone Calorimeter, the London

Underground Limited (LUL) has selected an exposure of 50 kW/m2

 for 20 minutes as a suitable

exposure for material evaluation consistent with testing exposures and fire experience in the

United Kingdom [107].

In 1990, Göransson and Lundqvist studied seat flammability in buses and rail transit trains using

material tests and real-scale tests [108]. All of the seats used high-resilient foam covered with a

variety of fabrics. Wall panels consisted of fabric-covered wood or metal panels. In the smallscale tests, the Cone Calorimeter was selected to provide ignition and heat release rate

information. In real-scale tests, the maximum heat release rate of a seat assembly, about 200 kW,

was not sufficient to ignite the panels or the ceiling “quickly” (unfortunately, “quickly” was not

defined). However, ignition of adjacent seats was noted in real-scale mock-up tests.

Numerous international conferences have been held and a very large research project was

conducted in Norway under the auspices of EUREKA (European Research Coordination

Agency) by nine Western European nations [109]. A 1995 EUREKA test report reviewed 24 fire

incidents over 20 years (1971-1991) and contained the following major conclusions relevant to

this NIST study: 

• Rolling stock represented the significant fuel load.

• Large amounts of smoke and fire gases were produced which can quickly fill the 

entire tunnel reducing visibility to less than 3.3 ft (1 m).

• In major incidents, flashover occurred after 7-10 minutes and total fire duration 

was from 30 minutes to several hours.

The EUREKA research team conducted a series of tests in a tunnel utilizing aluminum and steelbodied German (DB) Inter-City and Inter-City Express rail cars. An extensive series of full-scale

fire tests were conducted and HRR values were developed. Since most of these vehicles were
2-24

documented as to their (major) constituent fuels, the HRR data can be compared to the results for

U.S. rail vehicles. 

ERRI considered the use of the Cone Calorimeter to be the only small-scale apparatus suitable

for providing useful data for computer modeling [20]. In a test application, ERRI used the

HAZARD I model to simulate a fire in the British 10 ft (3 m) test cube and concluded that the

use of the model to simulate fires in a railway vehicle was feasible [21]. The conduct of the

following additional research: 1) Cone Calorimeter tests to provide data for use with the

HAZARD I model and 2) comparison of the results of model simulations with real-scale fire tests

was recommended. ERRI has conducted Cone Calorimeter and Furniture Calorimeter tests to

provide input data for fire and hazard modeling of passenger coaches [106][110]. 

2.6 SUMMARY

There is considerable overlap in the existing U.S. transportation approach to fire safety. The

FRA, Amtrak, FTA, NFPA 130 FAA, NHTSA, and USCG requirements all rely primarily on

small-scale tests and similar performance criteria for many vehicle interior materials. The use of

these tests has allowed interested parties to select preferred combinations of components and

permits material suppliers to independently evaluate the adequacy of their materials. In the

passenger rail equipment rule, the FRA has proposed that its existing material guidelines be

made mandatory for existing, refurbished, and new rail cars to provide a minimum level of fire

performance. Fire hazard analysis would also be required for existing, refurbished, and new rail

cars.

Small-scale tests provide a means to select individual passenger train materials in terms of

preventing initial ignition, retarding fire growth, and providing evacuation time. However,

several studies which investigated rail and bus transit vehicle and passenger rail car material test

requirements, concluded that small-scale tests alone could not account for the different effects of

actual vehicle configurations and geometries.

Amtrak requires evaluation of individual test data in the context of the intended use of the

material to develop a fire hazard assessment to select materials on the basis of function, safety

and cost. 
2-25

The NFPA 130 standard describes a “hazard load analysis” method provides a simplified and

semi-quantitative analysis to assess the overall contribution to fire hazard of the materials used in

interior linings and fittings. While the method recognizes HRR as the key variable in fire hazard

and ties performance to real-scale test results, current fire hazard modeling techniques and

correlations can provide a more realistic assessment of the contribution of materials to the overall

fire hazard.

NFPA and ASTM are also conducting research efforts which are intended to provide additional

tools to evaluate passenger train materials.

NHTSA motor vehicle requirements use a small-scale test method for all interior nonmetallic

materials to provide a screen against materials that ignite easily or initially burn rapidly. 

However, that test has not been shown to be effective in predicting fire hazards for larger

vehicles such as transit buses and vans. Since NHTSA determined that additional extensive

research would be required before revising FMVSS 302, the agency required additional exits to

be installed on new school buses. 

The FAA oil burner test method for seat cushions represents a severe initiating fire exposure in a

post-crash scenario where passenger evacuation must be accomplished in 90 seconds. However,

that severity is not typical of the majority of passenger train fires; the available evacuation time

for train passengers is also longer in most cases. Accordingly, the fire hazard and evacuation

environment are quite different for passengers using the two transportation modes. Therefore,

the required fire performance criteria may vary and still provide a comparable level of safety to

passengers.

The Cone Calorimeter provides a more accurate measurement of HRR than the FAA-specified

test method. This accuracy is particularly important in the use of such data as inputs to computer

models to perform fire hazard analysis.

The existing USCG passenger vessel fire safety requirements primarily rely on structural barrier

fire endurance and separation. However, alternative design approaches may be used if they

provide an equivalent level of safety. The NFPA 301 marine vessel code permits the use of a

hazard analysis approach to accommodate new or unique vessel uses or which incorporate new or

transfer technology. For high-speed craft, the USCG permits the use of two ISO codes which use

HRR test methods to evaluate materials; a research study is underway to identify appropriate

HRR criteria for furniture used on U.S. flag vessels. 
2-26

Existing European approaches to passenger train fire safety are generally similar to the U.S.

approach. However, concerns about material interaction have led several European country

efforts and coordinated ERRI and CEN activities to develop assessment tools for fire hazard

evaluation based on a combination of Cone Calorimeter, Furniture Calorimeter, real-scale

testing, and computer modeling of passenger train interior assembly fires. 

The FAA and USCG have both accepted the use of HRR as a means to evaluate material fire

performance for aircraft and marine vessels. However, the different fire hazards and operating

and evacuation environments make it difficult to specify uniform performance criteria for all

types of vehicles.

Nearly all current efforts in transportation vehicle fire safety are focused on the use of HRR data

and fire hazard analysis to measure material fire performance. This approach is consistent with

ongoing efforts to develop performance-based fire codes in the United States and Europe.

The remainder of this report describes the results of Cone Calorimeter tests of commonly used

passenger rail car materials and compares HRR data to FRA-cited test data. The HRR data will

also be used as inputs to the NIST fire computer model and hazard analysis in Phase II. 
3-1

Figure 3-1. Amtrak Coach Car

3. PASSENGER TRAIN MATERIALS

Passenger rail cars are constructed primarily of stainless steel; some newer designs incorporate

aluminum components. Due to the typically longer distances traveled, the furnishing of

conventional passenger rail equipment is more complex than that provided in a rail transit (e.g.,

subway, light rail) vehicle. Interior trim and furnishing depends upon the type of passenger

service (intercity versus commuter) and type of car. Intercity passenger trains may consist of

coach, food service, and/or sleeping cars. In addition, cooking equipment, heat and air

conditioning systems, AC and DC power equipment, and lavatories are included in various

passenger rail car designs. Multi-level rail cars have stairways which allow passengers to move

from one level to another. New Amtrak high-speed trainsets will consist of coach, first class,

lounge, and dining cars all of which will use interior materials similar to those in existing cars.

The remainder of this chapter describes the specific characteristics of typical passenger train

interior materials selected for inclusion in this Phase I effort. Although the focus is on Amtrak

rail car materials, they are intended to represent a range of those typically used in U.S. passenger

trains.

3.1 TYPICAL MATERIALS

The Amtrak fleet consists of several generations of passenger rail cars. Cars typically have

interior walls, ceilings, and floors partially covered with carpeting. In some configurations, the

carpeting on walls has been replaced with fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) material. Most

intercity passenger and many commuter rail cars are equipped with upholstered seat cushions. 

The majority of rail car floors are constructed of plywood/metal (plymetal) panels. 

3.1.1 Coach/First Class Cars

Coach cars contain rows of upholstered seats,

windows, and overhead luggage storage space. 

Figure 3-1 shows a typical Amtrak coach car. 

The walls and ceiling are lined with fabric or

carpet glued to a perforated sheet metal base

material, or FRP. The underside of the overhead

luggage storage rack is covered either with the
3-2

Figure 3-2. Carpet and Resilient Rubber 

 Floor Covering

a. Coach b. First Class

same carpet or flexible polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) fabric installed over a thin foam or 

rigid acrylic. The window assembly is FRP

window mask with polycarbonate glazing. 

Wool/nylon fabric drapes are used at windows

of coach cars used for overnight service. 

Fiberglass insulation is used in the floors,

sidewalls, end walls, and air ducts in the cars. 

The floor covering consists of carpet and

resilient rubber matting (see Figure 3-2). 

Coach seats consist of fabric-covered foam

cushions installed on steel seat frames with seat shrouds, back shells, and food trays made of

PVC/acrylic. A wool/nylon blend and PVC upholstery over a muslin interliner have typically

been used. Seat support diaphragms of chloroprene elastomer or fire-retardant cotton fabric

provide flexible support for the seat bottom. Certain coaches used for longer distances are

equipped with padded arm and leg rests, and chloroprene-covered steel foot rests, as well as

fabric window drapes. The seats in sleeping cars are designed to convert to beds (see Section

3.1.4). Figure 3-3a shows a typical Amtrak coach seat.

The seats in first class sections are similar to coach seats but plush fabric upholstery installed

over thicker foam cushions provides a higher level of comfort. Figure 3-3b shows a first class

seat. 

Figure 3-3. Seats
3-3

b. Bi-level Observation Lounge Car a. Single Level Cafe/Lounge Car

Figure 3-5. Dining Car

3.1.2 Cafe/Lounge and Dining Cars

Single level cafe/lounge car interior furnishings are similar to the coach cars. The cafe/lounge

cars have a minimal food service area and reduced seat density and may be equipped with

phenolic/wood laminate tables and PVC fabric upholstered padded seats. Stainless-steel

counters and cabinets are used by the service crew. Wall surface linings consist primarily of a

melamine or phenolic/plymetal laminate with carpet also used. Windows consist of 

polycarbonate glazing. The car floor covering may consist of carpet and/or resilient rubber mat. 

Figure 3-4a shows the interior of an Amtrak cafe/lounge car.

The Superliner bi-level observation cars use similar seat construction but with molded FRP wall

surfaces with polycarbonate window glazing and space dividers. PVC cup holders line the

bottom of the windows. Figure 3-4b shows the upper level of a Superliner observation car. 

Figure 3-4. Cafe/Lounge Car

Figure 3-5 shows a typical Amtrak dining car. 

Dining cars are equipped with tables, PVC

upholstered cushion seats, polycarbonate

windows, fabric window drapes, and resilient

rubber floor covering. Like the coach cars, the

walls and ceiling surfaces are lined with carpet

glued to a perforated sheet metal base material.

In some configurations, this carpet is replaced

with FRP. Tables and seat assemblies are 

constructed similar to the cafe/lounge cars.
3-4

3.1.3 Sleeping Cars

Viewliner and Superliner sleeping cars contain a series of individual rooms arranged along a

corridor plus luggage storage space. The seats in each individual compartment convert to beds

with fabric-covered foam mattresses; pillows, cotton sheets, and wool blankets are provided. 

The sleeping compartment (see one variant in Figure 3-6), also have wool wall carpet, nylon

floor carpet, as well as FRP wall and ceiling surfaces. Mattresses are constructed of the same

type of foam as the coach and first class seats. The compartments may also contain additional

seats. Fabric door curtains and window drapes provide privacy. Partitions between sleeping

compartments and hallways are constructed of plymetal panels, which are covered by either

melamine, FRP, or carpet.

 a. Day b. Night

Figure 3-6. Sleeping Car Compartment

3.1.4 Miscellaneous Component Materials

Elastomer materials are used for gasketing around door edges, around windows, and between

cars. Other materials are used in hidden spaces (nonpassenger-accessible space), such as cable

and wiring, pipe wrap, ventilation and air ducting.
3-5

Figure 3-7. Coach Seat Assembly

3.2 MATERIALS SELECTED FOR TESTING

Materials selected for inclusion in the Cone Calorimeter test program reflected a broad range of

interior finishing materials as used in the Amtrak fleet. In addition, other materials were tested

because of their possible utility as new or replacement materials for existing applications. All the

materials are classified into five broad categories:

• Seats and mattress assemblies (foam, with upholstery or other covering);

• Wall and window surfaces (carpet, plastic laminate, composite, window masks);

• Curtains, drapes, and other fabrics (sleeping car door, window, bedding);

• Floor covering (carpet, resilient rubber mat); and

• Miscellaneous components (cafe/lounge/diner tables, pipe wrap, air ducts,

elastomers).

These five categories are similar to the categories used by Amtrak for interior furnishing

materials and to those used by the FRA categories which include curtains, drapes, and fabrics in

the same category as seat assemblies and mattresses. For this study, those materials are listed

separately; their HRR results will be different since they are thinner than the thicker assemblies. 

Several of the FRA categories have been combined into the miscellaneous category above.

Table 3-1 lists the selected materials which were tested. This table includes an arbitrary sample

number designation that will be used for material identification throughout this report. For

assembly samples such as seat cushions, mattresses, bed pads, pillows, and window assemblies,

the individual component materials are identified in the material description.

A representative seat cushion assembly sample 

consists of foam core, interliner, and fabric 

upholstery components (see Figure 3-7). The

individual materials are identified by a letter along

with the sample number. For example, Sample 1

comprises four component materials: a foam core

(Sample 1a), a cotton interliner (Sample 1b),

wool/nylon fabric upholstery (Sample 1c), and 

PVC upholstery (Sample 1d).
3-6

Table 3-1. Selected Passenger Train Materials Evaluated in This Study

CATEGORY

SAMPLE

NO.* MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENTS)

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1a, 1b, 1c, 1d Seat cushion, (foam, interliner, fabric/PVC cover)

2a, 2b, 2c Seat cushion, (foam, interliner, fabric cover)

3 Graphite-filled foam

4 Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene elastomer

5 Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton muslin

6 Seat shroud, PVC/acrylic

7 Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support)

8 Seat footrest cover, chloroprene elastomer

9 Seat track cover, chloroprene elastomer

10a, 10b, 10c Mattress (foam, interliner, ticking)

11a, 11b, 11c Bed pad (foam, interliner, ticking)

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 Wall finishing, wool carpet 

13 Wall finishing, wool fabric 

14 Space divider, polycarbonate

15 Wall material, FRP/PVC

16 Wall panel, FRP

17 Window glazing, polycarbonate

18 Window mask, FRP

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

19 Privacy door curtain and window drape, wool/nylon

20 Window curtain, polyester

21 Blanket, wool fabric 

22 Blanket, modacrylic fabric

23a, 23b Pillow, cotton fabric/polyester filler

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 Carpet, nylon 

25 Rubber mat, styrene butadiene

MISC

26 Cafe/lounge/diner table, phenolic/wood laminate

27 Air duct, neoprene

28 Pipe wrap insulation foam

29 Window gasketing, chloroprene elastomer

30 Door gasketing, chloroprene elastomer

* – letters indicate individual component materials in an assembly. Individual component materials are

listed in order in parentheses following the material description

Note: All foam except Sample 3 is the identical type
3-7

Sample 2 is also a seat assembly which consists of three components: foam core, interliner, and

plush wool/nylon cover fabric. The foam and interliner of Samples 1 and 2 are identical. Sample

3 is a foam product which was being considered for potential passenger train use. 

Several other components of the seat assembly were also tested. These were:

• two seat support diaphragms (Samples 4 and 5);

• seat shroud (Sample 6);

• coach seat armrest pad molded to a steel frame (Sample 7);

• coach seat footrest cover (Sample 8); and

• seat track cover (Sample 9). 

Passenger sleeping compartments can be configured as either seating areas or sleeping areas. 

Seat configuration is somewhat different from coach seat configuration, but comparable

materials are used in the seat assemblies. The conversion to a sleeping configuration introduces

additional materials not found in other types of cars, including mattress assembly, bed pad

assembly, blanket, pillow, sheets, and pillow case. The mattress and bed pad were composed of

three materials: a cover fabric (ticking), an interliner, and a foam core. The foam cushion

material used in the mattress and bed pad were the same as used in Samples 1 and 2 seat

assemblies, differing only in thickness. The pillow was composed of a fire-resistant (FR) cotton

cover fabric and polyester filler material.

Two general types of Amtrak wall finishing materials were tested: textile (carpet and fabric) and

composite (plastic laminate on wood and FRP/PVC) wall coverings.

The window assembly represents a large proportion of the interior wall surface. The window

assembly is composed of a tinted and clear two-layer polycarbonate glazing, a metallic frame, an

elastomer gasket, and a FRP window mask. The window assembly was disassembled and each

layer of the glazing was tested separately. The window mask is included as part of the window

assembly, but could also represent a major part of the wall finishing material.

A wool/nylon fabric used for sleeping compartment door curtains and window drapes and

another polyester window drape fabric were tested.
3-8

Two types of floor covering materials were tested: a nylon closed-loop pile carpet and a raised

disc-patterned resilient rubber mat.

Miscellaneous materials tested included: a cafe/lounge/diner table (phenolic sheet laminated

onto 3/4-in (1.86-cm) thick plywood composite, air duct, pipe wrap insulation, and chloroprene

elastomer window and door gaskets.

3.3 SUMMARY

Thirty materials, reflecting a broad cross section of Amtrak passenger train interior finishing

materials, were selected for Cone Calorimeter testing. The seat assemblies, wall and ceiling

finishing materials, and floor coverings represent the bulk of the interior fire load found in most

passenger rail cars. Materials such as mattresses, bed pads, blankets, and pillows increase the

fire load in sleeping cars.
4-1

4. FRA-CITED TEST METHOD EVALUATION

The FRA cites several fire performance test methods for flammability and smoke emission: 

• ASTM E 162, Standard Test Method for Surface Flammability of Materials Using

a Radiant Energy Source [28], and an equivalent method for flexible materials,

ASTM D 3675, Standard Test Method for Surface Flammability of Cellular

Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source [29],

• ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering

Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source [30],

• FAR 25.853 (a), Vertical Bunsen Burner Test for Cabin and Cargo Compartment

Materials [33],

• ASTM C 542, Specification for Lock-Strip Gaskets [31],

• ASTM E 662, Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke

Generated by Solid Materials, [32] and

• ASTM E 119, Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials [34].

All the test methods except ASTM E 119 represent reaction-to-fire tests that define material fire

performance under specified conditions. Appendix B includes a more detailed description of each

test method. ASTM E 119 is a large-scale fire endurance test that measures fire and thermal

penetration resistance of a material or assembly. Since this report is concerned with material

contribution to fire initiation and growth as determined by small-scale measurements, that test

method will not be discussed further.

For each of the FRA-cited small-scale test methods, this chapter summarizes the test procedure,

performance criteria, and available test data for the materials evaluated. For some materials, only

certification of compliance with the FRA requirements was available from material suppliers,

without accompanying quantitative data. Since the primary use of these data in this report is for

quantitative comparison with Cone Calorimeter data, information for these materials was noted

as “not available.”
4-2

Is ˆ Fs x Q (1)

4.1 ASTM E 162 / D 3675

ASTM E 162, and its variant for cellular materials, ASTM D 3675, both measure flame spread

and rate of energy release under a radiant flux which varies over the length of the sample (from

about 40 kW/m2 at the end where the sample is ignited, down to 3 kW/m2 at the far end of the

sample). Both methods rank materials based on a flame spread index, Is, which is a combination

of a “flame spread potential,” Fs, and a “heat generation potential,” Q, such that:

The value of Is can be as low as 0 and has no upper limit. The higher the flame spread index, the

greater the flammability. The calculation algorithm of Is is identical for both test methods. More

details about these ASTM test methods can be found in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Application and Performance Criteria

The FRA performance criteria for this test method range from Is & 25 to Is& 100, with different

values applicable to specific components as follows:

• Is & 25 for seat cushions and insulation;

• Is & 35 for seat and mattress frames, wall and ceiling panels, and most other

interior furnishing components; and

• Is & 100 for windows and light diffusers.

4.1.2 Test Data

Data from manufacturer and/or supplier tests are tabulated in Table 4-1 for those materials that

have ASTM E 162 or D 3675 performance criteria. Component materials which are tested by

other test methods are not shown in the table.

Most of the materials meet the FRA performance criteria; however, there are exceptions: 

• The graphite-filled foam (Sample 3) had an Is of 442. This material was under

consideration for passenger rail seat applications, but is not in current use. 

However, testing of this foam as an assembly with appropriate cover fabrics has

not shown that it is more hazardous than other foams in current use [103].
4-3

Table 4-1. ASTM E 162/D 3675 Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENT) Is

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1a

Seat cushion (foam) 8 2a

3 Graphite-filled foam 442*

4 Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene 7.8

5 Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton muslin 26

6 Seat shroud, PVC/acrylic 4

7 Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support)** 33

10a Mattress (foam) 8

11a Bed pad (foam) 8

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 Wall finishing, wool carpet 4.5

14 Space divider, polycarbonate 56*

15 Wall material, FRP/PVC 4

16 Wall panel, FRP 3.1

17 Window glazing, polycarbonate 56

18 Window mask, FRP 4

MISC

26 Cafe/lounge/diner table, phenolic/wood laminate 29

27 Air duct, neoprene n.a.

28 Pipe wrap insulation foam 7

n.a. – quantitative data not available

 * – does not meet current FRA criteria

 ** – sample not available for testing, literature value taken from reference [27] 

• Polycarbonate is used both as a window material and as an interior space divider. 

This material had an Is of 56. As a window material, this value meets the FRA

criteria, (with a performance criteria of Is & 100). However, when used as an

interior wall panel, the required performance criteria is lower, Is & 35. 

4.2 ASTM E 648

ASTM E 648 exposes a speciment placed horizontally to a radiant energy source that varies

across a 3.3 ft (1 m) length from a maximum of 11 kW/m2 down to 1 kW/m2. After ignition by a 

small line burner at the high energy end of the specimen, the distance at which the floor material

ceases burning is determined. This point defines the critical radiant flux (CRF) necessary to 

support continued flame spread. More details about this ASTM test method can be found in

Appendix B.
4-4

4.2.1 Application and Performance Criterion

The FRA cites the ASTM 648 test method to evaluate the fire performance of all floor coverings

used in passenger rail cars, including carpet and resilient rubber mat in coach, sleeping, and

dining cars. The FRA performance criterion is a CRF greater than or equal to 0.5 W/cm2

 (5

km/m2 ).

4.2.2 Test Data

Data obtained from Amtrak and other sources are tabulated in Table 4-2 for those materials that

were tested according to ASTM E 648. Component materials not tested according to ASTM E

648 are not shown in the table.

Table 4-2. ASTM E 648 Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials

SAMPLE NO. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENT)

CRF

W/cm2

 (kW/m2))

24 Carpet, nylon 1.08 (10.8)

25 Rubber mat, styrene butadiene 0.63 (6.3)

4.3 FAR 25.853 (a) AND ASTM C 542

FAR 25.853 (a), Appendix F, specifies a small-scale Bunsen burner type test wherein a vertically

suspended sample of a material is exposed to a small flame from a gas burner. A flame is

applied to the lower edge of the specimen for either 12 or 60 s, depending on the end use of the

product. After the burner is removed, a determination is made of the afterflame time, i.e., the

length of time a flame persists on the specimen, total flaming time of any dripping material, and

the burn length or char length on the specimen once burning has completely ended. The intent of

the test is to define materials that do not support combustion once the ignition burner has been

removed from the sample. 

ASTM C 542 defines required properties of gasketing materials including “resistance to sunlight,

weathering, flame, oxidation, deformation under load, and gripping pressure required to separate

gasketing joints.” For flame propagation, a small vertical sample is exposed to the flame from a

small gas burner for 15 min for dense materials. The length of material left after exposure to the

flame is intended to provide a measure of the flammability of the material. Since the adoption of
4-5

the 1989 FRA guidelines, ASTM has separated the flammability requirements to a separate

standard, ASTM C 1166, with identical testing requirements [111]. More details about the FAR

25.853(a) and ASTM C 542 test methods can be found in Appendix B.

Amtrak also requires that fabric materials meet the requirements of NFPA 701 [82]. Two test

methods are included in the standard, a small-scale burner test for fabrics (except for coated

blackout linings) and a larger-scale test for fabric blackout linings and lined draperies. In the

small-scale test used by Amtrak, a relatively small, vertically-oriented specimen is exposed to a

small burner flame for 12 seconds. The acceptance criteria for this test depends on the weight of

the materials being tested and the absence of flaming drips during the test. The intent and

severity of the test is similar to the FAR 25.853 (a) test.

4.3.1 Application and Performance Criteria

In the current context, FAR 25.853 (a) is used to assess the acceptability of seat upholstery,

mattress ticking, and curtains for use in passenger trains. The FRA performance criteria for the

test method are an afterflame time less than or equal to 10 s and a burn length less than or equal

to 6 inches. The mattress and pillow cover do meet NFPA 701 [82]. ASTM C 542 is used to

assess elastomers and uses a purely qualitative acceptance criteria of “no flame propagation or

progressive glow at the end of the 15 min test.”

4.3.2 Test Data

Since FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542 are similar in intent and application, only the

quantitative data from the FAA 25.853 test will be discussed in this report. FAA test

performance data for materials are tabulated in Table 4-3. Data for the ASTM C 542 small

burner test was not considered because it is a simple pass-fail test and not appropriate for

comparison to HRR test data. Component materials which are tested according to other test

methods are not shown in the table.
4-6

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENT) BURN

LENGTH

(in)

FLAME

TIME

(s)

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1b

1c

1d

Seat cushion, fabric/PVC cover

 Ü

(Interliner)

(Fabric)

(Vinyl)

n.a.

0.2

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

2b

2c Seat cushion, plush cover Ü (Interliner)

(Fabric)

n.a.

0.2

n.a.

0

10b

10c

Mattress Ü (Interliner)

(Fabric)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

11b

11c Bed pad Ü (Interliner)(Fabric)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

19 Door privacy curtain/window drape,

wool/nylon

1.2 0

20 Drapery fabric, polyester 3.5 n.a.

21 Blanket fabric, wool n.a. n.a.

22 Blanket, modacrylic fabric n.a. n.a.

23b Pillow, cotton (Fabric) n.a. n.a.

Table 4-3. FAR 25.853 (a) Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials

While it was expected that data would be available for all components of an assembly, such as a

mattress (ticking, interliner, foam core), it is not clear if, in practice, testing and performance

criteria are applied to every component. It may be that interliner materials, for example, are

typically excluded from testing because they are not specifically named in the FRA categories.

4.4 ASTM E 662

ASTM E 662 is widely used in testing of transportation-related materials. The test exposes

small, solid specimens to a radiant energy of 25 kW/m2

 in a flaming (piloted ignition) or

nonflaming mode. The smoke produced by the burning specimen is collected in the test

chamber. The attenuation of a light beam is a measure of the optical density or “quantity of

smoke” that a material produces under the given conditions of the test. The measured parameter 

is Ds, a measure of the accumulated optical density of smoke in the test chamber at a particular

instant of time. The smoke density is expressed as:

Ds ˆ V

AL log

Io

I

(2)
4-7

where V is the volume of the chamber, fixed at 0.51 m3, A is the area of exposed sample, L is the

path length of light beam through the smoke, Io is the intensity of light beam before start of test,

and I is the intensity of light beam during the test [112].

Unless there is settling of smoke in the test chamber, Ds increases with time. More details about 

this ASTM test method can be found in Appendix B.

4.4.1 Application and Performance Criteria

The FRA requirements apply Ds criteria to all materials used in rail car interiors. There are two

Ds values at each exposure condition, flaming and nonflaming. At a time of 1.5 minutes, the Ds

must be less than or equal to 100. At a time of 4 minutes, the Ds must be less than or equal to

200. For seat upholstery, mattress ticking, and curtains, the Ds at 4 minutes must be less than or

equal to 250 for coated fabrics and less than or equal to 100 for uncoated fabrics.

4.4.2 Test Data

The material test data are tabulated in Table 4-4 for Ds (1.5 min) and Ds(4 min) under flaming

exposure conditions. While it was expected that data would be available for all components of

an assembly, such as a mattress (ticking, interliner, foam core), it is not clear if, in practice,

testing and performance criteria are applied to every component. It may be that interliner

materials, for example, are typically excluded from testing because they are not specifically

named in the FRA categories.

Most of the materials meet the current FRA smoke emission criteria. However, there are

exceptions. A seat support diaphragm (Sample 4), armrest and footrest pads (Samples 7 and 8),

seat track cover (Sample 9), and door and window gasketing (Samples 29 and 30) do not meet

the smoke emission criteria. Amtrak is currently considering replacements for these materials

which have better fire performance. The other seat support diaphragm (Sample 5) is well within

the FRA criteria. Since many of these materials are used only in small quantities, they represent

a small portion of the fire load in a typical vehicle interior. However, further analysis is

necessary to evaluate their contribution to overall fire hazard.
4-8

Table 4-4. ASTM E 662 Test Data for Passenger Rail Materials

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENT)

SMOKE DATA

Ds (1.5) Ds (4)

SEAT

AND BED

ASSEMBLIES

1a

1b

1c

1d

Seat cushion, fabric/PVC cover <

(Foam)

(Interliner)

(Fabric)

(Vinyl)

29

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

76

n.a.

57

175

2a

2b

2c

Seat cushion, fabric cover <

(Foam)

(Interliner)

(Fabric)

29

n.a.

48

76

n.a.

146

3 Graphite-filled foam 6 33

4 Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene elastomer 205* 509*

5 Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton 76 108

6 Seat shroud, PVC/acrylic 22 152

7 Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support)** 43 347*

8 Seat footrest cover, chloroprene elastomer 43 347*

9 Seat track cover, chloroprene elastomer 202* 499*

10a

10b

10c

Mattress <

(Foam)

(Interliner)

(Fabric)

29

n.a.

n.a.

76

n.a.

n.a.

11a

11b

11c

Bed pad <

(Foam)

(Interliner)

(Fabric)

29

n.a.

n.a.

76

n.a.

n.a.

WALL

AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 Wall finishing, wool carpet 37 101

13 Wall finishing fabric, wool 100 163

14 Space divider, polycarbonate 1 12

15 Wall material, FRP/ PVC 22 152

16 Wall material, FRP 29 129

17 Window glazing, polycarbonate 2 72

18 Window mask, FRP n.a. n.a.

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

19 Door privacy curtain/window drape fabric 35 57

20 Drapery fabric, polyester n.a. n.a.

21 Blanket fabric, wool n.a. n.a.

22 Blanket, modacrylic 127 127

23a

23b Pillow <

(Foam)

(Fabric)

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 Carpet, nylon 47 140

25 Rubber mat, styrene butadiene 6 147

MISC

26 Cafe/lounge/diner table, phenolic/wood laminate 19 91

27 Air duct, neoprene n.a. n.a.

28 Pipe wrap insulation foam 44 53

29 Window gasketing, chloroprene elastomer 202* 499*

30 Door gasketing, chloroprene elastomer 202* 499*

n.a. – quantitative data not available

* – does not meet FRA guidelines

** – literature value taken from reference [26]
4-9

4.5 PREVIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLE-RELATED TEST DATA

The 1984 FRA/Amtrak study included small-scale laboratory tests on individual materials from

Amtrak passenger cars [27]. The majority of the materials tested met the FRA performance

criteria for ASTM E 162/D 3675, with of Is values ranging from 3 to 960. A non-fire retardant

foam seat assembly and a wall covering carpet exceeded the FRA performance criteria. For

smoke emission, fewer of the materials tested met the FRA performance criteria for ASTM E

662, with Ds data for 4 minutes ranging from 41 to 620. 

The NHTSA school bus study also included flame spread test results from the LIFT apparatus. 

The LIFT data shows a wide variation in test results. While the primary use for LIFT data is to

provide flame spread inputs for computer models, the data is not useful for ranking material

performance.

More recently, tests were conducted to evaluate materials as part of the NTSB investigation of

the 1996 MARC commuter train and Amtrak train collision and fire [8]. A wider range of test

results was evident, with the Is ranging from 8 (for a seat cushion assembly) to 1145 (for a seat

back pad cover foam). For ASTM E 662, Ds ranged from 51 to 373 for 4 minutes. With the

exception of the seat back pad cover foam, the MARC materials performed similarly to the

Amtrak materials.

4.6 SUMMARY

Material flammability and smoke emission test data were obtained for thirty materials from

manufacturers and/or suppliers. Additional data from related studies were also reviewed. For

some materials, only certification of compliance with the FRA performance criteria was available

from material suppliers, without accompanying quantitative data. Since the primary use of these

data in this report is for quantitative comparison with Cone Calorimeter data, information for

these materials was noted as “not available.” For a few materials, only 1984 data were available.

4.6.1 Flammability

Because of specific end-use applications, not all materials required evaluation by the same test

methods. Twenty-one materials required ASTM E 162 or D 3675 testing. Test data were

available for nineteen of these materials. Although not so specified in the FRA requirements, Is

values were available for window and door gasketing. 
4-10

Of the materials currently in use, only the space divider does not meet the FRA flammability

performance criterion. Polycarbonate is used both as window glazing and as an interior space

divider. As a window glazing, the material meets FRA performance criterion Is of 100; however,

when used as an interior space divider, it does not meet the lower performance criterion specified

Is of 35. 

ASTM E 648 was used to evaluate two floor covering materials: nylon carpet and resilient rubber

floor mat. The test data indicated that both met the FRA performance criteria. 

The FAR 25.853 (a) test method was considered applicable to 9 samples or 10 unique component

materials. The burn length test data available for 4 of the 10 materials indicated they met the

FRA performance criteria. Flame time was available for only 3 of the 10 materials. Data for the

ASTM C 542 small burner test were not considered because it is a simple pass-fail test and not

appropriate for comparison to HRR test data. 

Data from the 1984 FRA/Amtrak study, the 1990 NHTSA study, and the 1996 MARC study

show performance similar to the current tests.

4.6.2 Smoke Emission

ASTM E 662 tests were used to evaluate 30 samples which represent 40 unique component

materials. Test data was available for 25 components at the Ds (1.5) level and 27 components at

the Ds (4.0) level of performance. At Ds (1.5), five materials did not meet FRA criteria. At Ds

(4.0), seven materials did not meet FRA criteria. Most of these materials (seat support

diaphragm, armrest pad, footrest pad, seat track cover, window and door gasketing) represent a

small portion of the fire load in a typical vehicle interior. Amtrak is currently considering

replacement materials with better fire performance.

It is unclear whether the contribution from all these materials would be significant. However, the

issue cannot be adequately assessed through small-scale tests alone. Again, part of the purpose

of the current research effort to apply fire hazard analysis to passenger trains is to allow

quantitative evaluation of the contribution of an individual material or combination of materials

to the overall fire hazard in a passenger rail car.
5-1

5. CONE CALORIMETER TEST METHOD EVALUATION

In the majority of fire cases, the most crucial question that can be asked by the person responsible

for fire protection is: “How big is the fire?” Put in quantitative terms, this translates to: “What is

the heat release rate (HRR) of this fire?” HRR is a measure of the amount of energy that a

material produces while burning. For a given confined space (e.g., rail car interior), the air

temperature increases as the HRR increases. If passengers do not come into direct contact with

the fire, they would most likely be injured from the high temperatures, high heat fluxes, and large

amounts of toxic gases emitted by materials involved in the fire. Accordingly, the life threat to

passengers of these materials can be directly correlated to the HRR of a real fire. 

Recently, NIST examined the pivotal nature of HRR measurements in detail [113]. Not only is

HRR seen as the key indicator of real-scale fire performance of a material or construction, it is, in

fact, the single most important variable in characterizing the “flammability” of products and their

consequent fire hazard. 

The delay in ignition time, as measured by various small-scale Bunsen burner-type tests, such as

that specified in FAR 25.853 (a) has only a minor effect on the development of fire hazard. For

all but the most flammable materials, ignition is followed by some period of slow growth and

then a rapid rise to hazardous conditions. Thus, the initial ignition is typically important only for

already poorly performing materials. Material requirements for smoke emission are intended to

ensure appropriate visibility of exit signs and egress routes in the event of a fire. Like ignitability

and toxicity, smoke emission is largely a function of the HRR of a material. Hirschler showed

that materials with low HRR also possess low smoke emission [114]. Although examples of

typical fire histories demonstrate that fire deaths are primarily caused by toxic gases, the toxicity

of the vast majority of common construction materials is similar [115]. Thus, the relative

toxicity of combustion gases plays a smaller role than the HRR of a fire.

Small-scale test measurement of HRR is not new. For instance, ASTM 906 (OSU Calorimeter) 

[56] was originally developed in the early 1970s and has been used in aircraft and rail transit

applications. However, its results, when compared against other measurement methods, have

been found to substantially underestimate the HRR [116]. A number of other instruments were

also designed during the 1970s, but were limited because of either poor validity or practical

operational difficulties. 
5-2

Figure 5-1. General View of the Cone Calorimeter (ASTM E 1354, ISO 5660)

To address these limitations, NIST developed a new and more practical instrument, known as the

Cone Calorimeter (Figure 5-1). The Cone Calorimeter is a single test apparatus which provides a

measurement of HRR, specimen mass loss, smoke production, and combustion gases. The 

ASTM E 1354 standard for the Cone Calorimeter defines the design and operational details of

the apparatus [1]. Many traditional devices for assessing flammability were not based on

realistic fire conditions, nor were measurements taken which have quantitative engineering

significance. As a result, they could only be used to pass or fail a specimen, according to some

selected regulatory requirements. 

Because both its design and its data are firmly based on an engineering understanding of fire, the

Cone Calorimeter has wider applicability than other test methods. It can be used to:
5-3

• Provide data needed for state-of-the art fire models;

• Provide data used to predict real-scale fire behavior by means of simple formulas

or correlations;

• Rank order products according to their performance; or, simply to

• Pass or fail a product according to a criterion level.

The Cone Calorimeter is an extremely flexible device that can expose test specimens to:

• an external radiant flux ranging from zero to 100 kW/m2

;

• an external piloted ignition condition (electric spark);

• a horizontal or a vertical orientation while maintaining the specimen surface

parallel to the cone heater.

Test specimens are nominally 4 x 4 in (100 x 100 mm) and up to 2-in (50-mm) thick. For

materials that expand during the burning process, a wire grid is placed over the specimen surface

to prevent the material from expanding into the cone heater and increasing the burning rate and

HRR. During testing, the specimen is placed on a load platform and its mass along with all other

measurements are recorded for later analysis. 

Smoke measurements are made on the effluent flow by means of a helium-neon laser beam

projected across the exhaust duct. This results in an instantaneous measure of the optical smoke

density. Gas species can be directly measured along with HRR, or gas may be sampled for later

analysis.

Cone Calorimeter tests are specified by ASTM E 1354 to be done only in the horizontal

orientation. This is because: (1) many products show serious testing difficulties (e.g., melting)

when tested in the vertical orientation; (2) conversely, the vertical orientation does not provide “a

better simulation” of the burning of vertical objects. This is because there is no direct connection

between flame heat flux in a small-scale test and in a real-scale fire. The actual fluxes occurring

in a real-scale fire are determined by many factors, including size of room, thickness of hot gas

layer, flame spread occurring over other surfaces, etc. None of these are subject to the control of

the small-scale apparatus but, rather, must be specifically modeled.
5-4

Validation of small-scale HRR data against large-scale fires has been successfully undertaken in

several instances, such as for combustible walls and ceilings and upholstered furniture. 

Appendix C provides additional Cone Calorimeter test method information. 

5.1 EXPOSURE CONDITIONS

Since the Cone Calorimeter can be used for a variety of test conditions, appropriate exposure

conditions must be established for each application. The following sections provide details of: 

(1) the exposure levels in the existing FRA-cited test methods and (2) a discussion of exposure

levels in actual fires. The exposure conditions for the Cone Calorimeter tests described later in

this chapter are discussed in terms of these two sources.

5.1.1 Exposure Conditions in Current Generation Test Methods

The FRA-cited test methods expose materials to a diverse set of fire conditions. These

conditions range from a modest flame impingement constituting a radiant energy level of less

than 5 kW/m2 for the FAR 25.853 test to approximately 40 kW/m2 for ASTM E 162/D 3675. 

There are two exposure conditions for ASTM E 662: flaming and nonflaming. The nonflaming

exposure utilizes a 25 kW/m2 radiant source. The flaming exposure uses a multi-tubed diffusion

burner to augment the radiant source. The maximum radiant energy level to the specimen is

estimated at approximately 35 kW/m2. The wide range of exposure conditions, from less than 5

kW/m2 for the FAR 25.853 (a) test method to approximately 40 kW/m2 for ASTM E 162/D 3675

makes it difficult to choose an appropriate exposure level for Cone Calorimeter testing. Thus,

some discussion of exposure levels in real fires is necessary.

5.1.2 Exposure Conditions in Unwanted Fires

Exposure conditions in unwanted fires have been studied since the beginning of organized fire

research [117]. However, standards defining fire growth characteristics are rare. In the United

States, no set of standard fire growth definitions exists. In the United Kingdom, the

characteristics of unwanted fires have been categorized by the British Standards Institution (BSI)

in its Code of Practice for the Assessment of Toxic Hazards in Fire in Buildings and Transport

[118]. The Code of Practice itemizes the following six types of fires:

 I.Self-sustained smoldering decomposition (i.e., a cigarette on upholstered furniture or

bedding);
5-5

 II. Nonflaming oxidative decomposition;

 III. Nonflaming pyrolytic decomposition;

 IV.Developing fires, flaming (pre-flashover fires);

 V. Fully-developed fires, high ventilation (post-flashover fuel-controlled fires);

 VI.Fully-developed fires, low ventilation (post-flashover ventilation-controlled fires).

From the initiation of decomposition to suppression or completion of burning of a fuel, real-scale

fires can undergo radical changes during the course of fire development. The first three types of

fire: self-sustained smoldering, nonflaming oxidative, and nonflaming pyrolytic, represent nonflaming combustion. Heat flux levels in these fires would be low.

The last three types of fire: developing; fully-developed, high ventilation; and fully-developed, low

ventilation; represent flaming combustion. For developing fires, heat flux levels can range from

20 to 50 kW/m2. Fully developed compartment fires are considered to be post-flashover fires. 

Generally, all contents of a compartment are actively burning. Heat flux to surrounding items is

typically above 50 kW/m2 [96] to 75 kW/m2 [119].

Actual exposure levels in passenger train fires are expected to be within the ranges discussed

above. Peak heat flux at floor level, measured in the 1984 Amtrak vehicle interior tests, ranged

from 0.5 kW/m2

 up to 62 kW/m2 [27]. A typical exposure level for seat tests is 35 kW/m2 [120]. 

Exposure levels for wall and ceiling panels can range from floor level exposure up to the levels

expected in post-flashover fires noted above.

5.1.3 Chosen Exposure Conditions for Cone Calorimeter Testing

Exposure levels for a range of small-scale tests and actual fires are summarized in Table 5-1. In

the existing FRA-cited test methods, these levels ranged from less than 5 kW/m2 to 40 kW/m2. 

Exposure levels in actual developing fires can range from 20 to 50 kW/m2. Fully developed

compartment fires are described as post-flashover fires with typical heat flux to surrounding items

up to 75 kW/m2. These flux levels are consistent with actual passenger train car interior tests.

The primary purpose of fire hazard analysis is to simulate the likely outcome of actual fire

scenarios. For fire hazard analysis, successful simulation depends upon realistic exposure

conditions for the data used as input to the fire models used in the analysis. As illustrated in
5-6

Table 5-1. Fire Exposure Conditions for FRA-Cited Test Methods and in Typical Fires

TEST METHOD/FIRE TYPE HEAT SOURCE MAXIMUM RADIANT ENERGY TO

SAMPLE (kW/m2

)

 ASTM E 162/D 3675 Radiant 40

 ASTM E 662, flaming Radiant/Flame 35

 ASTM E 662, nonflaming Radiant 25

 ASTM E 648 Radiant 11

 FAA 25.853 (a) Small Flame < 5

 Developing fire < 50

 Post-flashover fire > 50 - 75

 Real-scale train fire experiments 0.5 to 62

Table 5-1, exposure conditions in actual fires range up to 50 to 75 kW/m2 and are certainly higher

than the exposure conditions used in the FRA-cited test methods. In order to capture a material’s

performance under all flaming conditions, including developing and post-flashover fires, a value

higher than those used in the existing FRA test method requirements is necessary. Accordingly, a

heat flux exposure level of 50 kW/m2 was deemed most appropriate for the Cone Calorimeter

testing program. All Cone Calorimeter tests in this study were conducted at a heat flux exposure

of 50 kW/m2. This level represents a severe fire exposure consistent with actual train fire tests. 

With the high performance level typical of currently used materials, levels higher than 50 kW/m2

are unlikely. A spark igniter was used to ignite the pyrolysis gases. All specimens were wrapped

in aluminum foil on all sides except for the exposed surface. A metal frame was used; where

necessary, a wire grid was added to prevent expanding samples from entering into the cone heater.

5.2 CONE CALORIMETER TEST RESULTS

This section describes Cone Calorimeter test results of passenger train car materials. Several

characteristic data measurements obtained from the Cone Calorimeter can be used for comparison

to real-scale tests. These measurements include:

• ignition time: a measure of how easily a material can be ignited,

• time to peak HRR: a measure of the speed of fire growth, 

• peak HRR: a measure of how large a fire will result from a burning material,

• specific extinction area: a measure of smoke production of the material, and

• effective heat of combustion: a measure of the amount of heat released from a

burning material per unit mass of sample burned.
5-7

r ˆ 13.3 ̄0.13 q3ÙÙ

max (3)

R ˆ 60.4 ̄0.141 q3ÙÙ

max (4)

These data are presented for both individual component materials and for assemblies which

represent actual end-use configurations. Appendix D contains a tabulation of all Cone

Calorimeter test data including additional summary information for all materials tested. 

Cone Calorimeter data are presented as averages of all replicates for an individual test specimen. 

ASTM 1354 establishes the within-laboratory variability (repeatability, r) and the variability

between laboratories (reproducibility, R) which are given, in terms of peak heat release rate per

unit area, q3

Û

max as:

where r and R are computed for the 95 percent probability level and are in the same units

(kW/m2

) as is q3

Û

max. Uncertainty ranges for other variables derived in the test are generally

similar and may also be found in ASTM E 1354.

5.2.1 Individual Component Materials

The individual material data obtained from the Cone Calorimeter tests are shown in Tables 5-2

and 5-3. Table 5-2 summarizes three characteristic measures of HRR: ignition time, time-topeak HRR, and peak HRR. Table 5-3 summarizes comparative data for smoke production in the

form of the average specific extinction area (SEA), )s (m2/kg), for the first 180 s of each test,

obtained from the Cone Calorimeter for each test material. This average value for smoke

production is used since peak SEA values are particularly sensitive to instantaneous fluctuations

in specimen mass loss so that the longer average value is more representative of overall material

performance (some tests ended in less than 180 s and some extended much longer than 180 s).

Ignition times varied from 5 s for the seat and mattress assembly interliner (Samples 1a, 2a, 10a,

and 11a) to 115 s for a polycarbonate window glazing (Sample 17). The majority of materials

with the shortest ignition times were thin textile samples, such as the interliner, seat upholstery

fabric (Samples 1c and 2c), cotton seat support diaphragm (Sample 5), curtain and drapery

fabrics (Samples 19 and 20), and wool blanket (Sample 21). Thin materials, such as the

interliner, cotton seat support diaphragm, mattress and bed pad cover (Samples 10c and 11c),

wool blanket, and pipe insulation foam (Sample 28) had the shortest time-to-peak HRR. This

ranged from 10 to 15 s. The longest times were recorded for the seat shroud (Sample 6), 
5-8

Table 5-2. Summary Cone Calorimeter Individual Material HRR Data 

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENT)

TIME TO

IGNITION

(s)

TIME TO

PEAK HRR

(s)

PEAK

HRR

(kW/m2

)

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1a

1b

1c

1d

Seat cushion <

Foam

Interliner

Fabric

PVC

14

5

11

7

25

15

20

10

80

30

420

360

2a

2b

2c

Seat cushion <

Foam

Interliner

Fabric

14

5

8

25

15

30

80

30

265

3 Graphite-filled foam 7 20 65

4 Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene 31 50 295

5 Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton muslin 7 15 190

6 Seat shroud, PVC/Acrylic 28 350 110

7 Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support)54 55 610

8 Seat footrest cover, chloroprene elastomer 45 70 400

9 Seat track cover, chloroprene elastomer 26 100 190

10 / 11a

10 / 11b

10 / 11c Mattress and bed pad* <

Foam

Interliner

Fabric

9

5

7

20

10

10

80

25

150

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 Wall finishing, wool carpet 30 95 655

13 Wall finishing, wool fabric 21 35 745

14 Space divider, polycarbonate 105 155 270

15 Wall material, FRP / PVC 23 40 120

16 Wall panel, FRP 18 40 270

17 Window glazing, polycarbonate 115 150 330

18 Window mask, FRP 53 95 210

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

19 Door privacy curtain/window drapery fabric, wool/nylon13 25 310

20 Drapery fabric, polyester 20 30 175

21 Blanket fabric, wool 11 15 170

22 Blanket, modacrylic fabric 17 25 18

23 Pillow, cotton cover, polyester filler 24 60 340

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 Carpet, nylon 10 75 245

25 Rubber mat, styrene butadiene 35 90 300

MISC

26 Cafe/lounge/diner table, phenolic/wood laminate44 55 250

27 Air duct, neoprene 30 55 140

28 Pipe wrap insulation foam 7 10 95

29 Window gasketing, chloroprene elastomer 33 305 210

30 Door gasketing, chloroprene elastomer 38 275 200

* Only difference in mattress and bed pad was end-use thickness. Cone Calorimeter samples were tested at the

same thickness.
5-9

Table 5-3. Summary Cone Calorimeter Individual Material Smoke Data 

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENT)

SEA

180s AVERAGE

)s (m2

/kg)

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1a

1b

1c

1d

Seat cushion <

Foam

Interliner

Fabric

PVC

30

300

225

770

2a

2b

2c

Seat cushion <

Foam

Interliner

Fabric

30

300

400

3 Graphite-filled foam 40

4 Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene elastomer 1400

5 Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton muslin 490

6 Seat shroud, PVC/Acrylic 490

7 Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support) 780

8 Seat footrest cover, chloroprene elastomer 960

9 Seat track cover, chloroprene elastomer 1100

10/11a

10/11b

10/11c Mattress and bed pad <

Foam* Interliner

Fabric

40

70

70

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 Wall finishing, wool carpet 510

13 Wall finishing, wool fabric 260

14 Space divider, polycarbonate 1000

15 Wall material, FRP/ PVC 1000

16 Wall panel, FRP 530

17 Window glazing, polycarbonate 1000

18 Window mask, FRP n.a.

CURTAINS,

DRAPES, AND

FABRICS

19 Door privacy curtain/window drapery fabric, wool/nylon 380

20 Drapery fabric, polyester 810

21 Blanket, wool 560

22 Blanket, modacrylic fabric n.a.

23 Pillow, cotton cover/polyester filler 570

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 Carpet, nylon 350

25 Rubber mat, styrene butadiene 1400

MISC

26 Cafe/lounge/diner table, phenolic/wood laminate 80

27 Air duct, neoprene 810

28 Pipe wrap insulation foam 700

29 Window gasketing, chloroprene elastomer 1100

30 Door gasketing, chloroprene elastomer 1200

* Only difference in mattress and bed pad was end-use thickness. Cone Calorimeter samples were tested at the same thickness.
5-10

elastomeric gasketing (Samples 29 and 30), the two polycarbonate materials (Samples 14 and

17), with times of 350, 305, and 275, and 150 s and 155 s, respectively.

Peak HRR varied over more than an order of magnitude from 25 kW/m2 for a thin fabric

interliner (Sample 10b) to 745 kW/m2 for a wall fabric (Sample 13). In general, Table 5-2 shows

lower peak HRR rates for the seat and mattress foams, ranging from 65 to 80 kW/m2

 and higher

values for wall surface materials, ranging from 120 to 745 kW/m2. Other fabric and thin sheet

materials display intermediate values between these two extremes. This performance is

consistent with the current FRA specified ASTM E 162 criteria which provide the strictest flame

spread index requirements for seat cushion foam (Is& 25), intermediate requirements for most

other materials (Is& 35), and least stringent requirements for window materials (Is & 100).

Cone Calorimeter smoke data are presented in terms of an average specific extinction area (SEA)

which is a measure of the smoke production of a material. Like the ASTM E 662 specific optical

density measurement (Ds), the SEA ()s) is a measure of the attenuation of light by soot particles. 

The Cone Calorimeter smoke data show trends similar to the HRR data. The lowest values were

noted for the seat and mattress foams (Samples 1a, 2, 3, 9, 10a and 11a). The highest values

were noted for several thin materials: seat support diaphragm (Sample 4), seat track cover

(Sample 9), FRP/ PVC wall material (Sample 15), rubber floor covering (Sample 25), and

gasketing (Samples 29 and 30). The thicker polycarbonate space divider and window glazing

(Samples 14 and 17) also had high smoke values. 

Several materials showed elevated HRR and smoke values over an extended period of time. For

example, the following materials showed HRR values greater than 100 kW/m2 for more than

500 s: space divider (Sample 14), wall material (Sample 15), window glazing (Sample 17), and

window and door gasketing (Samples 29 and 30). Smoke values generally paralleled the HRR

results. Although the peak HRR of these materials fall into an intermediate range, the extended

duration of the HRR curve makes these materials important for study in future fire hazard

analysis efforts.

5.2.2 Component Assemblies

An important observation from this phase of the study is that the burning behavior of seat

assemblies can be approximated by summing the HRR and smoke data for the component

individual materials, accounting for the time delay until each material begins to burn. Table 5-4
5-11

Table 5-4. Summary Cone Calorimeter HRR and Smoke Data

 for Selected Component Combinations

COMPONENT ASSEMBLY TESTED HRR DATA SMOKE DATA

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION Foam Interliner Fabric Vinyl Time to

Ignition

(s)

Time to

Peak HRR

(s)

Peak HRR

(kW/m2

)

SEA

180s Average

)s (m2

/kg)

SEAT CUSHION

ASSEMBLIES

- 7 7 - 12 25 420 170

- 7 7a - 7 35 260 360

- 7 - 7 7 10 360 510

7 - 7 - 12 15 255 320

7 - 7a - 7 30 270 290

77 7 - 12 23 365 260

777a - 7 35 260 400

7 7 - 7 6 15 370 510

7b - 7 - 12 25 400 370

7b - 7a - 8 35 270 290

7b 7 7 - 12 25 400 90

7b 7 7a - 8 35 275 220

7b 7 - 7 6 15 400 470

MATTRESS

ASSEMBLY 77 7

-

7 10 170 40

BED PAD

ASSEMBLY 77 7 7 10 170 30

PILLOW 7 7 - 7 10 160 560

a – plush fabric

b – graphite foam – assemblies in current use. NOTE: the interliner is being discontinued due to 

 design considerations.

presents data for combinations of materials as they might be used in typical end-use applications 

comparable to those presented in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Table 5-4 summarizes the ignition time,

time-to-peak HRR, peak HRR, and 180 s average specific extinction area for most combinations

of components so that the performance of various assemblies may be estimated. Figures 5-2 to

5-6 show typical HRR curves obtained for components from the three seat cushion assemblies—

by component and as configured in current end-use applications. Figure 5-2 shows the HRR

curves for the foam from coach seat assembly (Samples 1 and 3 – note that Samples 1 and 2 used

identical foams so only one is included in the figure). Sample 1 foam exhibits a peak HRR of

nearly 80 kW/m2

 with a steady decay in the HRR curve after the peak HRR. The Sample 3 foam

shows a peak HRR of about 65 kW/m2 and a second broader peak of about 60 kW/m2 after which

the HRR curve decays. The time for the initial peak HRR is the same for both foam samples. 
5-12

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW/m2

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Seating Foam (Sample 1)

Seating Foam (Sample 3)

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200

Heat Release Rate (kW/m2

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Coach Seat Upholstery Fabric

(Sample 1c)

Plush Seat Upholstery Fabric

(Sample 2c)

Figure 5-2. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR for Two Foam Samples

Figure 5-3. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR for Two Upholstery Fabrics
5-13

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Heat Release Rate (kW/m2

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Seat assembly

muslin interliner

Figure 5-4. Cone Calorimeter HRR-Cotton Muslin Interliner (Sample 1b)

Figure 5-3 compares the HRR for the two upholstery cover fabrics in Samples 1 and 2. While

the burning duration is much shorter for the cover fabric than the foam samples, the peak HRR

for each cover fabric is several times greater than the peak HRR for the foam samples—420

kW/m2 for Sample 1c and 265 kW/m2 for Sample 2c. Figure 5-4 shows the HRR for the cotton

muslin interliner used in all seat assemblies with a peak HRR of about 20 kW/m2

.

Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show the HRR curves for fully assembled seat cushion systems. It should be

noted that the early high peak HRR of the cover fabric is apparent in all assemblies. Secondary

peaks indicative of involvement of the foams can also be seen. The peak HRR for the various

assemblies was generally between the highest and lowest peak HRR for individual component

materials making up each assembly. 

5.2.3 Previous Passenger Vehicle-related Cone Calorimeter Test Data

The 1984 FRA/Amtrak, 1990 NHTSA school bus, and 1996 MARC studies include results of

Cone Calorimeter tests on individual materials from Amtrak and MARC passenger rail cars [27]

[64][9]. 
5-14

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW/m2

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Seat assembly (sample 1a foam)

Seat assembly (sample 3 foam)

Both assemblies used the same

interliner (sample 1b) and fabric (sample 1c)

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW/m2

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Seat assembly (Sample 1a foam)

Seat assembly (Sample 3 foam)

Both assemblies used the same

interliner (sample 1b) and fabric (sample 2c)

Figure 5-5. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR - Two Seat Assemblies 

 with Sample 1c Fabric

Figure 5-6. Comparison of Cone Calorimeter HRR - Two Seat Assemblies 

 Sample 2c Fabric
5-15

In the 1984 FRA/Amtrak study, tests conducted at a relatively modest incident flux of 25 kW/m2

showed a range of peak HRR from 27 to 600 kW/m2. 

With a wider range of material performance and incident fluxes, the data from the NHTSA study

shows a higher lower boundary for the peak HRR. In the NHTSA school bus tests, peak HRR

ranged from 180 to 670 kW/m2

 for incident flux levels from 35 to 75 kW/m2. 

In the MARC tests, peak HRR ranged from 134 to 271 kW/m2

 for incident flux levels from 25 to

55 kW/m2

. As expected, the peak HRR increased with increasing incident heat flux – increasing

about 10 to 20 percent from 35 to 55 kW/m2

.

5.3 SUMMARY

An analysis of exposure levels in the existing FRA-cited test methods shows that the maximum

radiant energy to the sample surface ranged from less than 5 kW/m2

 to 40 kW/m2. Exposure

levels in actual developing fires can range from 20 to 50 kW/m2. Fully developed compartment

fires are described as post-flashover fires with typical heat flux to surrounding items up to

75 kW/m2. A heat flux exposure level of 50 kW/m2 was deemed most appropriate for Cone

Calorimeter tests. In order to capture a material’s performance under all flaming conditions,

including developing and post-flashover fires, values higher than used in the existing FRA test

method requirements is necessary. Selected Cone Calorimeter test data were tabulated for all

component materials of the thirty samples, individually and in end use combinations. Test

materials were characterized by ignition time, peak HRR, and average specific extinction area. 

Additional data for each material are included in Appendix D.

Times to ignition varied from 5 s for the cotton interliner used in the seat assemblies to 115 s for

the window glazing. In general, seat and bedding materials and curtain and fabric materials

exhibited the shortest times to ignition, typical of thin materials. Wall and window surfaces, as

well as window and door gaskets, had the longest times to ignition, typical of thicker materials.

Peak HRR varied over an order of magnitude from 65 kW/m2

 for the graphite foam to

745 kW/m2 for the wall fabric. The majority of the 34 individual sample materials tested had

peak HRR between 100 and 600 kW/m2: 

• 6 materials had peak HRR below 100 kW/m2 – including all the seat and mattress

foams;
5-16

• 25 materials had peak HRR between 100 and 600 kW/m2; and,

• 3 materials had peak HRR over 600 kW/m2 – usually thin materials.

Since the seat foam is one of the largest single combustible materials in a rail car, the low HRR

results are particularly important.

SEA data showed a larger distribution for the 180 s average, )s (m2/kg), as compared to the peak

HRR. Peak )s varied from 30 m2/kg for a seating foam to 1400 m2/kg for a seat support

diaphragm and a rubber floor covering material. 

Several materials showed elevated HRR and smoke values over an extended period of time.

Although the peak HRR of these materials fall into an intermediate range, the extended duration

of the HRR curve makes these materials important for study in future fire hazard analysis efforts.

For component assemblies of materials, the time to ignition was controlled by the exposed layer

of material. The peak HRR for assemblies was generally between the highest and lowest peak

HRR for individual component materials making up the assembly. Smoke data was greatly

reduced compared to individual component materials with 180 s average ()s) varying from 30

m2

/kg for a mattress assembly to 560 m2/kg for a pillow. 

Cone Calorimeter data from the 1984 FRA/Amtrak study, 1990 NHTSA school bus study, and

1996 MARC rail car study shows material performance similar to the materials tested for this

study. In addition, the NHTSA and MARC data includes tests conducted at a range of incident

fluxes which showed an expected increase in peak HRR as incident heat flux increased.
6-1

6. COMPARISON OF SMALL-SCALE TEST DATA

HRR and fire hazard analysis are the primary focus of this current study of passenger train fire

safety. HRR is the key indicator of real-scale fire performance of a material or construction,

including ignition, flammability [71], and smoke emission generation [115] properties. Test

methods based on HRR provide the data necessary to conduct fire hazard analyses and can also

be used to predict real-scale fire behavior. Although passenger rail car materials have historically

been tested according to test methods and performance criteria which are not directly related to

HRR, there have been very few serious fires involving materials which meet the FRA

requirements. Thus, it is expected that the Cone Calorimeter HRR-based test data can predict

material performance in a manner comparable to that provided by the FRA-cited test methods

and specified performance criteria. 

In this section, the Cone Calorimeter test data are compared to test data obtained from Amtrak

for FRA-cited test methods. Although the primary use of the HRR data is as input to a fire

hazard analysis, this comparison is also intended to provide a better understanding of the

relationships and limitations of Cone Calorimeter test data relative to FRA-cited test method

data.

6.1 FLAMMABILITY

Several FRA-cited test methods include measures of material flammability in terms of flame

spread (ASTM E 162, D 3675, and E 648) or ignition/burn resistance (FAA 25.853 (a) and

ASTM C 542). ASTM E 162 and D 3675 measure downward flame spread on a near vertically

mounted specimen (the specimen is tilted 30( from the vertical with the bottom of the specimen

further away from the radiant panel than the top of the specimen). FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM 

C 542 are small burner tests which measure a material’s resistance to ignition and burning for a

small sample of material. ASTM E 648 measures lateral flame spread on a horizontally mounted

specimen. Since ASTM E 648 was designed to measure fire performance of flooring materials, it

is the only test method that attempts to replicate end-use conditions. 

6.1.1 ASTM E 162 and ASTM D 3675

The flame spread index, Is, calculated from the ASTM E 162 or D 3675 test data, is composed of

two factors—a flame spread factor, Fs, comparable to an average flame spread rate down the
6-2

Vf ( q3(t)

f

2 (5)

m3 ˆ 'm AsVf (6)

q3 ˆ m3 ÙH (7)

sample surface, and a heat release factor, Q, which represents a measure of the peak HRR. The

test is conducted under an incident heat flux that decreases down the length of the sample. Fs

and Q are really coupled parameters—as the burning area increases, the heat released increases. 

The burning area will increase as the flame spreads along the sample surface. At any moment in

time, the larger the burning area, the higher the measure of the heat released will be.

Conventional flame spread tests, such as ASTM E 162 and D 3675, evaluate material

performance under specific laboratory conditions and the measured parameters rank material

performance relative to other materials. Still, researchers have applied flame spread models to

these devices. Gross and Loftus were pioneers in developing a flame spread model for E 162

[121]. This model was subsequently generalized for other applications by Rockett [122], who

demonstrated that:

where Vf

 is the flame spread rate and q3(t)f

2

 is the heat flux reradiated back to the sample surface.

Since only a fraction of the total heat released in any given time interval by the combustion

process is reradiated back to the sample surface, this shows that flame spread rate is directly

related to the total heat released from the flame. The remaining energy is lost to the

surroundings. The heat generation potential, Q, is a measure of this heat release.

The work of Rockett further showed that sample pyrolysis, i.e., sample mass burning rate, is an

important burning characteristic that influences the measurement of Q. Assuming that the

sample is completely consumed, the mass burning rate, m3 , can be related to the flame spread rate

by:

where 'm is the sample density and As is the cross-sectional area of the sample.

6.1.1.1 Comparison Parameter

In an idealized system, the HRR, q3, is related to the mass burning rate, m3 , by:
6-3

q3

f ˆ 3q3 (8)

where ÙH is the heat of combustion assuming complete combustion. The q3 represents the energy

released by a burning material. A portion of this energy is reradiated back down to the sample

surface. The rest is lost to the surroundings.

For the Cone Calorimeter, an estimate of q3 is derived from measurements of the oxygen

concentration and flow velocity in the exhaust duct and m3 is measured directly. While ÙH is not

known, an effective heat of combustion, ÙHeff, can be determined from the ratio of q3

Ù m3 . 

According to Rockett, only a fraction of q3 is reradiated to the sample surface, such that the

fraction of heat flux reradiated to the sample surface from the flame, q3f

 is:

where 3 is a function of flame shape, flame thickness, and flame emissivity [95]. As in the case

of ASTM E 162, the Cone Calorimeter also imposes an external heat flux across the sample

surface to augment the energy reradiated to the sample surface from the flame. Thus a

correlation would be expected between Q measured in the ASTM E 162 test and q3

Û

max measured

in the Cone Calorimeter test. 

The overall ASTM E 162 measure, Is, is a combination of the flame spread factor and the heat

generation factor. The relative importance of the flame spread factor and the heat generation

factor will dictate how well this overall measure will correlate with the Cone Calorimeter peak

HRR. It should be noted from equation (6) that the flame spread factor is proportional to the

mass burning rate, m3 . Equation (7) shows that m3 is also proportional to q3. Therefore, q3

Û

max

should provide an appropriate parameter for comparison between the Cone Calorimeter and the

ASTM E 162/D 3675 data.

6.1.1.2 Comparison Between ASTM E 162/D 3675 and ASTM E 1354

Figure 6-1 shows an excellent relationship between Is and q3

Û

max. The Is is predictive of a

minimum value for the HRR. This implies that a low flame spread index is required but not

necessarily sufficient to guarantee a low HRR. For example, from the solid line in Figure 6-1, an

Is value of 25 would indicate that the peak HRR measured in the Cone Calorimeter would be at

least 125 kW/m2

. It does not indicate an upper limit on the HRR. A number of materials which

had low Is values had high HRR values. These are labeled in the figure indicating the material

and the sample number. Conversely, the HRR provides an upper boundary for the Is. The solid
6-4

Heat Release Rate (kW/m2)

0 200 400 600 800

Flame Spread Index, IS

0

25

50

75

100

450

100

35

25

Graphite foam (3)

Armrest pad (7)

Wall carpet (12)

Foot rest cover (8)

Seat support diaphragm (4)

Data from current study Data from 1984 FRA/Amtrak study

Numbers in parentheses are sample numbers

Figure 6-1. Comparison of Is as Measured According to ASTM E 162 / D 3675 and

 Peak HRR as Measured in the Cone Calorimeter

line shown in Figure 6-1 is a simple linear estimate of the boundary. Again, with the exception

of the graphite foam, materials with a low HRR have a low Is value. The FRA performance

criteria for ASTM E 162 / D 3675 use several performance levels for Is, depending on the enduse application. These levels are superimposed on Figure 6-1 as horizontal dashed lines at Is

values of 25, 35, and 100. Most of the test data shown in Figure 6-1 represent materials which

meet the FRA performance criteria and are comparable to the Cone Calorimeter data. These

values are shown in Figure 6-1 without additional labeling. Materials which have unexpectedly

low or high HRR values relative to the corresponding values are labeled in Figure 6-1 with both

the material name and sample number. 

For most of the exceptions, the HRR was higher than would be expected from the Is value of the

material. The following currently used materials have higher than expected values in Cone

Calorimeter tests:
6-5

 • The wall carpet (Sample 12) had an Is of 4.5 according ASTM E 162 and an HRR

value of 655 kW/m2

. 

 • The chloroprene seat support diaphragm (Sample 4) had an Is of 7.8 for ASTM 

E 162 and an HRR value of 295 kW/m2. 

 • The armrest pad (Sample 7), had an Is of 33 according to ASTM E 162 and an

HRR value of 610 kW/m2

. 

 • The footrest pad (Sample 8), had an Is of 33 according to ASTM E 162 and an

HRR value of 400 kW/m2

. 

For these materials, the Cone Calorimeter data showed that even though these materials exhibit a

low flame spread index in ASTM E 162, they produce considerable heat once ignited and may

contribute to fire development.

Conversely, the polycarbonate space divider (Sample 14) and graphite foam (Sample 3) had

Cone Calorimeter values within the comparable limits, but did not meet the FRA performance

criteria. The polycarbonate space divider had an Is of 50 according to ASTM E 162 and an HRR

value of 270 kW/m2

. However, the same material used as a window glazing would meet the

FRA performance criteria. Thus, this discrepancy should not be of great concern.

The graphite foam, a new material which was being considered for use in seat assemblies, is the

only material which does not meet the FRA performance criteria yet meets the comparable Cone

Calorimeter performance levels. The ASTM 3675 test indicated this material has an Is value of

442. The Cone Calorimeter value of 65 kW/m2 is comparable to the other foam materials tested. 

The different performance in the two test methods is likely due to the different wire grid sizes

and sample sizes used in the two test methods. In ASTM D 3675, a wire grid with approximately

1-in (25-mm) holes is used. The grid size used in the Cone Calorimeter is smaller,

approximately 1/4 in (6 mm). This smaller size prevents the intumescing of the material and thus

the expansion of the material toward the radiant heat source. In ASTM D 3675, this expansion

and additional exposure heat flux leads to rapid flame along the sample. The smaller size of the

Cone Calorimeter sample limits the expansion further.

This material behavior should be studied further, including additional small-scale tests of the

individual material and mock-up tests of seat assemblies which include the foam. If, upon a full

evaluation of this material’s performance, the higher values are shown to be a correct measure of

the material performance, as opposed to simply an artifact of specific test conditions, it
6-6

represents a rare case of Cone Calorimeter material fire performance underestimation compared

to ASTM E 162 / D 3675.

6.1.2 ASTM E 648

ASTM E 648 measures the response of a floor covering sample to a radiant energy source that

varies across a 3.3-ft (1-m) length from a maximum of 11 kW/m2 down to 1 kW/m2. (After

ignition by a small line burner at the high-energy end of the specimen, the distance at which the

floor covering material ceases burning is determined. This point defines the minimum or critical

radiant flux [CRF] necessary to support continued flame spread. Note: FRA uses W/cm2; this

report uses kW/m2).

6.1.2.1 Comparison Parameter

ASTM E 648 utilizes a radiant panel similar in design to that used by ASTM E 162. The

orientation of the sample in ASTM E 648 is horizontal, rather then slanted vertically as in ASTM

E 162; the maximum exposure intensity is less, only 11 kW/m2. However, like ASTM E 162,

flame spread in ASTM E 648 can be modeled as an opposed flow analog. Therefore, much of

the previous analysis is also appropriate to this test method. Since the test criterion is burn

resistance and the CRF is the heat flux at the point where flame spread stops, (i.e., burning

ceases), HRR should provide a suitable comparison parameter between ASTM E 648 and the

Cone Calorimeter. For simplicity, the peak HRR will be used; additional Cone Calorimeter tests

(at varying incident flux levels) could allow estimation of a CRF directly from Cone Calorimeter

data. For material qualification tests or simple comparisons between test methods, peak HRR

provides a sufficient parameter.

6.1.2.2 Comparison Between ASTM E 648 and ASTM E 1354

Two floor covering materials were included in the evaluation. ASTM E 648 data was available

for both of the materials. The floor carpet (Sample 24) and the resilient rubber floor mat (Sample

25) exhibited respective CRF values of 10.8 kW/m2 and of 6.3 kW/m2

 according to ASTM E 648

and respective peak HRR q3

Û

max values, of 250 kW/m2

 and of 300 kW/m2 in the Cone

Calorimeter.

These data are also consistent with floor and wall carpet test data from the 1984 Amtrak study. 

In that study, three carpet samples were tested according to ASTM E 162 and in the Cone

Calorimeter (although at a lower heat flux exposure of 25 kW/m2 ) and one sample was tested 
6-7

V

p ( q3Ù n

t

ig

(9)

according to ASTM E 648. (Note: the Cone Calorimeter was not accepted as an ASTM test at

that time.) The three carpet samples were all outside the FRA performance criteria and had 

q3

Û

max values greater than 300 kW/m2

. 

With the extremely limited amount of data, no specific comparison is considered appropriate at

this time.

6.1.3 FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542

FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542 test the ability of a material to cease burning once a small gas

burner flame has been withdrawn. The test methods are used primarily to evaluate the fire

performance of textile and elastomeric materials. 

Vertical flame spread mechanisms have been developed for thermally thick and thermally thin

materials. Many of these have been reviewed by Janssens [123]. These models have generally

been applied to cases of one-sided burning. Although two-sided burning can be expected in the

small-burner tests, the same parameters control flame spread and burn resistance. 

6.1.3.1 Comparison Parameter

Vertical upward burning flame spread has been shown to be a function of heat flux received by a

material and a material’s ease of ignition, i.e., ignition time. The heat flux received by a material

in a test is a combination of an externally imposed heat flux and the heat flux radiated to the

material from the flame created by the burning material. Janssens shows that Hasemi and

Delichatsios derived a comparable expression that relates the velocity of the base of the flame,

Vp, to HRR and the ignition time of the material:

where q3

Ù

 (kW·m-1) is the HRR per unit width over the material surface ahead of the base of the

flame, t

ig (s) is the ignition time of the material at the exposure heat flux, and n is an empirical

constant.
6-8

t

b '

t

ig

KÙq3ÙÙ ̃1 (10)

t

b ( t

ig

q3ÙÙ (11)

In the case of vertical upward flame spread, as q3Ù

 decreases, the flame spread rate, Vp, decreases. 

 The upward flame spread rate is also lower the longer it takes a material to reach its ignition

temperature. Janssens has shown that a criterion for continued flame spread is:

where t

b (s) is the burn time of a segment of material, KÙ

 is an empirical constant for the case of

n=1 in equation (9) and q3

Û

 (kW·m-2) is the HRR per unit area. In general, K Ù is not known and

must be determined from experiments. Conversely, burning will stop if t

b is less than zero. As a

first approximation, the burn time, t

b, is simply proportional to:

and should represent a suitable measure for comparing FAR 25.853 (a) char length data to Cone

Calorimeter data.

6.1.3.2 Comparison Between FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM E 1354

Figure 6-2 shows a comparison of char length data from FAR 25.853 (a) and the ratio of ignition

time, t

ig, to the peak HRR, q3

Û

max. In Figure 6-2, the values for the ratio of ignition time, t

ig, to

the peak HRR, q3

Û

max, have been normalized by multiplying by 100. Thus, for thin textile

materials, a value of the ratio of less than 6 in the Cone Calorimeter should compare to a char

length of less than 5 in (50 mm) in FAR 25.853 (a). Although the comparison is based on a

limited number of data values, the correlation coefficient is quite high at r

2

 = 0.98.

6.2 SMOKE EMISSION – ASTM E 662

ASTM E 662 measures the smoke generation from small, solid specimens exposed in:

• a flaming mode to a radiant heat flux augmented by the presence of a specially

designed pilot burner for an estimated total heat flux of 35 kW/m2, and

• a nonflaming mode to only a radiant heat flux of 25 kW/m2

.
6-9

Seat fabric (1c)

Seat fabric (2c)

Door privacy curtain / window drape (19)

Window Drape (20)

Modacrylic Blanket Fabric (22)

.

FAA FAR 25.853(a) Char Length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cone Calorimeter Ratio of [tig/q"max x 100] (s-m2/kW)

2

4

6

8

10

12

.

Figure 6-2. Comparison of Char Length as Measured According to FAR 25.853 (a) to the

 Ratio of Time to Ignition and Peak HRR as Measured in the Cone Calorimeter

The nonflaming mode is an example of nonflaming oxidative decomposition. As long as the

exposure remains at a low level of heat flux (& 25 kW/m2), the sample will rarely transition into

flaming combustion. While it may produce large quantities of smoke relative to the amount of

sample burned, the total smoke production and the maximum smoke density in the nonflaming

mode has generally been found to be less than during the flaming exposure mode [112]. The 

detection by train occupants or installation of smoke detection systems also reduces the risk of

prolonged nonflaming combustion. Since the total smoke production for a material is a function

of both the rate of smoke production and the burning rate of the material, the typically

dramatically higher burning rate in a flaming fire leads to correspondingly higher total smoke

production in flaming fires. Therefore, the Cone Calorimeter smoke data is more appropriately

compared to the ASTM E 662 flaming mode data.
6-10

Ds ˆ V

AL log

Io

I

(12)

k ˆ 1

L

ln

Io

I

(13)

6.2.1 Comparison Parameter

An engineering comparison between ASTM E 662 and the Cone Calorimeter must reconcile the

differences in the combustion system and the measurement procedures. ASTM E 662 measures a

specific optical density, Ds, of smoke during the combustion process in a closed chamber. Also,

the measurement is performed with a polychromatic light beam. Performance criteria are based

on smoke density concentrations not exceeding prescribed values in 1.5 and 4 minutes from the

start of the exposure. Cone Calorimeter smoke measurement is based on an instantaneous

measurement of smoke concentration in a flowing system, i.e., an open system. Smoke is

measured by a monochromatic light beam in the Cone Calorimeter apparatus. The standard

reporting units for the smoke parameter in the Cone Calorimeter is the extinction coefficient, k, or

the specific extinction area, )s (m2

/kg). While no direct comparison would be expected between

Ds and )s, several researchers [124] [125] [126] have derived relationships between the

accumulated smoke density concentration, Ds, and measurements made in real-scale fire tests of

the extinction coefficient.

The specific optical density, Ds (repeated from equation (2), is defined as:

where L is the path length of the light beam through the smoke, Io is the intensity of the original

light beam, and I is the intensity of the light beam attenuated by the smoke. 

For ASTM E 662, the right-hand side of equation (12) includes a geometric factor V/A, where V is

the volume of the chamber and A is the area of the exposed sample.

The expression for the extinction coefficient, k, is comparable:

For the Cone Calorimeter flow-through system, an equivalent geometric factor can be defined as

the volumetric flow rate through the duct, vi

, divided by the exposed surface area of the burning

sample, A. The integrated specific optical density can then be expressed as:
6-11

Ds ˆ

kivi dt

2.303A

(14)

Equation (14) indicates that, if the instantaneous values for the extinction coefficient, weighted by

vi

/A, are integrated from the start of the burning until the test specimen burns out, an accumulated

value for Ds is computed as a function of time. Equation (14) can be applied to the Cone

Calorimeter smoke data. 

6.2.2 Comparison Between ASTM E 662 and ASTM E 1354

Figure 6-3 shows the results of applying equation (14) to the Cone Calorimeter smoke data. The

computed Ds will differ from that measured in ASTM E 662 by the geometric constant and the

difference in exposure heat flux incident on the sample surface. Because of these differences,

comparing the integrated values from both test methods is more appropriate than comparing the

time histories of smoke emission from both test methods.

Additional differences will appear for those materials that become liquid during the combustion

process. For these materials, ASTM E 662 results may be lower than comparable Cone

Calorimeter results. Since materials can flow out of the vertically-oriented sample holder in

ASTM E 662, the total smoke production may be underestimated for some samples. 

Assuming no changes in chemistry result from increasing the external heat flux from 35 kW/m2 to

50 kW/m2

, Ds is only a measure of the smoke concentration. The smoke concentration is a

function of the mass burning rate. As the external heat flux increases, the mass burning rate will

increase, causing Ds to increase more rapidly. This would imply that the time to reach a specific

Ds value would be shorter at 50 kW/m2 than at 35 kW/m2; that is, the Cone Calorimeter should

produce a given Ds faster than in ASTM E 662. 

The FRA requirements cite two specimen exposure times for smoke emission data with multiple

performance levels, depending on the end-use application: Ds (1.5 min) & 100 and Ds (4 min) &

100, 200, or 250, depending upon end-use application. Figure 6-4 shows the comparison of these

two test methods using Ds (4 min) for ASTM E 662 on the horizontal axis and Ds (1.5 min) for

the Cone Calorimeter on the vertical axis for the materials in this study.
6-12

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

DS, Cone Calorimeter

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Seat cushion foam (1a)

Cafe/lounge/diner table (26)

Flooring, nylon carpet (24)

Seat shroud (6)

Seat support diaphragm (4)

Window glazing (17)

Figure 6-3. Specific Optical Density as Determined From the Specific Extinction Area

The Cone Calorimeter data show that a Ds (1 min) of & 250 would result in comparable material

performance to ASTM E 662. The longer time averaging of the 4-minute time scale (compared to

the 1.5-minute values) kept uncertainty in the smoke measurement within sufficient limits to

allow an adequate comparison. No similar comparison could be found for ASTM E 662 data at

the shorter 1.5-minute exposure time. Since the main purpose of using the Ds values derived from

Cone Calorimeter data is to demonstrate their comparability to ASTM E 662 data, the 4-minute

values provide a sufficient comparison. In addition, for fire hazard analysis, Cone Calorimeter

smoke production rates (in the form of kg of soot produced per kg of sample burned) are used. 

These rates are expressed as a function of time and thus are not unique to a particular exposure

time.

In general, materials which have a high ASTM E 662 Ds value have a correspondingly high Cone

Calorimeter Ds value. A simple straight line regression, shown as a diagonal line in Figure 6-4,
6-13

DS at 4 min (ASTM E 662)

0 200 400 600 800

DS at 1.0 min (Cone Calorimeter)

0

200

400

600

800

Seat support diaphragm (4)

Seat track cover (9)

Armrest pad (7)

Footrest cover (8) Exact 1 - 1 correlation

Figure 6-4. Comparison of ASTM E 662 Ds (4.0) and Calculated Cone Calorimeter Ds (1.0)

is a good representation of the comparison. The correlation coefficient for this straight line is 

r

2

 = 0.87. Most of the test data are grouped in the lower left quarter of Figure 6-4, which

indicates that the materials meet both the FRA performance criteria and have correspondingly

lower Cone Calorimeter Ds values. This consistency with the HRR results was also noted by

Hirschler for a wide range of plastics – “the better performing materials in terms of HRR and

smoke emission are mostly identical materials” [127]. Materials which do not meet the FRA

smoke emission performance criteria are labeled in Figure 6-4 with the material name and sample

number. 

This comparison is consistent with data from the MARC study which showed that materials with

a high Ds in ASTM E 662 typically have a high smoke extinction area in the Cone Calorimeter.
6-14

6.3 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS U.S. PASSENGER VEHICLE-RELATED

FIRE TEST DATA

Several previous NIST studies have presented the results of passenger vehicle material Cone

Calorimeter and FRA-cited test methods. The 1984 FRA/Amtrak study includes small-scale

laboratory tests on individual materials from Amtrak passenger cars. That study includes several

of the same materials used in this current study. The 1990 NHTSA study included Cone

Calorimeter test data for a range of seating assemblies used in school buses. More recently, the

1996 MARC commuter rail car study also includes both FRA test method data and a range of

Cone Calorimeter data. Table 6-1 shows test data from these three studies along with comparable

data from the current study derived from Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 5-2, and 5-4.

As in the current study, trends of comparable performance are seen in the previous related studies

which compare HRR data from the Cone Calorimeter with Is data from ASTM E 162/D 3675. 

For all four studies, the material test data from the current study are most comparable to the

MARC commuter rail car data. As would be expected, the material flammability and smoke

emission test data from the 1984 FRA/Amtrak tests are somewhat higher than from the more

recent tests. Some of the older materials included in the 1984 study were less fire-resistant

materials which show poorer fire performance than newer materials intended to comply with the

FRA criteria, e.g., a non-fire-retardant polyurethane foam seat assembly and a wall covering

which both exhibited high Is values in the ASTM E 162/D 3675 tests and high HRR values in the

Cone Calorimeter test. Conversely, one of the seat assemblies from the 1984 Amtrak tests 

included a “low-smoke” chloroprene foam which had a very low HRR in the Cone Calorimeter. 

Although tested at a relatively low incident flux of 25 kW/m2, the seat assembly would also have a

low HRR at higher fluxes. That seat assembly also had a low Is value in the ASTM E 162/

D 3675 test, but the HRR value in the Cone Calorimeter was much lower than other assemblies

with comparable Is values. The 1990 NHTSA study also included a seat assembly of non-fireretardant polyurethane foam which had a high HRR. With these exceptions, the majority of the

comparable materials had similar HRR values, with peak HRR ranging from about 200 to 400

kW/m2. The 1990 NHTSA and MARC studies also include Cone Calorimeter data for materials

tested at a range of incident heat flux levels from 25 to 55 kW/m2. As expected, peak HRR

typically increases with increasing incident heat flux, from 35 to 45 kW/m2; peak HRR values rise

about 10 to 20 percent. The ignition time decreases with increasing incident heat flux.
6-15

Table 6-1. Passenger Rail Car Material Small-Scale Test Data Comparison

MATERIAL DATA SOURCE

FLAME SPREAD SMOKE EMISSION 

ASTM E 162

IS

ASTM E 648

CRF

(KW/m2)

ASTM E 662

DS (4.0)

SEAT CUSHION ASSEMBLYa

1* x x x 

2 5 - 960 x 140 - 620 3 x x x 

4 x x x 

WALL AND CEILING MATERIALd

1 3 - 4 x 129 - 152 2 < 5 - 80 x 250 - 410 4 24 x 79 -109 

WINDOW MASKd

1 35 x x 2 3 - 35 x 41 - 320 4 62 x 234 - 373 

FLOOR COVERINGd 1 x 6 -11 140 

2 x 6- > 11 170 - 250 

* Source of data: 1 – Current report, 2 – 1984 Amtrak Study [27], 3 – 1990 NHTSA study [64], 4 – 1996 MARC study [9]

a Includes range of data from all complete seat assemblies testedb Includes data from all complete seat assemblies tested and a range of heat flux exposures, 25-75 kW/m2

c Includes data from a range of heat flux exposures, 35-55 kW/m2d Includes range of data from all samples tested
6-16

Although representing a range of materials from different passenger vehicle applications tested

over a 15-year period, the majority of the data from the earlier studies are consistent with data

from this current study. Materials exhibiting low HRR values in the Cone Calorimeter typically

have corresponding low IS values in ASTM E 162/D 3675. 

6.4 TEST RESULT UNCERTAINTY

To put the comparison of the FRA-cited test methods with the Cone Calorimeter in context, it is

also important to consider the uncertainty in the test results. This uncertainty represents the

variability which can be expected in test results for a material. For the test methods included in

this study, the following statements were available:

 • ASTM E 162 / D 3675 – include no statement of precision;

 • ASTM E 648 – approximately 20% within laboratory variability, 35% between

laboratory variability;

 • FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542 – include no statement of precision;

 • ASTM E 662 – ranges from 5.7 to 51% within laboratory variability, 16 to 120%

between laboratory variability, depending upon the material tested;

 • Cone Calorimeter

– approximately 13% within laboratory variability, 14% between laboratory

 variability for peak HRR.

– approximately 8% within laborabory variability, 22% between laboratory for

 smoke extinction area, )s.

These uncertainties imply, for example, that there is no real difference between a material with a

Ds value of 200 and 200 plus or minus a minimum of 200 x 5.7 percent or 11.4. Indeed, the

uncertainty could be as much as 200 plus or minus 200 x 120 percent or 240.

6.5 SUMMARY

The Cone Calorimeter test data were compared to the FRA-cited test method data for a range of

representing those currently used in passenger trains. These comparisons were intended to 
6-17

provide a better understanding of the relative fire performance of those materials as well as

prospective materials. 

For the majority of materials, the Cone Calorimeter results provide a good correlation with FRAcited test results. For example, most materials which have a low HRR have a correspondingly

low flame spread (Is) value (ASTM E 162). However, several materials (wall carpet, seat support

diaphragm, armrest pad, and foot rest covers) which had low Is values had higher HRR values in

the Cone Calorimeter test. For these materials, the Cone Calorimeter data showed that even

though these materials exhibit a low flame spread index in ASTM E 162, they produce

considerable heat once ignited and may contribute to fire development. One material (graphite

foam) had a low HRR value and a high Is. For this material, the different wire grid sizes used for

the ASTM and Cone Calorimeter tests were seen as being responsible for the anomalous results. 

However, the fire behavior of this material should be studied further.

Cone Calorimeter data from the 1984 FRA/Amtrak study, 1990 NHTSA school bus study, and

1996 MARC commuter rail study show performance similar to the materials tested for this study. 

In addition, the NHTSA and MARC data showed an expected increase in peak HRR with

increased incident heat flux.

The following rationale was used in comparing Cone Calorimeter test data with FRA-cited test

method data:

 • The Is is predictive of a minimum value for the HRR. With the exception of the

graphite foam, materials which have low HRR values have a correspondingly

low Is.

 • The test method specified in FAR 25.853 (a) assesses a material’s resistance to

small ignition sources. For the Cone Calorimeter, a comparable value is based

upon the ratio of the ignition time to the peak HRR. A simple linear regression

resulted in a high correlation coefficient of r

2

 = 0.98. The char length comparison

is based on a limited amount of data.

 • Only two floor covering materials were available for Cone Calorimeter tests, with

ASTM E 648 data also available for both. Thus, there is too little data for a

meaningful comparison between these test methods for passenger train

applications.
6-18

 • For equivalence to ASTM E 662, an optical density measure was derived as an

integrated value based upon the smoke extinction coefficient from the Cone

Calorimeter. Comparing Cone Calorimeter and ASTM E 662 data for this

calculated smoke density showed an appropriate comparison for the 4-minute

E 662 values in 17 of the 22 cases where data were available. A simple linear

regression resulted in a good correlation coefficient of r

2

 = 0.87.

 • No appropriate comparison was apparent for the 1.5-minute values. Since the

main purpose of using the Cone Calorimeter Ds data values is to demonstrate their

comparability to ASTM E 662 data, the 4-minute values provide a sufficient

comparison.

While the materials tested represent a range of those currently used in passenger trains, many

other material combinations are possible in actual use. Accordingly, the comparisons are

intended only to show that the Cone Calorimeter test method provides an approach to screen

passenger rail car interior materials similar to that provided by the FRA-cited test methods. For

the majority of materials, the relative ranking from “best” to “worst” was similar in both test

methods.

While the uncertainty for the Cone Calorimeter test results are lower than other test methods, the

uncertainty inherent in all individual test methods make their use “less meaningful.” New

materials and designs are better judged through a systems approach which considers the impact

of materials, car design, detection and suppression, and evacuation options on overall fire safety. 

The use of HRR data provides the single most important measure characterizing the fire behavior

of materials and can be used both as a screening tool and in an overall hazard analysis applied to

passenger trains.
7-1

7. SUMMARY

In 1984, the FRA issued passenger train fire safety guidelines that recommended the use of

certain flammability and smoke emission test methods and performance criteria for intercity and

commuter rail cars. The FRA issued revised guidelines in 1989 that used terms and categories to

more closely reflect passenger train design and furnishings; smoke emission performance criteria

for floor coverings and elastomers were also included. Since the guidelines were initially issued,

there have been very few serious fires involving materials which meet the FRA requirements. 

Accordingly, as part of the passenger rail equipment rulemaking process required by Congress,

the FRA has proposed that materials be required to meet the 1989 fire safety tests and

performance criteria. In addition, the conduct of fire hazard analyses would also be required in

that proposed rule. 

Considerable advances in fire safety engineering have been made since the original development

of the existing FRA requirements. Heat release rate (HRR) is now considered to be a key

indicator of fire performance. For a given confined space (e.g., rail car interior), the air

temperature is increased as the HRR increases. Even if passengers do not come into direct

contact with the fire, they could be injured by high temperatures, heat fluxes, and/or smoke and

gases emitted by materials involved in the fire. Accordingly, the fire hazard to passengers of

these materials can be directly correlated to the HRR of a real-world fire. 

Test methods using HRR, such as the Cone Calorimeter (ASTM E 1354), have been shown to

better predict the real-scale burning behavior of materials and assemblies in a more cost-effective

manner than previously used test methods. HRR measurements have gained worldwide

credibility for the regulation of building fire safety and are now being examined for a range of

transportation vehicles. HRR data can also be used as an input into fire modeling and hazard

analysis which allows evaluation of a range of design parameters, including material

flammability, geometry, fire detection and suppression systems and evacuation time, as well as

design tradeoffs which may arise from combinations of the parameters. 

To assess the feasibility of applying HRR test methods and fire modeling and hazard analysis

techniques to evaluate U.S. passenger train fire performance, FRA has funded a comprehensive

three-phase research program which is being conducted by NIST. FRA will consider the results

of this research project in Phase II of the passenger rail equipment rulemaking. The remainder of

this chapter summarizes results of the Phase I work effort.
7-2

7.1 U.S. TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS AND RESEARCH 

A considerable overlap exists for transportation vehicle fire safety requirements which are

generally based on small-scale test methods. The performance criteria are prescriptive and

intended to prevent fire ignition, retard fire growth and spread, and provide evacuation time. 

Small-scale test methods have historically been used to evaluate transportation material fire

performance. This approach provides a screening device to allow interested parties to identify

particularly hazardous materials and select preferred combinations of components; material

suppliers can independently evaluate the fire safety performance of their own materials.

7.1.1 U.S. Rail Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements

FRA, Amtrak, FTA, and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 all specify identical

small-scale tests methods and similar performance criteria to evaluate the flammability and

smoke emission characteristics of individual component materials. As part of the passenger 

equipment rulemaking process required by Congress, the FRA has proposed that passenger train

materials be required to meet these test methods and performance criteria. In addition, the

proposed rail equipment rule requires that various fire hazard analyses of existing, rebuilt, and

new rail cars be conducted. 

Amtrak recognizes the need to evaluate individual test data in the context of the intended use of

the material. Accordingly, Amtrak requires that the test data is combined with other information

(e.g., quantity and location of material, potential ignition sources, etc.) to develop a fire hazard

assessment to select materials on the basis of function, safety and cost. 

NFPA 130 includes a “hazard load analysis” method which is an attempt to provide a simplified

and semi-quantitative analysis to assess the overall contribution to fire hazard of the materials

used in rail transit interior linings and fittings. However, current fire hazard modeling

techniques and correlations can provide a more realistic assessment of the contribution of

materials to the overall fire hazard. 

7.1.2 Other U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements

NHTSA motor vehicle requirements use a small-scale test method for all interior nonmetallic

materials to provide a screen against those which ignite easily or initially burn rapidly. 
7-3

Current FAA aircraft flammability requirements for interior materials specify a variety of test

methods including small burner tests, oil burner tests, a HRR test, and a smoke generation test. 

The FAA-specified small burner test for ignition resistance is also included in the FRA

guidelines for seat upholstery, mattress covers, and curtains. The oil burner test method specified

for seat cushions represents a severe initiating fire exposure in a post-crash scenario where

passenger evacuation must be accomplished within 90 seconds. However, this fire exposure

severity is not typical of the majority of passenger train fires. Moreover, the rail operating

environment provides an evacuation route with less likelihood for injury. The FAA-specified

HRR test method uses an apparatus similar to the Cone Calorimeter. However, the Cone

Calorimeter provides a more accurate measurement of HRR. 

The existing USCG passenger vessel fire safety requirements primarily rely on passive structural

barrier fire endurance and separation to prevent or limit fire spread and allow for emergency

egress. Several material tests and performance criteria are similar to those cited in the FRA

guidelines. The USCG permits designers to submit an engineering analysis to evaluate materials

used in relation to the vessel environment. This case-by-case approach allows the use of

alternatives which provide an equivalent level of safety and meet the intent of the fire protection

regulations.

The FAA and USCG have both accepted the use of HRR data as a means to evaluate the

performance of certain aircraft and marine vessel materials. 

7.1.3 U.S. Transportation Vehicle Fire-Related Research

The 1993 FRA-sponsored NIST study, as well as several other previous studies conducted for

FRA, NHTSA, and FTA, have concluded that the impact of material interactions and changes in

real-scale passenger vehicle interior geometry are also critical factors to be evaluated in

predicting actual fire behavior. These factors cannot be evaluated through small-scale tests

alone.

The NFPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials are also conducting research

efforts which are intended to provide additional tools to evaluate passenger train materials. 

In addition to the current FRA-sponsored research program, other HRR and other related fire

performance research efforts are being conducted by FAA and USCG. Although the fire hazards 
7-4

and evacuation environments are different, the results of the NIST research will assist the FRA in

formulating comparable material performance criteria using HRR.

7.2 EUROPEAN FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND HRR RESEARCH

Existing European approaches to passenger train fire safety have been generally similar to the

U.S. approach. However, concerns about material interaction have led several European country

efforts and coordinated European Railway Research (ERRI) and Commission for European

Standardization (CEN) activities to develop assessment tools for fire hazard evaluation. The

current focus is on developing the database necessary to utilize successfully fire and hazard

modeling in the design of next generation passenger train systems. This database uses:

• Cone Calorimeter to provide small-scale test data on materials and assemblies;

 

• Furniture calorimeter to provide real-scale assembly test data;

• Fire hazard modeling as a means for evaluating and predicting system

performance; and

• Large-scale fire tests to verify predicted system performance and material

interaction. This large-scale fire testing has resulted in the development of several

design fires for train tunnels that can be utilized in the design and evaluation of

fire protection systems.

7.3 AMTRAK MATERIAL TEST DATA EVALUATION

Materials selected reflected a broad range of interior materials as used in the Amtrak fleet. In

addition, other materials were tested because of their possible utility as new or replacement

materials for existing applications. All the materials are classified into five broad categories:

• Seats and mattress assemblies (foam cushions, with upholstery or other covering); 

• Wall and window surfaces (composite plastics, carpet);

• Curtains, draperies, and fabrics (windows, sleeping car doors, bedding);

• Floor covering (carpet, resilient rubber); and

• Miscellaneous components (diner/cafe/lounge tables, pipe wrap, air ducts,

elastomers).
7-5

These five categories are similar to the categories used by Amtrak for interior furnishing

materials and to those used by the FRA; however, several of the latter have been combined into

the miscellaneous category.

7.3.1 FRA-Cited Test Method Data

Data collected from several sources showed that the majority of the selected Amtrak rail car

materials tested met current FRA performance criteria for flammability and smoke emission. 

However, there were exceptions:

• A graphite foam seat material had a dramatically higher test result than the FRA

performance criteria. Although the rapid flame spread of this material was

demonstrated in the ASTM D 3675 test, further study is necessary to evaluate this

material in large scale to evaluate the performance in actual end-use conditions. 

European operators report that they do not see this poor performance when the

foam is tested with a fabric covering.

• Polycarbonate is used both as a window material and as an interior space divider. 

As a window material, the material meets FRA performance criteria; however, the

material does not meet the performance criteria for interior space divider

application.

• Several materials did not meet the FRA smoke emission performance criteria. A

seat support diaphragm, armrest and footrest pads, seat track cover, and window

and door gasketing do not meet one or both of the recommended limits for smoke

emission. These materials represent a small part of the fire load and it is unclear

whether they would contribute to the significance of the fire. Amtrak is

investigating the use of other materials which will meet the smoke emission

requirements.

7.3.2 Cone Calorimeter Test Data

The Cone Calorimeter is a single test which provides a measurement of heat release rate (HRR),

specimen mass loss, smoke production, and combustion gases. In addition, Cone Calorimeter

test data provide the necessary data for fire hazard modeling methodologies which can evaluate a

material's individual contribution to overall fire hazard in the context of its end use. These data

include:

• ignition time, a measure of how easily a material can be ignited;

• time-to-peak HRR, a measure of the speed of fire growth; 
7-6

• peak HRR, a measure of the how large a fire will result from a burning material;

and

• specific extinction area, a measure of smoke production of the material.

An exposure level of 50 kW/m2 was chosen for the Cone Calorimeter material tests conducted in

this study. This level is consistent with: 1) the exposure levels in the existing FRA-cited test

methods, and 2) exposure levels in actual fires.

Peak HRR varied over an order of magnitude from 65 kW/m2 for the graphite foam to 745

kW/m2 for wall fabric. In general, lower peak HRR were found for the seat and mattress foams,

and higher values for wall surface materials. Other fabric and thin sheet materials display

intermediate values between these two extremes. This performance is consistent with the current

FRA which specify flame spread index (Is) for seat foam, intermediate criteria for most other

materials, and least stringent for window glazing materials.

Cone Calorimeter smoke emission data shows some similar trends to the HRR data. The lowest

values were noted for the foam and interliner from the seat and mattress assemblies. Highest

values were noted for several thin materials (a seat support diaphragm, seat track cover, PVC

wall material, and rubber floor covering). These thinner materials tend to exhibit high peak

values, over a short period of time. Most of the wall materials were between these extremes. 

The performance of the foam and surface materials is also consistent with the relative thickness

and density of the materials.

7.3.3 Comparison of FRA-Cited Test Method Data and Cone Calorimeter Test Data

To evaluate material performance, Cone Calorimeter test data were compared with test data

resulting from individual small-scale test methods cited by the FRA. These comparisons are

intended to provide a better understanding of the relative performance of currently used and

prospective materials. 

While the materials tested represent a range of those currently used in passenger trains, many

other material combinations are possible in actual use. Accordingly, the comparisons are

intended only to show that the Cone Calorimeter test method provides an approach to screen

passenger rail car interior materials similar to that provided by the FRA-cited test methods. For

the majority of materials, the relative ranking from “best” to “worst” was similar in both test

methods. While the uncertainty for the Cone Calorimeter test results are lower than other test
7-7

methods, the uncertainty inherent in all individual test methods make their use “less meaningful.” 

However, new materials and designs are better judged through a systems approach which

considers the impact of material and design choices on the overall fire safety of the system. The

use of HRR data in a hazard analysis applied to passenger trains could provide such an overall

system evaluation.

7.4 APPLICATION TO PHASE II TASKS AND OVERALL PROJECT

The HRR data developed in Phase I will be used in Phase II of this research program to: 

• evaluate the ability of computer modeling techniques to predict fire hazard in a

rail environment; and

• to mitigate those hazards through combinations of material selection and design

features.

In Phase II of this project, the fire performance data obtained from the Cone Calorimeter tests

will be used as an input to a computer model (Hazard I) for compartment fires, to prepare a

baseline analysis of passenger rail car configurations. The mathematical basis of the hazard

analysis using the HRR test data will allow for the assessment of changes in materials, as well as

car structural design, detection and suppression systems, and emergency access and evacuation. 

The intent is to demonstrate the prediction of fire hazard in a rail environment consisting of three

scenarios (interior fire, exterior fire, and interior fire on a train in a tunnel) and the ability to

mitigate those hazards through any combination of material selection and design features. 

Ultimately, fire hazard analysis utilizing necessary data from small-scale HRR measurements

may provide a true assessment of the contribution of a material or assembly to the overall fire

hazard for identified passenger train fire scenarios. Such analyses can include the effects of rail

car and system design, detection and suppression sytems, and evacuation time, as well as any

tradeoffs between multiple effects. For example, the interaction between materials and the

effects of different compartment geometries can be assessed to provide a better overall measure

of the fire hazard of materials and component assemblies than is now possible.

Quantitative fire modeling and hazard analysis techniques have the potential of providing

significant cost savings. Alternative protection strategies can be studied within the hazard

analysis framework to give the benefit-cost relation for each. In addition, measures are evaluated

as a system with their many interactions, including the impact of both structure and contents. 
7-8

Providing these alternatives promotes design flexibility which reduces redundancies and cost

without sacrificing safety. New technology can be evaluated before it is brought into practice,

thereby reducing the time lag currently required for acceptance. Thus, quantitative hazard

analysis can be a powerful complement to existing passenger train fire performance requirements

and a useful tool in evaluating improvements to them.
8-1

[1] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Method for Heat

and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen

Consumption Calorimeter. ASTM E-1354. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume

04.07, 1997.

[2] Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). “Rail Passenger Equipment; Guidelines for 

Selecting Materials to Improve Their Fire Safety Characteristics.” Federal Register, Vol.

49, No. 162, August 20, 1984. Notices. 33076-33078. Reissued in Federal Register, 

Vol. 49, No. 217, November 7, 1984. 44082-44584. U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT). National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.

[3] Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). “Recommended Fire Safety 

Practices for Rail Transit Materials Selection.” Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 158,

August 14, 1984. Notices. 32482-32486. USDOT. National Archives and Records

Administration, Washington, DC.

[4] FRA. “Rail Passenger Equipment: Reissuance of Guidelines for Selecting Materials to 

Improve Their Fire Safety Characteristics.” Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 10, January 

17, 1989. Notices. 1837-1840. USDOT. National Archives and Records 

Administration, Washington, DC.

[5] FRA. 49 CFR, Transportation, Parts 216, 223, 229, 231, 232, and 238: “Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).” Federal 

Register, Vol. 62, No.184, September 23, 1997. Proposed Rules. 49728-49824. 

USDOT. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. 

[6] Peacock, R.D., et al. Fire Safety of Passenger Trains: A Review of U.S. and Foreign

Approaches. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Prepared for FRA,

USDOT. Washington, DC. Final Report. Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-93/23, December

1993.

[7] National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Railroad Accident Report: Derailment 

and Collision of Maryland Rail Commuter MARC Train 286 with National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation Amtrak Train 29, near Silver Spring, Maryland, on February 16, 

1996. Adopted: July 3, 1997. Washington, DC. Report No. NTSB/RAR-97/02.

[8] NTSB. Railway Marine Accident Report: Derailment of Amtrak Train No. 2, on the

CSXT Big Bayou Canot Bridge Near Mobile, Alabama, September 22, 1993. Adopted: 

March 21, 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. NTSB/RAR-95/02.

[9] Gandhi, S., R.T. Long, and J.G. Quintiere. Fire Tests of Passenger Rail Car Interior

Materials. Prepared by the Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of

Maryland for the NTSB. Final Report. Contract No. NTSB12-96-SP-034, September

1996.

8. REFERENCES
8-2

[10] NTSB. Railroad Accident Report - Fire Onboard Amtrak Passenger Train No. 11, the 

Coast Starlight, Gibson, California, June 23, 1982. Adopted: April 19, 1983. 

Washington, DC. Report No. NTSB/RAR-83/03. 

[11] Channel Tunnel Safety Authority. Inquiry into the Fire on Heavy Goods Vehicle Shuttle 

7539 on 18 November 1996. The Stationary Office. London, May 1997.

[12] Transportation Safety Board of Canada. VIA Rail Canada Inc. - Fire Onboard 

Amtrak Passenger Train No. 66 - Struck a Piece of Rail on the Track - Mile 242.07, - CN 

North American Kingston Subdivision - Brighton, Ontario - 22 November 1994. Report 

Number R94TO357, June 26, 1996.

[13] “Investigation by HM Railway Inspectorate Into a Fire on a High Speed Train Near 

Maidenhead on Friday 8 September 1995.” Press release. Maidenhead, UK, January 16,

1996.

[14] Hellicar, J. “Lessons from the Maidenhead Train Fire.” Escape from Trains. Seminar,

Heathrow, UK. June 9-10, 1997. Independent Technical Conferences, Ltd., 1997.

[15] “New Protection for Rolling Stock is to Follow Train Fire.” FIRE 77 (950): 11

(August 1984).

[16] Department of Transport. Railway Accident: Report on the Fire that Occurred in a 

Sleeping-Car Train on 6th July 1978 at Taunton in the Western Region, British 

Railways. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. London, November 15, 1979.

[17] FRA. 49 CFR, Part 239, “Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness; Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.” Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 36, February 24, 1997. Proposed Rule. 

8330-8359. USDOT. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. 

[18] FRA. 49 CFR, Part 220, “Railroad Communications; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” 

Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 123, June 26, 1997. Proposed Rule. 34544-34559.

USDOT. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.

[19] Babrauskas, V. and S.J. Grayson, Eds. Heat Release Rate in Fires. New York: Elsevier

Applied Science, 1992.

[20] European Rail Research Institute (ERRI). Coaches: Reasons for Undertaking

Supplementary Studies on Improvement of the Protection of Coaches Against Fire. ERRI

B 106/RP 22. Utrecht, 1992.

[21] ERRI. Coaches: Feasibility Study of Computer Modeling of Fires in Railway Vehicles

With a View to Improving Passenger Safety. ERRI B 106/RP 25. Utrecht, 1992.

[22] Cappuccio, J.A. “Development of Analytical Techniques for Risk Management

Training.” Master’s thesis. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1992.
8-3

[23] Barnett, J.R. Development of Analytical Techniques for Risk Management Training. 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Prepared for FTA, USDOT. University Research Final

Report. Report No. DOT-MA-11-0050-92-1, October 1992.

[24] Parker, Arthur. “Fire Testing of Mass Transit Assemblies,” Fire and Materials

Conference. Washington, DC. To Get Date? Interscience Communications, Ltd. 

London, 1994.

[25] Schirmer Engineering Corporation. Life Safety Study and Computer Modeling Analysis 

for New York City Railroad Tunnels and Pennsylvania Station. Contract to the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation, Sec No. 15-890-29-04-00, 1990.

[26] Burdett, J.R.F., S.A. Ames, and P.J. Fardell. “Selection of Materials and Composites to 

Minimize Fire Hazard,” in King’s Cross Underground Fire: Fire Dynamics and the 

Organization of Safety. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. London, 1989.

[27] Peacock, R.D. and E. Braun. Fire Tests of Amtrak Passenger Rail Vehicle Interiors,

National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Prepared for FRA, USDOT. Technical Note 1193,

1984.

[28] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant

Heat Energy Source. ASTM E 162, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, 

1994.

[29] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Surface Flammability of Cellular Materials Using a

Radiant Heat Energy Source. ASTM D 3675, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,

Volume 09.02, 1990.

[30] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems

Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source. ASTM E 648, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,

Volume 04.07, 1997.

[31] ASTM. Specification for Lock-Strip Gaskets. ASTM C-542, Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, Volume 04.07, 1995.

[32] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid

Materials. ASTM E 662, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, 1995.

[33] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 14 CFR, Aeronautics and Space; Subchapter C;

Part 25, Airworthiness Standard, Transport Category Airplanes; Section 25.853(a).

 Compartment Interiors. USDOT. As of January 1, 1997. National Archives

 and Records Administration. Washington, DC. 

[34] ASTM. Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. ASTM E 119 95A, Annual 

Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, Part IV, 1997.

[35] Pennsylvania Railroad. “The Passing of the Wooden Passenger Car from This Railroad,” 

1928.
8-4

[36] Troy, J.J. “Fire Protection Provisions for Rapid Transit Systems.” Fire Journal 70:

13-17 (1976).

[37] Wilkins, J. J. and R.R. Cavanaugh. Plastics and Rail Transportation, Polymeric

Materials and Their Use in Transportation, April 27-29, 1977. The Polytechnic Institute

of New York, 1977.

[38] Cavanaugh, R. R. “Selection of Materials for Ground Transportation Vehicles,” 

Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Fire Safety, January 12-16, 1981.

Menlo Park, CA, 1981.

[39] Passenger Fire Safety in Transportation Vehicles. Arthur D. Little. Prepared for

Transportation Systems Center (TSC), US DOT. Report No. C-78203, 1975.

[40] FRA. 49 CFR, Part 223, Safety Glazing Standards - Locomotives, Passenger Cars and

Cabooses, Subpart B, General Requirements, Section 223.9 Requirements for New or

Rebuilt Equipment. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. 

As of October 1, 1996. 

[41] National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Specification for Flammability, Smoke

Emissions and Toxicity. Amtrak Specification No. 352, April 29, 1991.

[42] National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 130, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit

Systems, Quincy, MA, 1997.

[43] Litant, I. Guideline for Flammability and Smoke Emission Specifications. TSC-76-LFS6, Transportation Systems Center (TSC), USDOT, 1976.

[44] Peacock, R.D. and V. Babrauskas. “Analysis of Large-Scale Fire Test Data.” Fire Safety

Journal 17: 387-414 (1991).

[45] Dorer, R.M. and W.T. Hathaway. Safety of High Speed Magnetic Levitation 

Transportation Systems: Preliminary Safety Review of the Transrapid Maglev System.

Volpe Center, USDOT. Prepared for FRA, USDOT. Interim Report. Report No.

DOT/FAR/ORD-90/09, November 1990.

[46] Dorer, R.M., S.H. Markos, et al. Safety of High Speed Magnetic Levitation 

Transportation Systems: German High Speed Maglev Train Safety Requirements

Potential for Application in the United States. Volpe Center, USDOT. Prepared for

FRA, USDOT. Interim Report. Report No. DOT/FAR/ORD-92/02, February 1992.

[47] Hathaway, W.T. Commonalities in Transportation Fire Safety: Regulations, Research

and Development, and Data Bases. TSC, USDOT. Prepared for Office of the Secretary.

Final Report. Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-80-5, November 1980.

[48] Brecher, A. Materials Research and Technology Initiatives. Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), USDOT. Prepared for Research and

Special Programs Administration, USDOT. Report No. DOT-T-96-01, November 1995.
8-5

[49] Braun, E. Fire Hazard Evaluation of the Interior of WMATA Metrorail Cars. NBS. 

Prepared for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. NBSIR 75-971,

December 1975.

[50] Braun, E. Fire Hazard Evaluation of BART Vehicles. NBS. Prepared for UMTA,

USDOT. NBSIR 78-1421, March 1978. 

[51] NTSB. Railroad Accident Report: Bay Area Rapid Transit District Fire on Train No.

117 and Evacuation of Passengers While in the Transbay Tube, San Francisco,

California, January 17, 1979. Adopted: July 19, 1979. Report No. NTSB/RAR-79-05.

[52] Fire Safety Aspects of Polymeric Materials. Volume 8, Land Transportation Vehicles, 

National Materials Advisory Board Pub. NMAB 318-8, National Academy of Sciences, 

1979.

[53] Smith, E.E. “Fire Safety Evaluation of Rapid Transit System.” Phase I Report to the

Transit Development Corporation, Washington, D.C., unpublished, 1976.

[54] Smith, E.E. “Fire Safety Evaluation of Rapid Transit Systems.” Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Fire Safety, January 17 to 21, 1983. San Francisco, CA, 

1983.

[55] Mikkola, E. and I.S. Wichman. “On the Thermal Ignition of Combustible Materials.” 

Fire and Materials 14: 87-96 (1989).

[56] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials

and Products. ASTM E 906, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.07, 1997.

[57] Hathaway, W.T. and I. Litant. Assessment of BART Fire Hardening Program. Prepared

by TSC, USDOT for UMTA, USDOT. Final Report. Report No. UMTA-MA-06-0060-

82-3, November 1982.

[58] Hathaway, W.T., S.H. Markos, and J.B. Baker. Review of BART "C" Car Fire Safety

Characteristics. TSC, USDOT. Prepared for UMTA, USDOT. Final Report. Report

No. UMTA-MA-06-0718-87-1, September 1987.

[59] National Materials Advisory Board. Fires in Mass Transit Vehicles: Guidelines for the

Evaluation of Toxic Hazards. Prepared for UMTA, USDOT. National Research Council

and Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, 1991.

[60] Smith, E.E. “Application of Release Rate Data for Hazard Load Calculations.” Fire

Technology 10 (3) (1974).

[61] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 49 CFR, Transportation,

Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Subpart 571.302, Flammability of

Interior Materials - Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and

Buses. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC. As of October

1, 1996.
8-6

[62] Braun, E. Report of Fire Test on an AM General Metro Bus. NBS. Prepared for

WMATA. NBSIR 75-718, June 1975.

[63] NHTSA, 49 CFR, Transportation; Part CFR 571 (FMVSS 302) Flammability of Interior

Materials; Advance Notice of Rulemaking. USDOT. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 214,

November 4, 1988, 44627-44632. Proposed Rules. National Archives and Records

Administration. Washington, DC. 

[64] Braun, E., et al. Assessment of the Fire Performance of School Bus Interior 

Components. NIST. Prepared for NHTSA, USDOT. NISTR 4347, July 1990.

[65] NHTSA, Flammability of Interior Materials in Buses; Request for Comments. 49 CFR,

Transportation, Part 571 (FMVSS 302). USDOT. Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 38,

February 26, 1991, 7826-7832. Proposed Rule. National Archives and Records

Administration. Washington, DC.

[66] NHTSA, 49 CFR, Transportation, Part 571 (FMVSS 217); Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release Final Rule. 

USDOT. Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 38, November 2, 1992, Rules and Regulations 

49413-49425, (clarification issued December 2, 1992, Vol. 85, No. 229, 57020-57026). 

National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[67] FTA. Recommended Fire Safety Practices for Transit Bus and Van Materials Selection. 

USDOT. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 201, October 20, 1993. Notice. 54250-54254. 

National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[68] FAA. 14 CFR, Part 25, Subpart 25.853, Compartment Interiors, Sections (a)-(d);

Subpart 25.855, Cargo or Baggage Compartments; and Appendix F to Part 25. As of

January 1, 1997. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[69] Federal Test Method Standard 191, Method 5903.2. Flame-resistance of Cloth,

 Vertical. July 9, 1971. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington,

DC.

[70] “Design Standards for Aircraft Seats Make a Difference in Fire Safety.” FAA

Technology Today 5 (4) (Summer 1996).

[71] Peterson, J.M. “FAA Regulations on Aircraft Cabin Wall Materials.” Chapter 17(a) in 

Heat Release in Fires, by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson. New York: Elsevier Applied

Science, 1992.

[72] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid

Materials for Aerospace Applications. ASTM F 814. Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards, Volume 04.07, 1984.

[73] FAA. Aircraft Material Fire Test Handbook. FAA Technical Center. USDOT. Atlantic

City. Report No. DOT/FAA/CT-89/15, September 1990.
8-7

[74] NHTSA, 49 CFR, Transportation; Part 571 (FMVSS 217) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. USDOT. As of

October 1996. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[75] FAA. 14 CFR, Part 25, Subparts 25.803, Emergency Evacuation; 25.807, Emergency

Exits; and other related subparts. USDOT. As of January 1, 1997. National Archives

and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[76] United States Coast Guard (USCG). 46 CFR, Shipping; Subchapter H, Passenger

Vessels, Part 72, Construction and Arrangement. USDOT. As of October 1, 1996. 

National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC. 

[77] USCG. 46 CFR, Subchapter K, Small Passenger Vessels Carrying More Than 150

Passengers or with Overnight Accommodations for More than 49 Passengers, Part 116,

Construction and Arrangement. USDOT. As of October 1, 1996. National Archives and

Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[78] USCG. 46 CFR, Subchapter T, Small Passenger Vessels (Under 100 Gross Tons), Part

177, Construction and Arrangement. USDOT. As of October 1, 1996. National

Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[79] USCG. “46 CFR, Parts 170, 171, 173, and Chapter I, Subchapters K and T; Small

Passenger Vessel Inspection and Certification, Final Rule.” USDOT. Federal Register,

Vol. 62, No. 169, September 30, 1997. 51326-51359. National Archives and Records

Administration. Washington, DC.

[80] USCG. 46 CFR, Shipping; Subchapter Q, Equipment, Construction, and Materials:

Specifications and Approval, Part 164, Materials. USDOT. As of October 1, 1996. 

National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

[81] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building

Materials, ASTM E 8497-A. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, 1997.

[82] Consumer Products Safety Commission. 16 CFR, Commercial Practices, Subchapter D,

Flammable Fabrics Act Regulations, Part 1632, Standard for the Flammability of

Mattresses and Mattress Pads. As of January 1, 1997. National Archives and Records

Administration. Washington, DC.

[83] NFPA. Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Resistant Textiles and Film. NFPA

701. Quincy, MA, 1996.

[84] USCG, 46 CFR, Shipping; Subpart 70.15, Equivalents; Subpart 116.340, Alternate

Design Considerations; and Subpart 177.340, Alternate Design Considerations. As of

October 1, 1996. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.
8-8

[85] USCG. Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 9-97, Guide to Structural Fire

Protection (NVIC 9-97). Commandant, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection,

Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Life Safety and Fire Safety Standards (GMSE-4), October 1997.

[86] State of California. Technical Bulletin 133 Flammability Test Procedure for Seating

Furniture for Use in Public Occupancies. Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of

Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation, 1992. 

[87] USCG. Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 8-93, Equivalent Alternatives to

46 CFR, Subchapter H, Requirements Related to Means of Escape, Safe Refuge Areas,

and Main Vertical Zone Length (NVIC-8-93). Commandant, Office of Marine Safety

Security and Environmental Protection, Ship Design Branch, Safety and Oversight

Section (G-MTH-4), November 1993.

[88] International Maritime Administration. SOLAS: Consolidated edition. Consolidated text

of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of

1978; Articles, Annex and Certificates. Incorporating all amendments up to and

including the 1990 amendments (1991 amendments included as an appendix). London, 

1992.

[89] IMO. International Code for Application of Fire Test Procedures. Resolution MSC. 61

(67). Adopted: 5 December 1996.

[90] IMO. International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft. Resolution MSC.36 (63).

Adopted: 20 May 1994. London, 1995.

[91] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). International Standard-Full-Scale

Room Test. ISO 9705. Geneva, 1996.

[92] ISO. International Standard-Fire Test Reaction to Fire-Rate of Heat Release from

Building Products. ISO 5660. Geneva, 1993.

[93] Snyder, J. “Fire Safety, New U.S. Vessel Fire Code Set for Comment.” Marine Log

(January 1997).

[94] NFPA. Code for Safety of Life from Fire on Merchant Vessels (Proposed NFPA 301). 

Report on Proposals, F97. Quincy, MA. Adopted May 21, 1998.

[95] NFPA. Life Safety Code, NFPA 101. Quincy, MA, 1997.

[96] Deutsches Institut Für Normung e.V. DIN 5510, Preventive Fire Protection in Railway

Vehicles; Levels of Protection, Fire Preventive Measures and Certification, Parts 1-8.

Germany, 1988. 

[97] Hathaway, W.T. and I. Litant. Rationale for Recommended Fire Safety Practices for Rail

Transit Materials Selection. TSC, USDOT. Prepared for UMTA, USDOT. Final

Report. Report No. DOT-TSC-UMTA-81-74, January 1983.
8-9

[98] l'Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), ed. NF F 16-10, Railway Rolling

Stock, Fire Behaviour, Choice of Materials. Edited by Tour Europe Cedex 7, 92080 Paris

la Defense, France, October 1988. 

[99] l'Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), ed. NF F 16-10, Railway Rolling

Stock, Fire Behaviour, Choice of Materials, Application to Electrical Equipment. Tour

Europe Cedex 7, 92080 Paris la Defense, France, October 1989. 

[100] l'Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR). NF F 16-103, Railway Rolling

Stock, Fire Protection and Fire Fighting. Tour Europe Cedex 7, 92080 Paris la Defense, 

France, June 1989. 

[101] International Union of Railways. UIC Code 564-2 O, Regulations Relating to Fire

Protection and Fire-fighting Measures in Passenger-carrying Railway Vehicles or

Assimilated Vehicles Used on International Services, 1991.

[102] Litant, I. “Comparison of U.S. and French Regulations for Rail Transit Fire Safety.” 

Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Fire Safety. San Francisco, CA, 

1988.

[103] Young, R. “Behaviour of Rail Vehicle Components in Fires.” Proceedings of Fire

Performance of Materials in Mass Transport, May 26, 1988. Rapra Technology Ltd. 

Shawbury, UK, 1988.

[104] British Standards Institution. BS 6853, British Standard Code of Practice for Fire

Precautions in the Design and Construction of Railway Passenger Rolling Stock. 

London, 1987.

[105] Young, Roy. “Development of Heat Release Techniques Within European Railways.” 

Proceedings of the Fire Safety by Design Conference. University of Sunderland, UK. 

Vol. 3, 1995.

[106] ERRI. Young, R., Scientifics/British Railway Board. Edited by A. Kaminski, ERRI

Technical Advisor. Improvement of the Fire Protection of Passenger Rolling Stock,

Results of Additional Cone Calorimeter Tests on Seat Materials and Furniture

Calorimeter Tests on Mock-Up Seats. ERRI C204.1/DT319. Utrecht, 1995.

[107] Malhotra, H. L. “Fire Protection in Channel Tunnel Car Carrying Shuttles.” Proceedings

of Interflam ‘93, 6th International Fire Conference. Interscience Communications, Ltd. 

London, 1993.

[108] Göransson, U. and A. Lundqvist. Fires in Buses and Trains, Fire Test Methods. Swedish

National Testing and Research Institute, Sweden. SP Report No. 1990: 45, 1990. 

[109] Fires in Transport Tunnels, Report on Full-scale Tests, EUREKA Project 499:FIRETUN.

editor Studiengesellschaft Stahlanwendung e.V., D-40213 Dusseldorf, Germany,

November 1995.
8-10

[110] ERRI. Improvement of the Protections Against Fire of Passenger Rolling Stock;

Progress Report on the Tests Carried Out Using A Cone Calorimeter and the 

Calculations with HAZARD 1.1. Software Package. ERRI C 204/RP 1. Utrecht, 1994.

[111] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Flame Propagation of Dense and Cellular

Elastomeric Gaskets and Accessories, ASTM C 1166, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,

Vol. 04.07, 1995.

[112] Gross, D., Loftus, J.J., Lee, T.G., and Gray, V.E., Smoke and Gases Produced by Burning

Aircraft Interior Materials, NBS, Building Science Series 18, 1969.

[113] Babrauskas, V. and R.D. Peacock. “Heat Release Rate: The Single Most Important

Variable in Fire Hazard.” Fire Safety Journal 18 (3): 255-272 (1992).

[114] Hirschler, M.M. “How to Measure Smoke Obscuration in a Manner Relevant to Fire

Hazard Assessment: Use of Heat Release Calorimetry Test Equipment,” Journal of Fire

Science 9: 183-222 (1993).

[115] Gann, R.G., V. Babrauskas, R.D. Peacock, and J.R. Hall, Jr. “Fire Conditions for Smoke

Toxicity Measurement.” Fire and Materials 18 (3): 193-199 (1994).

[116] Babrauskas, V. “Comparative Rates of Heat Release from Five Different Types of Test

Apparatuses.” Journal of Fire Sciences 4: 148-159 (1986).

[117] Inberg, S.M. Fire Tests of Office Occupancies at US Bureau of Standards. NFPA

Quarterly 19 (3): 234-7 (1926).

[118] Toxicity of Combustion Products, Part 2. Guide to the Relevance of Small-scale Tests for

Measuring the Toxicity of Combustion Products of Materials and Composites. PD 6503:

Part 2, British Standards Institution, London, 1988.

[119] Babrauskas, V. “The Cone Calorimeter,” Chapter 4 in Heat Release in Fires by V.

Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson. New York: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992.

[120] Ames, S., V. Babrauskas, and W. Parker. “Upholstered Furniture: Prediction by

Correlations,” Chapter 15 in Heat Release in Fires, by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson.

New York: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992.

[121] Gross, D. and Loftus, J. “Surface Flame Propagation in Cellulosic Materials Exposed to

Thermal Radiation,” Journal of Research, NBS, 67C (Eng and Instr) 3: 251-258 (1963).

[122] Rockett, J.A. Mathematical Modeling of Radiant Panel Test Methods in Fire Safety

Research, NBS. Special Publication 411, 1974.

[123] Janssens, M. Flame Spread Properties from Cone Calorimetry - General in Heat Release

in Fires, Edited by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson. New York: Elsevier Applied

Science, 1992.
8-11

[124] Östman, B.A-l. “Smoke and Soot,” in Heat Release in Fires, edited by V. Babrauskas

and S.J. Grayson. New York: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992.

[125] Babrauskas, V. and Mulholland, G. Smoke and Soot Data Determinations in the Cone

Calorimeter, Mathematical Modeling of Fires, ASTM STP 983, American Society for

Testing and Materials, 1987.

[126] Quintiere, J.G. “Smoke Measurements: An Assessment of Correlations Between

Laboratory and Full-Scale Experiments.” Fire and Materials 6: 3 & 4: 145-160 (1982).

[127] Hirschler, M. M. “How to Measure Smoke Obscuration in a Manner Relevant to Fire

Hazard Assessment: Use of Heat Release Calorimetry Test Equipment,” Journal of Fire

Science 9: 183-222 (1991).
8-12
A-1

APPENDIX A. FRA FLAMMABILITY AND SMOKE EMISSION

REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERCITY AND COMMUTER

RAIL CAR MATERIALS

CATEGORY FUNCTION

OF MATERIAL

TEST

PROCEDURE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

PASSENGER SEATS,

SLEEPING AND

DINING

CAR COMPONENTS

Cushions,

Mattresses1,2,5,9*

ASTM D-3675 IS & 25

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&175

Seat and/or

Mattress Frame1,5,8

ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

Seat and Toilet

Shroud, Food Trays1,5

ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

Seat Upholstery,

Mattress Ticking and

Covers, Curtains1,2,3,5

FAR 25.853

(Vertical)

Flame Time & 10 sec.;

Burn length & 6 inch

ASTM E-662 DS (4.0)&250 coated;

DS (4.0)&100 uncoated

PANELS

Wall1,5,10 ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

Ceiling1,5,10 ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

Partition,

Tables and Shelves1,5

ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

Windscreen1,5 ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

HVAC Ducting1,5 ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100

Window4,5 ASTM E-162 IS & 100

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

Light Diffuser5 ASTM E-162 IS & 100

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

FLOOR COVERINGS

Structural6 ASTM E-119 Pass

Covering7,10 ASTM E-648 CRF ' 0.5 w/cm2

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

INSULATION

Thermal1,2,5 ASTM E-162 IS & 25

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100

Acoustic1,2,5 ASTM E-162 IS & 25

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100

ELASTOMERS

Window Gaskets,

Door Nosing,

Diaphragms, Roof Mat1

ASTM C-542 Pass

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

EXTERIOR PLASTIC

COMPONENTS

End Cap,

Roof Housings1,5

ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

COMPONENT

BOX COVERS

Interior,

Exterior Boxes1,3,5

ASTM E-162 IS & 35

ASTM E-662 DS (1.5)&100; DS (4.0)&200

SOURCES: Federal Register, January 17, 1989; Federal Register, September 23, 1997.
A-2

Notes

1. Materials tested for surface flammability should not exhibit any flaming running or

flaming dripping.

2. The surface flammability and smoke emission characteristics should be demonstrated to

be permanent by washing, if appropriate, according to FED-STD-191A Textile Test

Method 5830.

3. The surface flammability and smoke emission characteristics should be demonstrated to

be permanent by dry cleaning, if appropriate, according to ASTM D 2724. Materials that

cannot be washed or dry cleaned should be so labeled and should meet the applicable

performance criteria after being cleaned as recommended by the manufacturer.

4. For double window glazing, only the interior glazing should meet the materials

requirements specified herein, the exterior need not meet those requirements.

5. ASTM E 662 maximum test limits for smoke emission (specified optical density) should

be measured in either the flaming or nonflaming mode, depending on which mode

generates the most smoke.

6. Structural flooring assemblies should meet the performance criteria during a nominal test

period determined by the transit property. The nominal test period should be twice the

maximum expected period of time, under normal circumstances, for a vehicle to come to

a complete safe stop from maximum speed, plus the time necessary to evacuate all

passengers from a vehicle to a safe area. The nominal test period should not be less than

15 minutes. Only one specimen need be tested. A proportional reduction may be made in

the dimensions of the specimen provided that it represents a true test of its ability to

perform as a barrier against under-car fires. Penetrations (ducts, etc.) should be designed

against acting as passageways for fire and smoke.

7. Floor covering should be tested in accordance with ASTM E 648 with its padding, if the

padding is used in actual installation.

8. Arm rests, if formed plastic, are tested as cushions, if hard material, are tested as a seat

back shroud.

9. Testing is performed without upholstery.

10. Carpeting on walls and ceilings is to be considered wall and ceiling panel materials,

respectively.
B-1

Figure B-1. ASTM E 162 Test Apparatus

Is ˆ Fs × Q

APPENDIX B. U.S. RAIL CAR FIRE SAFETY TEST METHODS

 AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

B.1 ASTM E 162 AND ASTM D 3675

The ASTM E 162 test

method, illustrated in Figure

B-1, was developed by NIST

(then National Bureau of

Standards [NBS]) in 1955 [1]

[2]. A nearly identical

method, ASTM D 3675 is

used for cellular materials

such as seat cushioning. This

method measures flame

spread and rate of energy

release under a varying

radiant flux from about 40 to

3 kW/m2

. The flame spread

factor, Fs , calculated from

the flame spread velocity, and

the heat evolution factor, Q ,

determined by measuring the

temperature in an exhaust duct, are 

combined to yield a flammability index, Is :

The higher the index, the greater the flammability. The test instrument is calibrated to an

arbitrary scale with red oak assigned an Is of 100. 

The criteria for this test method range from Is & 25 for cushions, mattresses, floor coverings and

insulation to Is & 100 for window and light diffuser panels. With exceptions, these values are

comparable to those typically found in building construction. An Is of 75 is considered

acceptable for the walls and ceilings of corridors in commercial buildings [3] [4], but a value of

less than 25 is commonly required in local building codes for corridor linings in institutional
B-2

Figure B-2. ASTM E 662 Test Apparatus 

buildings. The criteria for window and light diffuser panels of Is & 100 is less restrictive than

that for wall panels even though the exposure during a fire is identical. Small differences in the

criteria such as the FRA criteria of Is & 25 for insulation and Is & 35 in the Amtrak specification

would have little effect on fire safety. These differences are probably driven by desired product

acceptability rather than by a desire for different levels of fire safety. However, there is no

generally accepted level of performance based on this test method since it is not a prescriptive

standard.

B.2 ASTM E 662

The ASTM E 662 test method

(Smoke Density Chamber) [5], 

is used widely in testing of

transportation-related materials. 

Shown in Figure B-2, it measures

smoke generation from small, 

solid specimens exposed to a

radiant flux level of 25 kW/m2

 in 

a flaming (piloted ignition) or

nonflaming mode. The smoke 

produced by the burning specimen

in the chamber is measured by a

light source – photometer

combination. The attenuation of

the light beam by the smoke is a

measure of the optical density or

“quantity of smoke” that a material will generate under the given conditions of the test. Two

measures are typically reported. Ds is an instantaneous measure of the optical density at a

particular instant in time. The maximum optical density, Dm, is used primarily in ranking the

relative smoke production of a material and in identifying likely sources of severe smoke

production. The criteria for this test method are typically Ds at 1.5 minutes & 100 and Ds at 4

minutes & 200. Small differences in criteria such as the FRA requirement for Ds at 4 minutes &

175 for cushions and mattresses would appear to have little effect on fire safety. Like the small

differences in requirements for ASTM E 162, the differences are likely driven by perceived

product acceptability rather than real differences in fire safety. Other criteria including the
B-3

Figure B-3. ASTM E 648 Test Apparatus

omission of a requirement at 1.5 minutes for HVAC ducting are likely due to the inability of an

otherwise acceptable product to meet the criteria.

B.3 ASTM E 648

The ASTM 648 test method, shown

in Figure B-3, exposes a specimen

placed horizontally to a radiant

energy source that varies across a 

3.3 ft (1 m) length from a maximum

of 11 kW/m2

 down to 1 kW/m2 [6]. 

After ignition by a small line burner

at the high energy end, the distance

at which the floor material stops

burning is determined. This point

defines the critical radiant flux

(CRF) necessary to support 

continued flame spread. The 

higher the CRF, the better the fire 

performance of the floor covering is.

Lawson recently reviewed the 

development, precision, and appropriate use of the this test method [7]. With exceptions, he

notes that the precision of the test method is considered equivalent to other fire test methods and

has generally reduced losses with fires involving carpet, where the floor covering materials are

classified by this test method. Carpet taken from several large fatal fires in which the carpet was

determined to be the means of fire spread was found to have very low CRFs when tested

according to this method – less than 1 kW/m2

 [8]. The best performing floor covering would

have a CRF greater than 11 kW/m2

. A performance criterion of 4.5 kW/m2 for egressways in

non-sprinklered public occupancies is currently in use [9] [10]. The FRA criteria of 5 kW/m2

(.05 w/cm 2) is somewhat more stringent. It is important to note that these test criteria essentially

limit the carpeting such that it will not be the first item ignited. For fully involved fires, fluxes in

excess of 20 kW/m2 can be developed. In these extremes, carpet may become involved.
B-4

Figure B-4. FAR 25.853 (a) Test Apparatus

In many transportation vehicles, carpet is also routinely used for wall and ceiling covering. For

such applications, the results of the horizontally-oriented test method would have little meaning. 

The additional requirement to test floor covering materials under ASTM E 162 is included to

address vertically-oriented applications. Accordingly, the performance criterion for carpet is

identical to other wall and ceiling coverings and is discussed in Section B.1.

B.4 FAA FAR 25.853 (a) and ASTM C 542

Small-scale tests, wherein a

sample of a material is exposed to

a small flame from an alcohol or

gas burner have been frequently

used and misused to test the

flammability of materials since the

1930s [11]. During the 1950s and

1960s, there was an increased

reliance on testing flammability of

materials by means of Bunsen

burner-type tests. This dependence has decreased in recent years

following action by the Federal

Trade Commission. The primary

use of this type of test for

passenger rail cars, is the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA)

FAR 25.853 (a), Appendix F

(Figure B-4). This standard, used in the current context to assess the acceptability of seat

upholstery, mattress ticking and covers, and curtains, defines both a test procedure and

performance criteria for small-scale fire performance of compartment interior materials used in

transport category airplanes [12]. It is based on Federal Test Method Standard No. 191, Method

5903 [13]. The test procedure is a vertical test with a 1.5 in (3.9 cm) flame applied either for 12

seconds or for 60 seconds (determined by the end-use of the material) to the lower edge of a 2 in

(5 cm) wide, 12 in (30.5 cm) long specimen. The test records the flame time, burn length, and

flaming time of dripping material. 
B-5

[1] Robertson, A.F., D. Gross, and J.J. Loftus. A New Test Method for Evaluating

Flammability of Interior Finishes. National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Report 4364,

1955.

[2] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant

Heat Energy Source. ASTM E 162. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, 

1994.

[3] Fang, J. B. Fire Buildup in a Room and the Role of Interior Finish Materials. NBS. 

Technical Note 879, 1975.

[4] Fang, J. B. and D. Gross. “Contribution of Interior Finish Materials to Fire Growth in a

Room,” Proceedings of Fire Safety Research Symposium, August 22, 1973, NBS. 

Special Publication 411, 1973.

[5] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid

Materials. ASTM E 662. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, 1995.

[6] ASTM. Specification for Lock-Strip Gaskets. ASTM C 542. Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, Volume 04.07, 1995.

[7] Lawson, J. R. “Fire Tests and Flooring Materials.” Proceedings of the Second Fire and

Materials International Conference. September 23-24, 1993, Arlington, VA, 1993.

[8] Hartzell, L.G. Development of a Radiant Panel Test for Flooring Materials. NBS. 

NBSIR 74-495, 1974.

[9] Benjamin, I.A. and C.H. Adams. Proposed Criteria for Use of the Critical Radiant Flux

Test Method. NBS. NBSIR 75-950, 1975.

[10] Adams, C.H. and S. Davis. Development of the Flooring Radiant Panel Test as a

Standard Test Method. NBS. NBSIR 79-1959, 1980.

[11] British Standards Institution. British Standards Specification 476. London, 1936.

[12] FAA. 14 CFR, Part 25, Subpart 25.853, Compartment Interiors, Sections (a)-(d);

Subpart 25.855, Cargo or Baggage Compartments; and Appendix F to Part 25. As of

January 1, 1997. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.

ASTM C 542 is a similar test which is used for elastomers (defined by FRA as window gaskets,

door nosing, diaphragms, and roof mat). The test consists of a 46 cm (18 in) long specimen

suspended over a Bunsen burner flame for 15 min. The length of material left after exposure to

the flame is intended to provide a measure of the flammability of the materials.

References
B-6

[13] FAA. 49 CFR, Part 25, Subpart 25.853, Compartment Interiors, Sections (a)-(d);

Subpart 25.855, Cargo or Baggage Compartments; and Appendix F to Part 25. As of

January 1, 1997. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington, DC.
C-1

APPENDIX C. CONE CALORIMETER OVERVIEW

Measurement of heat release rate (HRR) in small-scale is not new. For instance, the OSU

Calorimeter [1], which was originally developed around 1970, has been discussed earlier. Its

results, however, when compared against other measurement methods, have been found to

substantially underestimate the HRR [2]. A number of other instruments were also designed

during the 1970s, but were limited because of either poor validity or practical operational

difficulties. However, with oxygen consumption calorimetry coming into use, it became obvious

that an entirely new instrument should be built which is specifically designed to make use of this

principle.

The development work led to a more practical instrument, known as the Cone Calorimeter. The

apparatus (Figure C-1) makes use of an electric heater in the form of a truncated cone, hence its

name. The apparatus is general-purpose and which may be used to test products for various

applications. Thus, the heater had to be capable of being set to a wide variety of heating fluxes; 

the actual capability spans 0 to 100 kW/m2. The design of the heater was influenced by an earlier

ISO test on radiant ignition, ISO 5657 [3]. However, the requirements for the Cone Calorimeter

went beyond the design parameters of the ISO 5657 cone, thus the actual heating cone in the

Cone Calorimeter is a new design. The Cone Calorimeter represented such a significant step

forward in fire testing instrumentation that it was awarded the prestigious R&D%100 award in

1988 [4]. The technical features are documented in several references [5][6][7][8]. Some of the

most salient features include:

• horizontal or vertical specimen orientation,

• composite and laminated specimens can be tested,

• continuous mass loss load cell readings,

• feedback-loop controlled heater operation,

• HRR calibration using methane metered with mass flow controller,

• smoke measured with laser-beam photometer and gravimetrically, and

• provision for analyzing CO, CO2, H2O, HCl, and other combustion gases.
C-2

Figure C-1. General View of the Cone Calorimeter (ASTM E 1354, ISO 560)

The Cone Calorimeter is known as ASTM E 1354 [9] or as ISO 5660 [10]. The equipment is

made by more than 10 manufacturers and is now used by over 100 laboratories worldwide.

Data from small-scale HRR measurements are reported in kW/m2

. The extra m2, compared to

the real-scale results, comes from the fact that in the real-scale, one is interested in the total heat

being produced by the burning object. In small-scale, by contrast, the area of the specimen has

no intrinsic significance, and results have to be reported on a per-unit-area basis. To go from

small-scale data to real-scale predictions, then, requires that an “m2 factor” be supplied. This

factor , in the simplest case of uniformly burning materials , is the area of flame involvement, at

any given time of the fire. Today's methods for estimating the real-scale HRRs do not, typically,

treat this area-of-flame-involvement factor explicitly, but rather include it in the predictive

correlations.
C-3

Validation of bench-scale HRR data against large-scale fires has been successfully undertaken in

several instances; details are discussed below.

Many older devices for assessing flammability were not based on realistic fire conditions, nor

were measurements taken which have quantitative engineering significance. As a result, they

could only be used to pass or fail a specimen according to some regulatory requirement. Because

its design and its data are firmly based on an engineering understanding of fire, the Cone

Calorimeter has wider applicability. It can be used to:

• Provide data needed for state-of-the art fire models;

• Provide data used to predict real-scale fire behavior by means of simple formulas

or correlations;

• Rank order products according to their performance; or, simply to

• Pass or fail a product according to a criterion level.

The earliest applications of Cone Calorimeter data have been in the polymers industry. 

Manufacturers typically have relied either on limiting oxygen index (LOI) [11] tests or on UL94

[12]. The former does give quantitative results and uses what would appear to be a suitable

engineering variable. Moreover, a recent study has again clearly demonstrated that the results,

while quantitative, are not capable of even correctly rank-ordering according to actual fire

behavior [13]. However, the latter is a simple Bunsen burner type-test which gives only pass/fail

results; it is clear that quantitative information useful for polymer development does not come

from such a test. 

For purposes of rank ordering and simplified quantification, it was originally proposed in 1984

that a variable should be considered which is q3

Û

max /tig [14]. The ratio expressed here is the

peak HRR divided by the time to ignition. Data obtained in the course of various room fire test

programs had shown that this variable could account for—approximately—the heat release

occurring from surfaces over which flame is spreading. This is possible since the flame spread

process and the ignition process are governed by the same thermophysical properties of the

material. More recently, Petrella has proposed to the plastics industry that a two-dimensional

rating scale be considered, with the variable described above placed on one axis and the total heat

released during test placed on the other axis [15]. Besides knowing how to analyze the data for

such applications, the other important information needed is at what heat flux should the 
C-4

[1] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Method for Heat

and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products. ASTM E 906. Annual

Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07, 1997.

[2] Babrauskas, V. “Comparative Rates of Heat Release from Five Different Types of Test

Apparatuses.” Journal of Fire Sciences 4 (1986).

[3] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Fire tests , Reaction to fire ,

Ignitability of building products. ISO 5657. Geneva, 1986.

[4] 1988 R&D&100 Award Winners. Research & Development, 30, October 1988.

specimen be tested. This question is not simple; a paper recently presented examines the

necessary considerations [16].

Beyond rank ordering and simple product comparison, there have already been a number of noted

successes where Cone Calorimeter HRR data were used for more detailed predictions:

• Combustible wall and ceiling linings in rooms. This is a very difficult problem,

but very impressive success was achieved in the European “EUREFIC” research

program [17]. It is especially noteworthy that data from only the Cone

Calorimeter were required in making these real-scale predictions. Another

approach to this same problem was developed at Lund University [18].

• Upholstered furniture. This problem was addressed at NIST in two separate

research projects [19] [20]. Work is continuing in this area both at NIST and in a

large European Community project in Europe.

• Electric wire and cable. In most countries, the large scale fire test for these

products is a vertical cable tray test. In a research project conducted at BF

Goodrich, it was demonstrated that the Cone Calorimeter can successfully predict

the HRR results from several such large tests [21].

• Noncombustibility and degrees of combustibility of building products. Work

has been done for the Canadian building code committee establishing the use of

Cone Calorimeter data in those areas where the code had specified either

noncombustibility tests or material-specific requirements [22][23].

These and other more specialized applications are discussed in detail in a recent textbook which

comprehensively examines heat release in fires [24].

References
C-5

[5] Babrauskas, V. “Development of the Cone Calorimeter , A Bench-scale Heat Release

Rate Apparatus Based on Oxygen Consumption.” Fire and Materials 8 (1984).

[6] Babrauskas, V., and W.J. Parker. “Ignitability Measurements with the Cone

Calorimeter.” Fire and Materials 11 (1987).

[7] Babrauskas, V., and G. Mulholland. “Smoke and Soot Data Determinations in the Cone

Calorimeter,” in Mathematical Modeling of Fires, 83-104, (ASTM STP 983). ASTM,

1987.

[8] Babrauskas, V. “The Cone Calorimeter , Fire Properties,” in New Technology to Reduce

Fire Losses & Costs, 78-87, S.J. Grayson and D.A. Smith, eds. London: Elsevier

Applied Science Publishers, 1986.

[9] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials

and Products using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. ASTM E 1354, Annual Book

of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.97, 1997.

[10] International Organization for Standardization. International Standard , Fire Tests ,

Reaction to Fire , Rate of Heat Release from Building Products. ISO 5660.

Geneva, 1992.

[11] ATSM. Standard Method of Test for Flammability of Plastics using the Oxygen Index

Method. ASTM D 2863. 1995.

[12] Underwriters Laboratories. “Tests for Flammability of Plastic Materials for Parts in

Devices and Appliances (UL 94),” Northbrook, 1991.

[13] Weil, E.D., et al. “Oxygen Index: Correlations to Other Fire Test.” Fire and Materials

16:159-167 (1992).

[14] Babrauskas, V. Bench-scale Methods for Prediction of Full-scale Fire Behavior of

Furnishings and Wall Linings, Technical Report 84-10, Society of Fire Protection

Engineers. Boston, 1984.

[15] Petrella, R.V. Presentation to the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., Miami, FL,

December, 1992.

[16] Babrauskas, V. “Specimen Heat Fluxes for Bench-scale Heat Release Rate Testing ”

Paper presented at INTERFLAM '93, Oxford, April 1993.

[17] Wickström, U., and U. Göransson. “Full-scale/Bench-scale Correlations of Wall and

Ceiling Linings,” Fire and Materials 16: 15-22 (1992).

[18] Karlsson, B. “A Mathematical Model for Calculating Heat Release Rate in the Room

Corner Test.” Paper presented at ASTM International Symposium on Fire and Flammability of Furnishings and Contents, 1992.
C-6

[19] Babrauskas, V., and J.F. Krasny. “Fire Behavior of Upholstered Furniture,” NBS.

Monograph 173, 1985.

[20] Parker, W.J., et al. Furniture Flammability: An Investigation of the California Technical

Bulletin 133 Test. Part III: Full-scale Chair Burns. NBS. NISTIR 4375, 1990.

[21] Hirschler, M.M. “Electric Cable Fire Hazard Assessment with the Cone Calorimeter,” in

Fire Hazard and Fire Risk Assessment, 44-65, (ASTM STP 1150). ASTM, 1992.

[22] Richardson, L.R., and M.E. Brooks. “Combustibility of Building Materials,” in Fire and

Materials 15: 131-136 (1991).

[23] Richardson, L.R. “Determining Degrees of Combustibility of Building Materials —

National Building Code of Canada,” in Proceedings of the First International Fire and

Materials Conference, 1-12, Interscience Communications, Ltd. London, 1992.

[24] Babrauskas, V., and S.J. Grayson, eds. Heat Release in Fires. London: Elsevier Applied

Science, 1992.
D-1

APPENDIX D. CONE CALORIMETER TEST DATA

This appendix contains samples of the summary data sheets for all of the materials tested in the

Cone Calorimeter for this study. 

The following tables and figures are included in this appendix:

Table D-1 Materials tested.

Tables D-2 and D-3 Summary of Cone Calorimeter heat release rate (HRR), smoke 

extinction area (SEA), and data for individual component materials

tested.

Tables D-4 and D-5 Summary of Cone Calorimeter HRR and SEA data for assemblies of

individual component materials tested.

Table D-6 Cone Calorimeter HRR and SEA data for individual component

materials tested in this study. This table includes individual test 

results for all the Cone Calorimeter tests performed.

Figures Representative plots of HRR, heat of combustion,

D-1 thru D-37 SEA, and mass loss rate for each of the 30 different

individual component samples tested. These data were selected 

because of their usefulness in fire modeling.

 
D-2

Table D-1. List of Passenger Train Materials Used in this Study

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO.* MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (COMPONENTS)

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1a, 1b, 1c, 1d Seat cushion, (foam, interliner, fabric/PVC cover)

2a, 2b, 2c Seat cushion, (foam, interliner, fabric cover)

3 Graphite filled foam

4 Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene elastomer

5 Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton muslin

6 Seat shroud, PVC/acrylic

7 Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support)

8 Seat footrest cover, chloroprene elastomer

9 Seat track cover, chloroprene elastomer

10a, 10b, 10c Mattress (foam, interliner, ticking)

11a, 11b, 11c Bed pad (foam, interliner, ticking)

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 Wall finishing, wool carpet

13 Wall finishing, wool fabric

14 Space divider, polycarbonate

15 Wall material, FRP / PVC

16 Wall panel, FRP

17 Window glazing, polycarbonate

18 Window mask, FRP

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

19 Door privacy curtain/window drapery fabric

20 Drapery fabric, polyester

21 Blanket, wool fabric

22 Blanket, modacrylic fabric

23a, 23b Pillow, cotton fabric/polyester filler

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 Carpet, nylon

25 Rubber mat, styrene butadiene

MISC

26 Cafe/lounge/diner table, phenolic/wood laminate

27 Air duct, neoprene

28 Pipe wrap insulation foam

29 Window gasketing, chloroprene elastomer

30 Door gasketing, chloroprene elastomer

* – letters indicate individual component materials in an assembly. Individual component materials are listed in

order in parentheses following the material description.

Note: All foam except Sample 3 is the same type.
D-3

Table D-2. Summary of Cone Calorimeter Heat Release Rate Data

For Individual Component Materials

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO.

IGNITION

TIME

(s)

TIME TO

PEAK HRR

(s)

PEAK HRR

(kW/m2

)

HRR

60s AVG

(kW/m2

)

HRR

180s AVG

(kW/m2

)

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1 14

5

11

7

25

15

20

10

80

30

420

360

60

15

95

90

40

5

30

30

2 14

5

8

25

15

30

80

30

265

60

15

140

40

5

50

3 7 20 65 60 50

4 31 50 295 195 110

5 7 15 190 35 10

6 28 350 110 90 95

7 54 55 610 210 140

8 45 70 400 230 110

9 26 100 190 130 125

10/11a

10/11b

10/11c

9

5

7

20

10

10

80

25

150

55

5

20

20

1

10

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 30 95 655 415 395

13 21 35 745 250 90

14 105 155 270 180 210

15 23 40 120 115 100

16 18 40 270 245 205

17 115 150 330 290 255

18 53 95 210 180 90

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

19 13 25 310 80 25

20 20 30 175 70 30

21 17 25 18 6 2

22 11 15 170 25 10

23 24 60 340 260 110

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 10 75 245 170 95

25 35 90 300 230 180

MISC

26 44 55 250 175 130

27 30 55 140 120 70

28 7 10 95 65 40

29 33 305 210 170 160

30 38 275 200 160 175
D-4

Table D-3. Summary Cone Calorimeter Smoke Data for

Individual Component Materials

CATEGORY SAMPLE

NO.

SEA, )s (m2

/kg)

Peak 60s Avg 180s Avg

SEAT AND

BED

ASSEMBLIES

1

210

40

420

1050

70

30

230

780

30

-

230

780

2

210

40

600

70

30

420

30

-

400

3 370 90 40

4 1800 1700 1400

5 1400 1150 500

6 1450 560 490

7 930 570 530

8 720 720 680

9 1400 1200 960

10/11a

10/11b

10/11c

280

70

320

100

-

50

80

-

20

WALL AND

WINDOW

SURFACES

12 850 320 510

13 460 300 260

14 n.a n.a. n.a.

15 1900 900 1000

16 1300 570 700

17 1250 1100 1150

18 1200 950 1000

19 1150 860 780

CURTAINS,

DRAPES,

AND

FABRICS

20 480 380 380

21 1100 980 800

22 2400 1600 560

23 660 580 560

FLOOR

COVERINGS

24 770 330 350

25 1600 1400 1300

MISC

26 250 70 80

27 1100 940 810

28 1190 900 690

29 1400 1050 1150

30 1470 1000 1200
D-5

Table D-4. Summary Cone Calorimeter HRR for

 Selected Component Combinations

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION FOAM INTERLINER FABRIC VINYL

TIME TO

IGNITION

 (s)

TIME TO

PEAK

HRR (s)

PEAK

HRR

 (kW/m2

)

HRR

 60s AVG

(kW/m2

)

HRR

180s AVG

(kW/m2

)

 SEAT CUSHION 

ASSEMBLIES

7 7 12 25 420 120 40

7 7a 7 35 260 130 50

7 7 7 10 360 120 40

7 7 12 15 255 85 50

7 7a 7 30 270 125 50

77 7 12 23 365 80 40

777a 7 35 260 85 50

77 7 6 15 370 160 55

7 7 12 25 400 120 80

7 7a 8 35 270 160 85

7b 7 7 12 25 400 150 90

7b 7 7a 8 35 275 150 75

7b 7 7 6 15 400 205 130

 MATTRESS 

ASSEMBLY 77 7 7 10 170 78 50

 BED PAD 

ASSEMBLY 77 7 7 10 170 75 40

 PILLOW 7 7 7 10 160 50 20

a – plush fabric

b – graphite foam

 – assemblies in current use. Note that the use of the interliner is being discontinued due to design

 considerations.
D-6

Table D-5. Summary Cone Calorimeter Smoke Data for

 Selected Component Combinations

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION FOAM INTERLINER FABRIC VINYL PEAK

)s (m2

/kg)

60s AVG

)s (m2

/kg)

180s AVG

)s (m2

/kg)

 SEAT CUSHION 

ASSEMBLIES

7 7 250 210 170

7 7a 600 430 290

7 7 910 510 510

7 7 810 580 320

7 7a 600 410 340

77 7 300 250 200

777a 600 420 360

77 7 770 510 510

7 7 890 680 370

7 7a 600 410 360

7b 7 7 270 180 90

7b 7 7a 550 350 240

7b 7 7 800 750 470

 MATTRESS 

ASSEMBLY 77 7 140 80 35

 BED PAD 

ASSEMBLY 77 7 130 70 30

 PILLOW 7 7 320 150 70

a – plush fabric

b – graphite foam

 – assemblies in current use. Note that the use of the interliner is being discontinued due to design

 considerations.
D-7

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d. Seat cushion (foam, interliner, fabric/PVC, cover)1* .051 63.8 48.8 13 461 242 15 750 47 318 35 15.7 3.69 189.1 

1* .025 20.2 10.6 8 325 76 10 246 38 59 34 10.7 3.5 46 1* .0254 18.9 14.9 8 104 87 10 323 24 85 51 4.5 4.75 85.3 1* .051 61.1 52.3 11 242 262 15 825 48 323 47 10.6 4.12 254.5 1* .0504 72.1 66.1 7 61 387 10 908 40 513 163 8.1 12.23 512.9 1* .0504 92.7 84.5 6 74 373 15 770 55 514 178 10.5 14.64 514.1 1* .0508 82.9 79.8 12 38 361 25 0 26 0 243 4.7 0 0 1* .0504 76.3 33.2 11 1791 387 20 277 48 129 35 61.7 3.18 49.0 1* .0508 81.2 78.1 12 41 356 25 316 27 260 205 5.1 13.16 259.5 

* Tested sample was an assembly of component materials.

Key:

Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emiss

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produ

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-8

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d. Seat cushion (foam, interliner, fabric/PVC cover)1* .0504 58.2 54.0 12 81 423 25 250 39 172 114 7.4 8.63 172.1 

1* .051 65.8 58.8 12 173 268 15 847 46 317 58 8.9 4.92 317.5 1a .0504 57.4 43.1 14 511 77 25 211 41 32 32 15.7 3.17 18.4 1b .001 54.0 53.6 5 55 19 20 2388 4 545 16 0.8 0.97 544.6 1b .001 48.5 48.1 5 55 30 5 39 5 297 18 0.9 0.90 296.9 1c .001 68.5 65.2 11 63 423 20 418 31 225 140 6.2 9.42 224.9 1d .001 69 64.3 7 36 363 10 1018 29 770 247 6.0 17.86 769.9 1d .001 69.5 65.1 7 44 354 15 1061 29 794 205 6.0 15.15 794.3 1d .003 71.6 67.0 7 39 369 10 1046 28 765 241 5.9 17.22 765 

* Tested sample was an assembly of component materials.Key:Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emiss

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produ

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-9

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 2a, 2b, 2c. Seat cushion (foam, interliner, fabric cover)2* .051 80.9 68.5 7 256 265 30 598 59 296 54 13.1 5.55 252.0 

2* .051 82.8 76.4 7 86 272 30 594 43 386 109 8.2 11.73 386.3 2* .0508 93.6 83.4 7 193 266 35 594 60 286 62 11.1 6.50 286.4 2* .0508 96.6 90.9 7 67 259 35 598 42 406 141 7.7 13.97 405.8 2* .0508 97.6 91.7 7 71 261 35 590 44 381 136 8.1 13.43 380.9 2c .002 83.5 76.6 9 118 264 35 617 51 448 90 9.5 9.58 448 2c .002 82.1 75.8 7 74 273 30 595 45 403 142 8.5 13.99 402.7 2c .002 76.8 69.1 7 107 265 30 591 53 364 106 10.0 10.11 364.4 2c .0504 78.9 71.8 7 99 260 35 596 53 359 118 10.0 11.48 358.6 

* Tested sample was an assembly of component materials.Key:Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emiss

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produ

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-10

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 3. Graphite-filled foam3* .025 29.1 11.0 12 584 417 25 261 91 97 63 35.7 4.09 81.9 

3* .025 43.1 13.4 8 873 254 40 524 69 219 56 48.2 4.75 189.9 3* .025 45.8 13.4 8 781 277 30 552 89 221 72 55.6 5.76 218.8 3* .025 29.4 8.7 12 727 387 25 277 91 83 58 41.4 4.02 87.6 3* .025 31.3 11.8 12 721 397 25 265 94 105 54 38.1 3.64 71.8 3* .025 42.0 14.0 6 781 402 15 793 127 470 66 50.7 5.06 246.4 3* .025 40.9 11.2 7 727 285 30 583 71 290 68 48.4 5.93 294.5 3* .013 20.1 14.2 4 286 125 5 211 50 33 43 12.0 2.4 26 3* .027 29.2 13.2 11 676 276 15 879 81 355 46 30.0 2.9 166 

* Tested sample was an assembly of component materials.

Key:

Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emiss

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produ

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-11

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 3. Graphite-filled foam3* .027 30.7 13.3 12 676 252 20 884 73 364 52 34.5 3.2 150 

3* .027 32.3 13.9 12 782 273 15 902 78 396 46 34.8 2.9 163 3* .028 47.5 17.5 8 952 271 30 625 92 309 51 47.5 3.93 135.6 3* .026 44.6 13.8 7 997 264 30 586 82 272 53 52.4 4.44 202.2 3 .026 22.5 18.2 4 202 95 10 570 45 62 45 8.6 2.57 58.62 3 .026 19.8 15.8 7 199 98 10 522 40 54 42 7.6 2.4 51 3 .026 23.0 18.5 5 232 103 5 278 43 39 41 9.3 2.3 34 3 .025 100.0 89.0 7 577 64 20 368 48 40 46 25.9 2.30 15.1 

* Tested sample was an assembly of component materials (including 1b, 1c, and 1d).

Key:

Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-12

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 4. Seat support diaphragm, chloroprene elastomer4 .001 31.8 14.8 31 286 297 55 1795 114 1384 96 24.0 10.03 1231. 4 .001 32.1 14.9 32 296 293 50 1763 113 1389 94 24.3 9.62 1207 4** .001 31.0 16.5 27 132 458 55 1541 110 1265 203 20.0 21.02 1265.5 

4** .002 33.2 16.1 51 134 654 60 2095 100 782 260 19.3 15.99 782.1 Sample 5. Seat support diaphragm, FR cotton muslin5 .001 10.7 8.4 7 78 166 10 1515 9 504 31 2.0 4.91 504.5 5 .001 10.9 8.7 7 60 237 15 1126 17 471 69 3.4 5.16 471.4 5 .001 57.7 55.4 7 79 175 10 1397 9 505 32 2.1 4.59 505.0 

** Non standard test conditions.

Key:

Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-13

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 6. Seat shroud, PVC/Acrylic6 .003 45.7 12.5 27 557 114 350 1419 98 506 83 43.7 9.90 581.9 6 .002 43.5 11.7 29 602 106 345 1396 95 486 77 43.7 9.10 555.5 6 .002 44.0 11.4 28 603 107 360 1457 92 481 76 43.3 9.29 551.7 Sample 7. Armrest pad, coach seat (foam on metal support)7 .007 115.3 62.8 16 1454 625 155 1190 414 818 81 116.5 8.41 647.3 7 .007 116.9 63.7 17 1235 585 170 1121 437 733 100 121.9 9.27 603.3 7 .007 116.3 61.6 17 777 766 180 1073 441 789 167 126 19.00 679.1 Key:Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-14

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 8. Seat footrest cover, chloroprene elastomer8 .004 51.5 29.9 28 407 151 85 1438 108 1104 80 30.0 7.28 798.3 8 .004 52.7 29.8 27 402 153 110 1386 111 1037 86 31.6 8.05 736.1 8 .004 51.7 12.3 24 322 267 100 1378 157 748 146 42.8 15.63 532.4 Sample 9. Seat track cover, chloroprene9 .015 57.8 13.8 22 623 263 40 1270 202 1184 109 65.0 12.08 1026.0 9 .015 57.9 15.8 16 517 263 45 1261 207 1155 124 61.1 13.64 1039.9 9 .015 56.9 13.2 17 481 275 35 1206 211 1067 133 61.4 22.13 968.4 Key:Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-15

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 10a, 10b, 10c. Mattress (foam, interliner, ticking)10* .0508 58.4 47.6 8 242 175 10 113 57 23 53 12.2 4.96 23.0 

10* .0504 12.4 9.8 7 120 162 10 318 22 73 39 4.3 2.18 73.2 10* .0508 56.2 49.0 7 153 157 10 129 41 35 56 7.8 5.45 35.5 10* .0508 58.2 45.9 7 286 190 10 190 60 47 55 15.0 4.81 32.3 10a .0504 49.5 46.2 9 89 81 20 275 22 76 54 4.0 4.75 75.8 10b .001 49.1 49.0 5 35 14 10 0 1 38 5 .2 .51 38.3 10b .002 50.9 50.8 5 55 33 5 0 1 103 6 .3 .21 102.7 10c .001 53.0 51.5 8 46 159 10 169 8 85 54 1.8 3.20 84.8 10c .001 54.8 53.1 7 43 137 10 139 7 76 52 1.5 5.17 76.2 10c .001 56.6 55.0 7 37 154 10 119 7 65 64 1.5 4.87 64.9 Key:

Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-16

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 11a, 11b. Bed pad (foam, ticking)11* .039 43.7 36.9 7 138 143 10 130 42 31 63 7.8 5.47 30.8 

11a .051 48.0 44.0 8 112 82 15 202 25 53 47 4.7 4.32 53.3 11a .051 48.4 43.5 8 143 86 15 194 31 48 44 5.7 4.06 48.3 Sample 12. Wall finishing, wool carpet12 .01 30.4 7.3 27 303 663 90 847 397 506 285 76.9 16.00 502.5 12 .01 30.2 7.3 32 296 674 85 852 400 504 298 77.4 15.90 510.2 12 .01 29.8 7.1 31 374 628 110 873 385 529 226 75.7 15.12 514.9 

* Tested sample was an assembly of component materials.

Key:

Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-17

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 13. Wall finishing, wool fabric13 .002 20.3 11.6 21 483 745 35 464 91 263 41 18.8 2.68 209.2 Sample 14. Space divider, polycarbonate14 .013 150.6 44.1 109 2402 286 155 2842 194 1025 110 251.1 7.12 794.7 14 .013 145.7 45.1 106 2102 258 150 1073 222 994 122 242.6 8.20 778.3 Sample 15. Wall material, FRP/PVC15 .0015 22.4 5.6 22 283 122 25 1293 103 706 85 21.5 11.26 619.3 15 .0015 21.7 4.8 24 341 119 50 1356 97 695 70 22.0 9.83 592.5 15 .002 22.5 5.5 22 308 122 40 1328 101 706 78 21.9 10.94 626.9 Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-18

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 16. Wall panel, FRP16 .004 76.2 37.3 52 741 618 55 1052 140 568 89 61.2 8.00 599.3 16 .004 74.1 30.7 53 722 563 55 864 142 441 91 60.6 9.57 519.7 16 .004 78.6 36.8 57 863 655 60 860 137 575 84 66.8 7.43 615.6 Sample 17. Window glazing, polycarbonate17 .007 80.2 23.6 121 1081 358 135 1157 273 1009 139 133.0 10.55 914.8 17 .011 78.7 28.9 83 1141 375 430 1256 195 1033 109 115.0 8.37 931.0 17 .006 77.2 18.4 72 902 348 255 1117 292 944 173 142.7 16.47 797.0 17 .006 80.5 24.5 109 1202 309 160 1165 234 1006 121 131.6 9.79 917.5 Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-19

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 18. Window mask, FRP18 .002 43.4 24.3 46 308 364 65 729 101 699 81 20.7 14.43 580.6 18 .002 46.1 26.4 43 267 369 70 733 117 659 104 22.9 16.92 612.6 18 .002 46.4 25.5 46 317 461 70 693 114 670 90 23.7 13.85 563.9 Sample 19. Door privacy curtain/window drapery fabric19 .001 15.9 12.3 12 49 324 20 474 29 417 191 5.7 14.45 417.2 19 .001 15.1 12.2 12 51 309 20 473 24 378 145 5.0 11.91 377.8 19 .001 65.0 61.3 14 62 292 25 478 28 347 119 5.3 10.40 346.5 Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-20

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 20. Drapery fabric, polyester20 .001 12.3 8.7 22 157 172 30 1125 26 707 38 5.0 4.28 707.4 20 .001 58.6 54.8 19 138 227 30 1115 31 881 50 5.8 5.82 880.7 20 .001 12.0 8.1 21 212 126 30 1032 28 819 29 5.3 2.95 682.4 Sample 21. Blanket, wool fabric21 .003 13.0 10.5 11 82 205 15 2232 10 645 36 2.3 2.71 645.4 21 .003 11.5 9.2 11 82 144 15 3033 8 524 27 1.7 1.77 523.5 21 .003 11.4 9.3 11 82 155 15 2064 7 515 26 1.7 1.99 515.0 Sample 22. Blanket, modacrylic fabric22 .003 4.3 1.4 17 62 18 25 n.a. 1.9 n.a. 9 0.4 1.35 n.a. Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-21

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 23. Pillow23 .051 9.3 0.0 13 226 324 40 668 114 558 100 21.0 13.4 548.7 23 .051 8.8 0.0 31 181 367 55 620 106 525 133 19.3 16.92 525.3 23 .051 8.9 0.2 28 127 331 80 681 103 614 196 18.6 13.89 614.0 Sample 24. Floor covering, nylon carpet24 .004 15.1 6.0 9 164 260 70 760 96 334 118 17.6 9.58 334.2 24 .004 15.8 6.6 11 176 223 70 776 95 383 111 17.6 8.73 382.8 24 .004 15.7 6.3 11 191 251 75 776 99 318 105 18.3 8.73 317.6 Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-22

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 25. Rubber mat, styrene butadiene25 .004 53.5 28.3 36 937 338 85 1601 187 1341 90 80.2 4.13 1120. 25 .002 53.7 28.5 37 1257 291 90 1589 175 1421 73 89 3.09 992.6 25 .020 100.0 74.9 32 1247 281 95 1610 173 1425 69 83.1 3.09 943.1 Sample 26. Cafe/Lounge/Diner table (phenolic/wood laminate)26 .029 200.4 48.5 42 2103 233 1640 306 128 72 94 192.4 9.44 58.4 26 .029 196.8 43.7 47 2162 241 55 208 129 78 90 188.8 9.1 43 26 .029 198.8 47.7 43 2102 256 55 235 135 77 92 189.0 8.9 53 Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-23

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 27. Air duct, neoprene27 .001 24.2 20.4 29 269 150 55 1126 73 836 60 14.2 2.78 786.3 27 .002 23.5 20.3 31 176 139 60 1155 66 856 86 11.9 3.37 856.0 27 .001 25.2 21.7 31 236 136 50 1028 68 746 64 12.7 2.64 686.4 Sample 28. Pipe wrap insulation foam28 .013 7.8 3.2 7 158 91 10 1003 39 617 51 7.3 4.11 617.3 28 .013 8.0 3.7 7 134 90 10 1219 37 712 58 6.8 4.33 712.2 28 .013 7.9 3.8 7 134 98 10 1347 37 739 57 6.8 4.23 738.9 Key:Time to Ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-24

Table D-6. Cone Calorimeter Test Data for Assemblies and Individual Tests of Component M

Sample Number

Specimen Thickness

Initial Mass

Final Mass

Time to Ignition

Flameout Time

Peak values 180 s Average Test Average

q

3

Time to peak )S q3 )S q3

Total Heat Released m3 )S 

m g g s s kW/m2 s m2/kg kW/m2 m2/kg kW/m2 MJ/m2 g/s·m2 m2/kg 

Sample 29. Window gasketing, chloroprene elastomer29 .015 99.0 52.8 32 2222 223 290 1399 164 1235 90 197.0 2.6 707 29 .015 99.0 52.3 34 2252 193 320 1418 165 1088 89 196.1 2.6 720 29 .015 98.8 23.6 22 1382 734 375 1347 193 1234 201 272.8 8.5 674 Sample 30. Door gasketing, chloroprene elastomer30 .015 101.2 54.2 38 2222 207 275 1474 175 1212 121 263.5 2.7 731 Key:Time to ignition – time to sustained burning over most of the specimen surface Flameout time – time to end of sustained burning periodq

3 – Heat release rate, the heat evolved from the specimen, per unit of time )S – specific extinction area, a measure of the smoke emission from t

m

3 – Specimen mass loss rate, the mass lost by the specimen, per unit of time CO, CO2 – yield of CO and CO2, mass of CO or CO2 produced by the 

HC – Effective heat of combustion, the measured heat release divided by the divided by the mass lost by the specimen

 mass lost by the specimen
D-25

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-1. Sample 1. Seat Cushion, Assembly
D-26

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-2. Sample 1a. Seat Cushion, Foam Only
D-27

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Heat Release Rate (kW)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-3. Sample 1b. Seat Cushion, Interliner Only
D-28

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

400

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-4. Sample 1c. Seat Cushion, Fabric Only
D-29

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-5. Sample 1d. Seat Cushion, PVC Cover Only
D-30

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-6. Sample 2c. Seat Cushion, Fabric Cover Only
D-31

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-7. Sample 2. Seat Cushion, Assembly
D-32

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-8. Sample 3. Graphite-Filled Foam
D-33

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-9. Sample 4. Seat Support Diaphragm, Chloroprene Elastomer
D-34

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-10. Sample 5. Seat Support Diaphragm, FR Cotton Muslin
D-35

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-11. Sample 6. Seat Shroud, PVC/Acrylic
D-36

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-12. Sample 7. Armrest Pad, Coach Seat (Foam on Metal Support)
D-37

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Smoke Extinction Area (m 2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m 2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-13. Sample 8. Seat Footrest Cover, Chloroprene Elastomer
D-38

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Smoke Extinction Area (m 2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m 2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-14. Sample 9. Seat Track Cover, Chloroprene Elastomer
D-39

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-15. Sample 10. Mattress, Assembly
D-40

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Heat Release Rate (kW)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-16. Sample 10a. Mattress, Foam Only
D-41

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

-1

0

1

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

-1

0

1

2

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Heat of Combustion Data Not Available

Mass Loss Rate

Not Available

Smoke Extinction Data

Figure D-17. Sample 10b. Mattress, Interliner Only
D-42

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-18. Sample 10c. Mattress, Ticking Fabric Only
D-43

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-19. Sample 11. Bed Pad, Assembly
D-44

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

200

400

600

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

10

20

30

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-20. Sample 12. Wall Finishing, Wool Carpet
D-45

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

200

400

600

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-21. Sample 13. Wall Finishing, Wool Fabric
D-46

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

10

20

30

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-22. Sample 14. Space Divider, Polycarbonate
D-47

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-23. Sample 15. Wall Material, FRP/PVC
D-48

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-24. Sample 16. Wall Panel, FRP
D-49

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-25. Sample 17. Window Glazing, Polycarbonate
D-50

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Heat of Combustion

Smoke Extinction Area not available

Mass Loss Rate

Figure D-26. Sample 18. Window Mask, FRP
D-51

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-27. Sample 19. Door Privacy Curtain/Window Drapery Fabric
D-52

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-28. Sample 20. Drapery Fabric, Polyester
D-53

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-29. Sample 21. Blanket, Wool Fabric
D-54

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Smoke Extinction Not Available

Mass Loss Rate

Figure D-30. Sample 22. Blanket, Modacrylic Fabric
D-55

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

100

200

300

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-31. Sample 23. Pillow
D-56

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Heat Release Rate

Figure D-32. Sample 24. Floor Covering, Nylon Carpet
D-57

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

10

20

30

Time (s)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-33. Sample 25. Rubber Mat, Styrene Butadiene
D-58

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-34. Sample 26. Cafe/Lounge/Diner Table (Phenolic/Wood Laminate)
D-59

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

10

20

30

40

Time (s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-35. Sample 27. Air Duct, Neoprene
D-60

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

20

40

60

80

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (s)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-36. Sample 28. Pipe Wrap Insulation Foam
D-61

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-37. Sample 29. Window Gasketing, Chloroprene Elastomer
D-62

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Heat Release Rate (kW)

0

50

100

150

200

Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Smoke Extinction Area (m2/kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Mass Loss Rate (gm / s m2

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mass Loss Rate

Smoke Extinction Area

Heat of Combustion

Figure D-38. Sample 30. Door Gasketing, Chloroprene Elastomer
PAGE 1 OF 2

NIST-114 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

(REV. 6-93) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

ADMAN 4.09

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

(ERB USE ONLY)

ERB CONTROL NUMBER DIVISION

PUBLICATION REPORT NUMBER CATEGORY CODE

 NISTIR 6132

INSTRUCTIONS: ATTACH ORIGINAL OF THIS FORM TO ONE (1) COPY OF MANUSCRIPT AND SEND TO

THE SECRETARY, APPROPRIATE EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

PUBLICATION DATE NUMBER PRINTED PAGES

 March 1999 197

TITLE AND SUBTITLE (CITE IN FULL)

Fire Safety of Passenger Trains, Phase I: Material Evaluation (Cone Calorimeter)

CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER TYPE OF REPORT AND/OR PERIOD COVERED

Final

AUTHOR(S) (LAST NAME, FIRST INITIAL, SECOND INITIAL) PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (CHECK (X) ONE BOX)

Peacock, R. D. and Braun, E.

X NIST/GAITHERSBURG

 NIST/BOULDER

 JILA/BOULDER

LABORATORY AND DIVISION NAMES (FIRST NIST AUTHOR ONLY)

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Fire Safety Engineering Division

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP)

Federal Railroad Administration

Washington DC 20590

PROPOSED FOR NIST PUBLICATION

 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH (NIST JRES) MONOGRAPH (NIST MN) LETTER CIRCULAR

 J. PHYS. & CHEM. REF. DATA (JPCRD) NATL. STD. REF. DATA SERIES (NIST NSRDS) BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES

 HANDBOOK (NIST HB) FEDERAL INF. PROCESS. STDS. (NIST FIPS) PRODUCT STANDARDS

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION (NIST SP) LIST OF PUBLICATIONS (NIST LP) OTHER

 TECHNICAL NOTE (NIST TN) X NIST INTERAGENCY/INTERNAL REPORT (NISTIR)

PROPOSED FOR NON-NIST PUBLICATION (CITE FULLY) X U.S. FOREIGN PUBLISHING MEDIUM

U.S. DOT publication X PAPER CD-ROM

 DISKETTE (SPECIFY)

 OTHER (SPECIFY)

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Also published by U.S. DOT as publications DOT-VNTSC-FRA-98-26 and DOT/FRA/ORD-99/01

ABSTRACT (A 2000-CHARACTER OR LESS FACTUAL SUMMARY OF MOST SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION. IF DOCUMENT INCLUDES A SIGNIFICANT BIBLIOGRAPHY OR

LITERATURE SURVEY, CITE IT HERE. SPELL OUT ACRONYMS ON FIRST REFERENCE.) (CONTINUE ON SEPARATE PAGE, IF NECESSARY.)

As part of the passenger equipment rulemaking required by Congress, the Federal Railroad Adminstration (FRA) has proposed that its

existing fire safety guidelines be made mandatory. A major conclusion of a FRA-funded 1993 study by the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) was that the use of fire hazard assessment techniques, based on modeling and supported by measurement methods

based on heat release rate (HRR), could provide a more credible and cost-effective means to predict real-world fire behavior of passenger

train materials than the current approach. 

This document presents the Phase I results of the program which focused on the evaluation of passenger rail car interior materials using

Cone Calorimeter test data. A summary of U.S. transportation agency requirements for various types of vehicles is also provided. An

update of U.S. and European passenger train fire performance requirements and related research is included.

KEY WORDS (MAXIMUM OF 9; 28 CHARACTERS AND SPACES EACH; SEPARATE WITH SEMICOLONS; ALPHABETIC ORDER; CAPITALIZE ONLY PROPER NAMES)

Fire safety; fire models; fire test methods; heat release rate; passenger trains; railroads; small-scale fire tests; transportation

AVAILABILITY NOTE TO AUTHOR(S): IF YOU DO NOT WISH THIS

X UNLIMITED FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION - DO NOT RELEASE TO NTIS MANUSCRIPT ANNOUNCED BEFORE PUBLICATION,

 ORDER FROM SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GPO, WASHINGTON, DC 20402 PLEASE CHECK HERE. X

X ORDER FROM NTIS, SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161

WORDPERFECT