Residential Upholstered Furniture Flammability
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•4,139 views
The document summarizes research conducted by UL on improving the flammability of residential upholstered furniture. Phase I experiments tested different materials and barrier technologies at the material and mock-up levels. Barriers and FR foams reduced heat release rates. Phase II will examine fire growth with and without barriers in furniture, while Phase III will measure tenability and safe egress times. Preliminary tenability experiments found barriers significantly increased available safe egress time over furniture without barriers.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Mehr von U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Mehr von U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Residential Upholstered Furniture Flammability
- 1. © 2013 UL LLC Residential Upholstered Furniture Flammability CPSC Upholstered Furniture Fire Safety Technology Meeting April 25, 2013 Rockville, MD Thomas Fabian, Ph.D. Underwriters Laboratories
- 2. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Upholstered Furniture Flammability PROGRAM OVERVIEW 2 material-level tests mock-up tests furniture tests living room flashover tests (Phase II) tenability and survivability tests (Phase III) Phase I Demonstration experiments to explore if commercially available fire resistance technologies can retard and/or reduce fire growth
- 3. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Sample Nomenclature 3 {fr}PU-W-FB#-C PU = no fr foam frPU = TB 117 foam Polyester wrap 11 fire barriers (flat and high-loft) Polyester cover fabric NOT ALL COMPONENTS MAY BE PRESENT foam wrap barrier
- 4. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase I: Mock-up Level Experiments PU-W-C (no barrier) vs. PU-W-FB1-C (with barrier)* 4 * Para-aramid blend barrier Note: mock-up level configuration does not represent furniture construction.
- 5. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase I: Mock-up Level Experiments PEAK HEAT RELEASE RATE SUMMARY High-loft barriers Flat barriers 5
- 6. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase I: Furniture Level Experiments INFLUENCE OF CHAIR COMPONENTS & IGNITION LOCATION corner seat/back back bottom 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1. foam-wrap-fabric 2. FR foam-wrap-fabric 3. foam-high-loft barrier- fabric cushions 4. foam-high-loft barrier- fabric cushions + flat barrier on frame Note: UL has been advised by PFA that use of foam in back cushions may not be representative of current practice.
- 7. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase I: Furniture Level Experiments INFLUENCE OF SOFA COMPONENTS 7
- 8. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase I: Summary of Results All approaches exhibited some level of reduced ignitability/flammability. Approach 1: TB117 FR foam substitution for PU foam • Reduced burn duration on cone calorimeter tests • Reduced heat release rate on mock-up tests • Reduced furniture peak heat release rate when cushions were ignited (1.3 vs. 1.1 MW) Approach 2: FR barrier inclusion or poly-wrap substitution • Reduced heat release rate on cone calorimeter and mock-up tests • FR barrier substitution for poly-wrap reduced furniture peak heat release rate by ~3X Approach 3: FR barrier substitution for poly-wrap + covered sides • Reduced peak heat release rate from >1 MW to 200 kW • Ignition of back did not propagate 8
- 9. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase II: How does fire growth initiated on upholstered furniture using commercially available fire barrier compare to without barrier? Phase III: What is the impact of including a barrier in upholstered furniture on tenability and safe egress time? Phase II and III Experiments OVERVIEW 9 VIDEO
- 10. Copyright© 2013 UL LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reprinted in any form without the express written permission of UL LLC or as otherwise provided in writing. Phase III: Tenability Experiments Furniture Alarm Activation (s) Tenability Time (s) ASET (s) No barrier 242 426 184 With barrier 92 1237 1145 10 Tenability ≥ 88 °C (consistent with Indiana Dunes II) Furniture Alarm Activation (s) Tenability Time (s) ASET (s) No barrier 92 239 147 With barrier 206 1877 1671 1-STORY RANCH HOUSE 2-STORY OPEN FLOOR PLAN HOUSE
Hinweis der Redaktion
- frPU had 3% FR as chlorinated TRI, TPP, and TBPP
- FB8: 2-layer high-loft barrier. One side is predominantly rayon and the other cotton. Boron detected suggesting boric acid FR treatment. FB3: monolithic film flat barrier based on glass fiber weave. Coating was a predominantly inorganics (calcium aluminum silicates). Contained about 3% TPP and TBPP FR and antimony oxide.
- The fire in the top cannot be mitigated by the home owner whereas there is a possibility of the one depicted on the bottom.
- Material-Level Test Results 1. frPU foam usage: Slightly shorter burn duration 2. High-loft barrier usage: Prolonged time to ignition by 9 to 21 s; extended burn duration by 174 to 355 s PHRR was modestly reduced but 180 s AHRR was significantly reduced Total heat releases were 6 to 13 % lower 3. Flat barrier usage: Prolonged time to ignition up to 2x longer Para-aramid blends extended burn duration by 106 and 868 s; others were 415 to 433 s shorter PHRR was reduced up to 34 % and 180 s AHRR was significantly reduced (58 to 91 %) THR for para-aramid blends was 9 and 42 % lower; others were 80 to 95 % lower Mock-up Tests Results 1. frPU foam usage: PHRR reduced 24 %, THR reduced 28 % 2. High-loft barrier usage: Extended survivable ignition exposure durations PHRR was reduced 36 to 62 % Total heat releases tended to be greater 3. Flat barrier usage: Extended survivable ignition exposure durations with 4 of 6 barriers surviving 300 s Two para-aramid blends that did not survive 300 s exposure still exhibited 59 and 76 % reduction in PHRR Furniture Test Results Mitigation Approach 1: TB117 FR foam substitution for PU foam Exhibited ~20% lower PHRR when cushions were ignited (1.3 vs. 1.1 MW); Comparable PHRR when back was ignited Fire growth rate was comparable Mitigation Approach 2: High-loft FR barrier substitution for poly wrap Reduced PHRR from 1+ MW to 400 kW Retarded fire growth rate by 3+X when cushions were ignited and 1.5X when back was ignited Mitigation Approach 3: Approach 2 + FR barrier covered sides Reduced PHRR from 1+ MW to 200 kW Retarded fire growth rate by 3+X when cushions were ignited Ignition of back did not propagate
- In the chair fires conducted for the upholstered furniture flammability project we observed peak heat release rates exceeding 1 megawatt, which is flashover conditions, to as low as 200 kilowatts with a fully barrier covered furniture. So if fire growth and the peak heat release rate could be reduced to just 400 kilowatts by simply swapping the polyester wrap with a high-loft FR barrier, would an equivalent living room still flashover, and if so, would it take longer? Start video. For these experiments we used identically furnished living rooms with the only variation being the materials used in the upholstered couch and chair. Even then, all of the upholstered furniture used the same hard wood frames to further isolate the role of the cover fabric, padding, and cushioning materials. The upper left set of furniture is representative of contemporary furniture you may find in a big box store – polyester wrap covered polyurethane foam cushions and a polyester microsuede cover fabric. The upper right is equivalent furniture pieces representative of legacy furniture, much like what grandma and grandpa had minus the vinyl covers – cotton batting over metal spring cushions and a cotton cover fabric. The bottom two scenarios are the contemporary furniture pieces but with a cotton-based high loft FR barrier substituted for the polyester wrap – same frame, same foam and same cover fabric. *** Only used FB8 barrier in these experiments (2-layer high-loft barrier. One side is predominantly rayon and the other cotton. Boron detected suggesting boric acid FR treatment.) *** Cotton batting had boron suggesting boric acid FR treatment (~ ¼ concentration of the barrier though)