4.4 Comparison between cone calorimeter, the surface and SBI tests
4.4.3 Comparison between the surface and SBI tests using regression
For combustibility, the comparisons between tdθ value of surface test and THR600s of SBI test are shown in Fig. 4.4. Because the tdθ value in surface test is somewhat similar to the total heat release, it is chosen to compare here. The correlation is relatively good and the value of R2 is 0.75. The one for M05 (rock wool board) seems to deviate from the correlation apparently. The reason for the deviation of M05 is attributed to the determination of standard curve in surface test, which is obtained by adding 50°C to the calibration curve. The measured exhaust temperatures per min of M05 do not exceed the standard curve after completion of the test so tdθ value is zero. But it still can exhibit the reaction-to-fire feature since it is fail to meet the upper temperature limit in the elementary material test. In other words, its heat release rate is not null and has a THR value of about 2.4 MJ. Therefore it causes M05 deviating from the correlation between the surface and SBI tests.
For smoke generation, the CA of surface test is usually the measured value at the end of test (maximum value). The 60s mean value of SPR in SBI test, which is chosen to be the maximum value, is compared with CA. The results of comparison are shown in Fig. 4.5. The correlation is relatively well and the value of R2 is 0.92.
4.4.4 Comparison between the Cone Calorimeter and the surface tests using regression line
Due to inconsistency of heating time, the 180s mean value of heat release rates of Cone Calorimeter for both orientations are chosen to compare with tdθ value of surface test. The comparison between Cone Calorimeter test in vertical orientation and the surface test is shown in Fig.
4.6. The value of R2 is 0.67. The one between Cone Calorimeter test in horizontal orientation and the surface test are shown in Fig. 4.7. The value of R2 is 0.58. The behaviors of M12 (padauk of South America) in Figs.4.6 and 4.7 appear to deviate from the correlation apparently. It is because the density of M12 is about 1000 kg/m3, much higher than those of the other flooring materials. It is not easily to be ignited in the surface test due to the relatively high thermal inertia, therefore the tdθ value of M12 is relatively low and in Figs.4.6 and 4.7. If the tested data of M12 are removed from the correlation in Fig.4.6, then R2 can be improved from 0.67 to 0.95; see Fig.4.8. Also, if the data of M12 are removed from the correlation in Fig.4.7, then R2 can be improved from 0.58 to 0.96; see Fig.4.9. Now, the correlation between the Cone Calorimeter and surface tests for combustibility becomes relatively well.
The tc value in the surface test somewhat can be regarded as the time, at which the surface of specimen is ignited. The ignition times of Cone Calorimeter for both orientations are chosen to compare with tc value of surface test that the comparison is given in Fig. 4.10. The value of R2 is 0.4. The deviation is resulted from that the ignition time of M06 tested in Cone Calorimeter for vertical orientation is zero but its tc value is 224.2
sec. If the tested data of M06 are removed from the correlation in Fig.
4.10, then R2 can be improved from 0.4 to 0.89; see Fig. 4.11. The one between Cone Calorimeter test in horizontal orientation and the surface test is shown in Fig. 4.12, where the value of R2 is 0.63. Similarly, if the tested data of M06 are removed from the correlation in Fig. 4.12, then R2 can be improved from 0.63 to 0.67; see Fig. 4.13. It can be found that the correlation for ignition time between surface test and cone calorimeter ones in vertical horizontal direction is better than that of the cone data in horizontal direction. In addition, as indicated Figs. 4.10 and 4.12, the ignition times of Cone Calorimeter for both orientations are lower than tc
value of surface test.
In order to further investigate the features of ignition time mentioned above, the heat sources for both apparatuses are presented as follows. In the surface test, the T-shaped propane burner, with a flow rate of 0.35 1/min of propane, is used for the first 3 mins, and its average value of heat flux is 0.49 kW/m2 [14]. The incident heat flux of Cone Calorimeter is set at 50kW/m2 and the spark plug is used to ignite specimen. Since the exhaust system of Cone Calorimeter is provided by a forced flow of 0.024m3/s, the flammable gas is discharged easily by exhaust system. It still has a higher heat flux to heat the specimen. However, the furnace room of surface test is much smaller than the one in Cone Calorimeter. In the surface test, the air supply and exhaust gas adopt the way of natural convection so that the preheat effect in the furnace is relative intensive.
However, the average value of heat flux for the first 3 mins is still much lower than Cone Calorimeter. Therefore, the ignition times of Cone
Calorimeter for both orientations are shorter than tc value of surface test. In addition, the correlation for ignition time between surface test and cone calorimeter in vertical horizontal direction are better than that of the cone data in horizontal direction. The reason can be attributed to orientation effect; see Sec. 4.1.2. Because the ignition time of cone calorimeter test in vertical orientation are longer than that in horizontal orientation, the correlation for ignition time between cone calorimeter test in vertical direction and surface test is expected to be better.
Chapter Five CONCLUSIONS
In this thesis work, 15 building materials were chosen and tested in the Cone Calorimeter and surface tests. Among them, 7 materials (M01~M07) are selected and tested in SBI test additionally. There are two goals in this study. One is to discuss the reaction-to-fire performance for each material in the three different test methods, and the other is to evaluate the potential use of the Cone Calorimeter and SBI as the test standards to replace the traditional CNS 6532, which is sole used by Taiwan building Code in the world. The following conclusions are drawn.
1) The FR (flame retardants) materials have some arguments about their values of content, which can affect the ignition time and heat release. Therefore, the specimen, similar to M06, tested in Cone Calorimeter shall not remove the sparker during the test.
2) For the flammable material in cone calorimeter test, the heat release rate and ignition time can be affected by the sample orientation. The measured average values of HRRav_180s and THR in the horizontal orientation are higher than those in vertical one. The ignition time in horizontal orientation is found shorter than that in vertical one. It shows that the classification using Cone Calorimeter test in horizontal orientation is stringent.
3) Using the mean heat release rate within 180 seconds, HRRav_180s,to compare the cone calorimeter test results in vertical and horizontal
directions, the correlation is relatively good and the value of R2 is about 0.95.
4) The cracks situations in three test methods are discussed. However, in EU classification, it only notes the flaming droplets/particles and has no any regulation for the appearance of cracks. Therefore EU classification is suggested to add this to improve this shortcoming.
5) According to CNS 6532, the classification of Rock wool board is ranked as Class 2 because of its failure in the elementary material test. However, such material in EU class may need the other test methods for classify it to a higher rank.
6) The FR materials (M06) can pass the third (lowest) class in Cone Calorimeter (horizontal orientation) and the surface test, but it is classified as A2/B in SBI test. Therefore, for plywood which added the flame retardants, the Cone Calorimeter and the surface tests are more stringent than SBI.
7) CNS 6532 has the smoke classification but Japanese classification using Cone Calorimeter does not have such evaluation. EU standard has the additional classification for smoke production (s1, s2 and s3), but it does not really use as the classification criteria for construction products. The benchmarks of smoke hazard for safety levels might not be found at the present time.
8) For flooring materials without the addition of flame retardants, they can be qualified for any classification in Cone Calorimeter and the surface tests.
9) The correlation between the values from FIGRA of cone calorimeter in vertical direction and the SBI shows that the value of R2 is about 0.77. The value of R2 for the corresponding correlation between cone in horizontal direction and SBI is about 0.98. Apparently, the correlation between SBI and cone calorimeter test in horizontal direction is better.
10) The correlation between tdθ value of surface test and THR600s of SBI test finds that the value of R2 is 0.75. Correlation between CA value of surface test and maximum 60s mean value of SPR of SBI test gives the value of R2 is 0.92.
11) From comparison between 180s mean value of heat release rate of Cone Calorimeter test in vertical orientation and tdθ value of the surface test, the value of R2 is 0.67. The correlated R2 value between Cone Calorimeter test in horizontal orientation and the surface test is 0.58. If the tested data of M12 are removed from the correlation in Fig.4.6, then R2 can be improved from 0.67 to 0.95; see Fig.4.8. Also, if the data of M12 are removed from the correlation in Fig.4.7, then R2 can be improved from 0.58 to 0.96; see Fig.4.9. Now, the correlation between the Cone Calorimeter and surface tests for combustibility becomes relatively well.
12) The ignition times of Cone Calorimeter for both orientations are shorter than tc value of surface test. The correlation for ignition time between cone calorimeter test in vertical direction and surface test is expected to be better.
Reference
[1] ISO 5660-1. “Rate of Heat Release from Building Products (Cone Calorimeters),” International Organization for Standardization, 2002.
[2] Thornton W. “The Relation of Oxygen to the Heat of Combustion of Organic Compounds”, Philosophical Magazine and J. of Science, Vol. 33, No. 196, 1917.
[3] Hugget C. “Estimation of Heat Release by Means of Oxygen
Consumption Measurement”, Fire and Materials Vol. 4, No. 2, 1980.
[4] ASTM E1354. “Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen
Consumption Calorimeter,” ASTM Fire Test Standards, 2004.
[5] JIS A 1321. “Testing method for incombustibility of internal finish material and procedure of buildings,” Japanese Industrial Standards, 1994.
[6] CNS 6532. “Method of Test for Incombustibility of Internal Finish Material of Building,” Chinese National Standard, 2003.
[7] SBI (Single Burning Item), EN 13823. “Reaction to fire tests for building products - Building products excluding floorings exposed to the thermal attack by a single burning item” European Committee for Standardization, 2002.
[8] ISO 9705. “Room Fire Test in Full Scale for Surface Products”, International Organization for Standardization, 1993.
[9] prEN 45545-2. “Fire protection on railway vehicles-Part2,
requirements for fire behavior of materials and components”, 2004.
[10] ISO 5659-2. “Plastics-Smoke generation-Part 2, determination of optical density by a single-chamber test” International Organization for Standardization, 1994.
[11] CNS 14705. “Method of test for heat release rate for building materials-cone calorimeter method,” Chinese National Standard, 2003.
[12] Parker W. “An investigation of the Fire Environment in the ASTM E-84 Tunnel Test,” NBS Technical Note 945, 1977.
[13] Sensenig D. “An Oxygen Consumption Technique for Deterimining the Construction of Interior Wall Finishes to Room Fires,” NBS Technical Note 1182, 1980.
[14] Chen, C. H., Jang, L. S., Lei, M. Y., Chou, S. “A comparative study of combustibility and surface flammability of building materials,”
Fire and Materials, Vol.21, 1997.
[15] Tsantaridis L., Ostman B., “Cone Calorimeter Data and Comparisons for the SBI RR Products,” NTIS Report 9812090, 1999.
[16] William Heskestad A, Jostein Hovde P. “Empirical Prediction of Smoke Production in the ISO Room Corner Fire Test by Use of ISO Cone Calorimeter Fire Test Data,” Fire and Materials, Vol.23, 1999.
[17] Messerschmidt B., Van Hees P., “Influence of delay times and response times on heat release measurements,” Fire and Materials, Vol.24, 2000.
[18] Hakkarainen T., Kokkala M. A., “Application of a One-dimensional Thermal Flame Spread Model on Predicting the Rate of Heat
Release in the SBI test,” Fire and Materials, Vol.25, 2001.
[19] Van Hees P., Hertzberg T, Steen Hansen A. “Development of a Screening Methiod for the SBI and Room Corner using the Cone Calorimeter,” SP REPORT, 2002:11.
[20] Axelsson J., Van Hees P. “New data for sandwich panels on the correlation between the SBI test method and the room corner reference scenario,” Fire and Materials, Vol.29, 2005.
[21] Fox R. W. and McDonald A. T., John Wiley and Sons, “Introduction to Fluid Mechanics” Canada, 1994
[22] Kline S. J., and Mcclintock F., “Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments,” Mechanical Engineering, vol.104, pp250-260,1982.
[23] Moffat R. J., “Contributions to the Theory of Single-Sample
Uncertainty Analysis,” Journal of Fluid Engineering, vol. 104, pp.
250-260, 1982
[24] Figliola R. S., and Beasley D. E., “Theory and Design for Mechanical Measurements,” 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Canada, 1995.
[25] Holman J. P., “Experimental Methods for Engineers”, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989
[26] Parker, W, J. “Calculation of the Heat Release Rate by Oxygen Consumption for Various Applications,” NBSIR 81-2427, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Md., 1982.
[27] Janssens, M. L. “Measuring Heat Release Rate by Oxygen Consumption,” Fire Technology, Vol.27, 1991.
[28] Babrauskas, V. “Development of the Cone Calorimeter-A Bench-scale Heat Release Rate Apparatus based on Oxygen
Consumption,” NBSIR 82-2611, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1982.
[29] Enright P. A. and Fleischmann C. M. “Uncertainty of Heat Release Rate Calculation of the ISO 5660-1 Cone Calorimeter Standard Test Method” Fire Technology, Vol. 35, NO.2, 1999.
[30] Axelsson J., Andersson P., Lonnermark A., Hees P. V., Wetterlund I.,“Uncertainties in measuring heat and smoke release rates in the Room/Corner Test and the SBI,” SP REPORT, 2001:04.
Table 2.1: Heats of combustion and heats of combustion per gram of oxygen consumed for typical organic liquids and gases
Fuel Formula Heats of combustion kJ g-1
Heats of combustion kJ g-1 O2
Methane (g) CH4 -50.01 -12.54
Ethane (g) C2H6 -47.48 -12.75
n-Butane (g) C4H10 -45.72 -12.78
n-Octane (g) C8H18 -44.42 -12.69
1-Butanol (l) C4H10O -33.13 -12.79
Table 2.2: Heats of combustion and heats of combustion per gram of oxygen consumed for typical synthetic polymers
Fuel Formula
Heats of combustion
kJ g-1
Heats of combustion
kJ g-1 O2
Polyethylene (-C2H4-)n -43.28 -12.65 Polypropylene (-C3H6-)n -43.31 -12.66 Polyisobutylene (-C4H8-)n -43.71 -12.77
Polycarbonate (-C16H14O4-)n -29.72 -13.12
Nylon (-C6H11O4-)n -29.58 -12.67
Table 2.3: Heats of combustion and heats of combustion per gram of oxygen consumed for selected natural fuel
Fuel Heats of combustion kJ g-1
Heats of combustion kJ g-1 O2
Cellulose -16.09 -13.59
Cotton -15.56 -13.61
Newsprint -18.4 -13.4
Lignite -24.78 -13.12
Leaves, hardwood -17.76 -12.51
Table 3.1: The used parameters of uncertainty for cone calorimeter [29]
Assumption o
c
r Δh
= 13,100 (kJ/kg)
β =1.5
o c
r Δh
δ = 655(kJ/kg)
δ β =0.5
Calculation C =0.0404 δ C =0.0404 Measurement Te = variable (K) δ Te = 2.2 (K)
Δ = variable (Pa) p δ Δ = 0.8 (Pa) p
O2
χ =variable by volume
O2
δχ = 0.0001 by volume
Table 3.2: The exhaust temperature of standard for CNS 6532 [6]
Time (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Texhaust (°C) 70 80 90 155 205 235 260 275 290 305
Table 3.3: Uncertainties in volume flow measurement in the SBI test [30]
Table 3.4: HRR uncertainty of SBI at the 35 kW level [30]
Table 3.5: HRR uncertainty of SBI at the 50 kW level [30]
Table 3.6: Summary of uncertainty for different levels of SPR [30]
Table 4.1: List of New and Innovative building materials
Code Material name Density(kg/m3) Thickness(mm)
M01 Fiber cement board 1200 12
M02 Calcium silicate panel 950 18 M03 Ceramic board coating
Nano-TiO2
2000 4.2
M04 MgO board 1100 9
M05 Rock wool board 400 12
M06 14.5mm plywood 690 14.5
M07 3.6mm plywood 670 3.6
M08 Ceramic board coating far infrared rays
2000 4.2
M09 Ceramic board coating anion
2000 4.2
M10 Glass fiber board 400 25
M11 Gypsum board 970 7
M12 Padauk of South America
1000 18
M13 South America padauk of Island
470 12
M14 Teak of Myanmar 650 18
M15 Myanmar Teak of Island
540 12
Table 4.2: Major compositions of materials
Code Material name Compositions
M01 Fiber cement board Cement, Silicon sand, Celluloid fiber, Strengthened fiber
M02 Calcium silicate panel
Lime, Silicate, Celluloid fiber
M03 Ceramic board coating Nano-TiO2
Clay, Nano-TiO2 M04 MgO board MgO, MgCl2, Wood, Fiber M05 Rock wool board Rock wool, Farina, Pulp, Adhesives M06 14.5mm plywood Lauan, Flame retardants of Phosphorus M07 3.6mm plywood Lauan, Flame retardants of Phosphorus M08
Ceramic board coating far infrared
rays
Clay, Far infrared rays of Nano
M09 Ceramic board coating anion
Clay, Nano-anion M10 Glass fiber board Glass fiber, Adhesives M11 Gypsum board Gypsum, Strengthened fiber M12 Padauk of South
America
Padauk
M13 South America padauk of Island
Padauk, Pine, Poplar, Lauan
M14 Teak of Myanmar Teak
M15 Myanmar Teak of Island
Teak, Pine, Poplar, Lauan
Table 4.3: The classification of Japanese cone calorimeter test Class Heat flux Heating time
in the test
Maximum of HRR
Total HRR
1 50kW/m2 20 min ≤ 200 kW/m2 ≤ 8 MJ/m2 2 50kW/m2 10 min ≤ 200 kW/m2 ≤ 8 MJ/m2 3 50kW/m2 5 min ≤ 200 kW/m2 ≤ 8 MJ/m2 Annotation: There must not be any cracks or holes on test specimen at end of the heating.
Table 4.4: Results of cone calorimeter tested in vertical orientation (average value)
Code Class Test time (s)
Ignition time(s)
Peak of HRR (kW/m2)
HRRav_180s (kW/m2)
THR (MJ/m2)
M01 1 1200 N.I. 5.86 1.13 3.06
M02 1 1200 N.I. 5.94 2.13 2.32
M03 1 1200 N.I. 0.69 0 0
M04 1 1200 N.I. 3.63 0.26 1
M05 1 1200 N.I. 10.5 6.86 4.28
M06 2 600 N.I. 14.49 3.91 5.12
M07 F 300 75.8 161.66 47.47 10.96
M08 1 1200 N.I. 0.59 0 0
M09 1 1200 N.I. 1.57 0 0.03
M10 1 1200 N.I. 8.51 5.94 1.76
M11 1 1200 N.I. 7.75 0.34 0.22
M12 F 300 93.65 198.25 135.26 29.92
M13 F 300 49.23 290.34 82.28 20.98
M14 F 300 60.55 228.45 97.4 24.54
M15 F 300 41.03 301.50 81.27 22.88
F: failure
N.I.: no sustained flaming
Table 4.5: Results of cone calorimeter tested in horizontal orientation (average value)
Code Class Test time (s)
Ignition time(s)
Peak of HRR (kW/m2)
HRRav_180s (kW/m2)
THR (MJ/m2)
M01 1 1200 N.I. 3.73 1.81 1.42
M02 1 1200 N.I. 3.56 1.68 0.52
M03 1 1200 N.I. 0.38 0 0
M04 1 1200 N.I. 4.47 0.34 0.65
M05 1 1200 N.I. 13.79 9.34 3.44 M06 3 300 26 82.88 18.72 6.11
M07 F 300 27.23 293.57 88.03 24.7
M08 1 1200 N.I. 2.43 0 0.00
M09 1 1200 N.I. 1.78 0 0.00
M10 1 1200 N.I. 5.64 2.54 0.73
M11 1 1200 N.I. 1.07 0 0
M12 F 300 30.81 292.48 183.22 47.65
M13 F 300 35.26 369.47 83.93 22.99
M14 F 300 31.47 220.71 97.93 25.91
M15 F 300 18.26 401.26 94.02 24.74
F: failure
NI: no sustained flaming
Table 4.6: Classification according to CNS 6532
Class 1: non-combustible material Class 2: semi non-combustible material Class 3: fire-retardant material
Tmax : maximum of temperature
(a): No penetration due to melting over the entire thickness
(b): No cracks in the back surface in excess of one tenth of the thickness (c): No sustained flaming for more than 30 seconds after completion of the
test
(d1): The curve of the exhaust gas temperature shall not exceed the standard temperature curve during the test
(d2): The curve of the exhaust gas temperature shall not exceed the standard temperature curve during the first three minutes of test
Table 4.7: Results of surface test (average value)
N.I.: no intersect --: no occur
t1: time of sustained flaming after completion of the test Ck: cracking of the back surface (+ =pass, − =fail)
Table 4.8: Results of elementary material test (average value) Code Tmax (°C) Tinitial (°C) ΔT (°C) Mass loss (g) Class
M01 766.5 748.7 17.9 15 Pass
M02 752.4 747.7 4.8 12.9 Pass
M04 725.6 749.3 -23.8 32.5 Pass
M05 810.7 748 62.7 4.9 Fail
Tmax: Maximum of temperature Tinitial: Initial temperature
ΔT: Temperature difference
Table 4.9: Summary of classification criteria for SBI test
Class Classification criteria
A2/B FIGRA≤120Ws-1
LFS(1) < edge of specimen (large wing) THR600s≤ 7.5MJ
C FIGRA≤250Ws-1
LFS < edge of specimen (large wing) THR600s≤ 15MJ
D FIGRA≤750Ws-1
Additional classification for smoke production:
s1 = SMOGRA ≤ 30m2s-2 and TSP600s ≤ 50m2; s2 = SMOGRA ≤ 180m2s-2 and TSP600s ≤ 200m2; s3 = not s1 and s2.
Additional classification for flaming droplets/particles:
d0 = no flaming droplets/particles within 600 s;
d1 = no flaming droplets/particles persisting longer than 10 s within 600s;
d2 = not d0 or d1.
(1) Lateral flame spread
Table 4.10: EU classes for construction products excluding flooring
Table 4.11: The summary results of SBI test (average value)
Code FIGRA0.2MJ (W/s)
FIGRA0.4MJ (W/s)
THR600s (MJ)
SMOGRA (m2/s2)
TSP600s (m2)
SPRav_60s(max)
(m2/s)
M01 -- -- 0.33 -- 10.03 0.0400
M02 -- -- 0.23 -- 13.80 0.0510
M03 1 1 0.13 -- 0.70 0.0400
M04 -- -- 0.13 -- 13.33 0.0970
M05 26.7 22.37 2.40 -- 16.37 0.0450
M06 71.23 48.37 3.83 1.47 25.0 0.1680
M07 143.8 143.8 5.17 11.23 73.53 0.2570
Table 4.12: The classification of SBI test
Code Class Smoke production Flaming droplets/particles
M01 A2/B s1 d0
M02 A2/B s1 d0
M03 A2/B s1 d0
M04 A2/B s1 d0
M05 A2/B s1 d0
M06 A2/B s1 d0
M07 C s2 d1
Table 4.13: The classification of Cone Calorimeter, the surface and SBI tests
Code Materail name
Cone
M02 Calcium silicate
panel 1 1 1 A2/B(s1,d0)
M09 Ceramic board
coating anion 1 1 F
M10 Glass fiber board 1 1 2
M11 Gypsum board 1 1 3
M12 Padauk of South
America F F F
M13 South America
padauk of Island F F F
M14 Teak of
Myanmar F F F
M15 Myanmar Teak
of Island F F F
Table 4.14: FIGRA for Cone Calorimeter in vertical direction FIGRA(W/s)
Code Thickness
(mm) 1 2 3 Avg.
M01 12 0.109 0.094 0.027 0.077 M02 18 0.172 0.5 0.087 0.253 M03 4.2 0 0.010 0.008 0.006 M04 9 0.064 1.756 0.070 0.63 M05 12 3.031 3.304 0.464 2.266 M06 14.5 0.227 0.243 0.276 0.249 M07 3.6 6.508 23.914 7.016 12.479
Table 4.15: FIGRA for Cone Calorimeter in horizontal direction FIGRA(W/s)
Code Thickness
(mm) 1 2 3 Avg.
M01 12 0.212 0.267 0.131 0.203
M02 18 0.537 0.465 0.204 0.402
M03 4.2 0.431 0.081 0.271 0.261
M04 9 0.061 0.104 0.124 0.096
M05 12 5.483 0.693 9.935 5.371
M06 14.5 11.106 36.62 25.494 24.41
M07 3.6 75.726 63.953 63.222 67.63
Figure 1.1: The Evolution of Fire Testing Methods
Figure 2.1: The picture of Cone Calorimeter (Cone2)
Figure 2.2: The schematic configuration of the Cone Calorimeter
Figure 2.3: Cone heater (Cone2)
Figure 2.4: Horizontal orientation (Cone2)
Figure 2.5: Vertical orientation (Cone2)
Figure 2.6: Gas analyzer instrumentation (Cone2)
Figure 2.7: The surface test apparatus
Figure 2.8: The furnace of surface test
Figure 2.9: The average heat flux value of surface test [14]
Figure 2.10: The smoke accumulation box
Figure 2.11: Optical density-measuring system of surface test
Figure 2.12: Results and specification of surface test
Figure 2.13: An elementary material test apparatus
Figure 2.14: SBI test
Figure 2.15: Schematic picture of SBI
Figure 2.16: Trolley of SBI
Figure 2.17: Gas Control Box and Gas Analysis Rack of SBI
Figure 2.18: Exhaust hood and Ring of SBI
Figure 2.19: Exhaust system of SBI
Figure 3.1: HRR ± absolute uncertainty and relative uncertainty histories form cone calorimeter results [29]
Figure 3.2: Component uncertainty histories from cone calorimeter results [29]
Figure 4.1: Correlation between vertical and horizontal directions of cone calorimeter tests using HRRav_180s
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200
Cone(H)-HRRav_180s (kW/m2) CONE(V) - HRRav_180 (kW/m2 )
M12
M07 M13 M15
M14
M06 M05
y = 0.7877x + 0.4121 R2 = 0.9514
y=x
Figure 4.2: The correlation between FIGRA of cone calorimeter in vertical direction and SBI tests
Cone(V)-FIGRA(W/s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SBI-FIGRA(W/s)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
M07
M06
M05 y = 10.554x + 10.612 R2 = 0.7715
Figure 4.3: The correlation between FIGRA of cone calorimeter in
Figure 4.3: The correlation between FIGRA of cone calorimeter in