Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 45
Fire Tests and Hazard Evaluation
lames G. Quintiere*
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this paper is to discuss the process of using fire tests to evaluate the
potential fire hazard of materials and products. The accuracy of this process bears on the
integrity of fire-safety practices and on fairness in the marketplace. The evaluation process must
be consistent with the fire scenario of concern. Consideration needs to be given to the
configuration of the product or material, the configuration of its environment, and the elements
at risk. This paper emphasizes the hazards associated with the combustion of materials and
products and, in particular, "flammability" testing.
Flammability tests have traditionally been stylized tests that give measurable impressions
of the fire growth process on a material or product. Generally, they lead to rankings and class
categories for materials that control their use through regulations. These methods lack
universality and tend to differ from one region to another. They have provided an empirical
basis for fire-safety regulation that is generally acceptable. However, periodically they are
surprised by new products or their applications, and the safety measure they sought is
unsuccessful. Moreover, these test results and data do not provide any basis for engineering
analysis. Indeed, their basis is only weakly supported by scientific principles at best.
Scientific methods have been developed in the field of hire that offer some alternative to
the traditional approach to flammability. This approach is based on material fire property data
and on scientific calculations. Unfortunately, fire scenarios are complex and our knowledge is
too immature to provide a complete basis for this approach. However, its continued evolution
and its technical merits make it an attractive alternative to the current state of material
flammability testing.
In general, the process of evaluating the fire safety of materials and products should
maintain the following attributes:
material and product representation
scenario representation,
· scientific foundation, and
sensitivity to scenario variables.
1,
The last attribute is introduced because fire growth tends to be exponential in character, and
changes in scenario variables can lead to significant differences in fire growth. This form of
surprise is unacceptable.
Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park.
45
OCR for page 46
46
Improved Fire- aru] Smoke-Resistant Materials
This paper addresses the status of material fire-hazard assessment, the factors that need
to be considered, and the status of scientific understanding.
HAZARDS DUE TO FIRE
Hazards due to fire depend on the elements at risk. These elements might include
people, goods or equipment, and the global environment. Hazards to people consist of the
following:
I. thermal hazards due to temperature, which may cause burns;
2. obscuration due to smoke, which may cause loss of sight; and
3. toxicity due to products of combustion, which may cause biological dysfunctions.
Hazards to goods or equipment may be thermal destruction, fouling, or corrosivity. Hazards to
the environment may be considered as chemical or thermal pollution effects. The tolerance to
each hazard must be quantitatively known and assessed against appropriate measures of hazard
from the fire test of a material. In this paper, the relationship is examined principally for the fire
hazards associated with people.
MEASURES OF HAZARD
quantities:
The measures of fire hazard associated with people are represented by the following
temperature (7),
combustion product concentration (X3, and
smoke visibility (Lv).
Time exposures to temperature and gas concentrations give an extent of damage and hazard.
Vanous relationships exist to make these assessments. For example, according to Purser (1988)
lethal conditions for a person engaged in light activity from exposure to carbon monoxide (CO)
are approximately given by
XcO(ppm) liming = 0.72 x 10s
where t is the exposure time. (Note: 1,000 ppm = 0. ~ % .) Visibility influences time to escape
the effects of the fire.
OCR for page 47
James G. Quiraiere
47
The measures of hazards (Ti, Xi, Lv) are "intensive" variables of the fire that vary
spatially and in time. They primarily depend on the fire growth or burning rate (id) and on the
material properties. In addition to flow and geometric conditions, these functional relationships
can be represented as
T = f~(ffl AHc)
Xi = ((ffl~y) and
LV = fv(ffl Dm)
(2a,
(2b)
(2c)
where the burning rate is multiplied by the material properties: AHc, the heat of combustion, Xi,
the yield of combustion product i per mass of matenal; and Dm, the mass optical density of the
material. The mass optical density is basically the attenuation coefficient (of') divided by the
decomposed mass per unit volume of combustion products (g/nI; see Quintiere, 19921. The main
point of Equation 2 is that the "extensive" fire variable, A, and the material properties control
the hazard variables, T. Xi and, Lv. These material properties are measurable and have been
extensively documented by Tewarson (1988) and others. They form a basis for the computation
of the hazard variables provided m can be determined.
As an example, some typical values for these material properties are listed in Table 1 for
generic materials. These are based on data from Tewarson (1988) and a study on furniture
flammabiliyv that utilized such data (Quintiere, 1990). These properties can change significantly
~ , ~ *~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ me, ~ ~ ~ a, ~ e
as the fire conditions become fuel-rich. This is the 'tventilat~on-um~ted'' concision In a
compartment fire when less than stoichiometric air is supplied. For example, taco can attain 0. 14
for wood under these conditions (Tewarson, 1988~. Also, under fuel-rich conditions, incomplete
combustion will cause greater yields of soot and intermediate hydrocarbon species. Thus, D,,,
would increase and AHc may decrease. Under ventilation-limited conditions, the resulting fire
hazards may be more attributable to the fire conditions than to the fire growth on the product
or material that promoted the fire condition. For this reason, the phenomenon of "flashover" in
compartment fires needs to be considered as a distinct hazard event that can result in a
ventilation-limited fire state.
TABLE 1 Typical Material Properties
Material AHc()JIg) ~Yco(glg) Dm(m2lg)
Wood 12 0.004 0.04
Plastic 27 0.06 0.3
Fire Retarded 7 0.05 0.3
OCR for page 48
i: g | ~ ~) ~ /1 e'
a . e 8 e a 8 . - a x
8 s t ' F a a . 8 g
OXYGEN (A) e S e F ~ s t 8 5 8 F
s 8 a a a a a a a . e F 5 o 8
~~ 3 8 . t ~ e ~ a a ~
~ ,;e ~ an ,1 an For ~ a B ~ 5 ~
,-' \ \ 5 e 8 ~ D 5 5 e 8
a 8(8 SatFi82@F g F
F 8 8 8 . ~,~a t 5,; Fs ~'3 a
HCN(wm, n ~ e S , , g
~ t F -.~, a 8 . F 8 s 8
OCR for page 49
lames G. Quimiere
49
reach the ceiling, more-significant compartment heating occurs. At this point, the fire is still well
ventilated, and the equivalence ratio (I; i.e., the ratio of fuel to air supply relative to
stoichiome~ic fuel to air) is estimated in Figure 2 as 0. I. Smoke obscuration can be a problem
during this stage, but carbon monoxide would not be a serious concern according to Equation
1.
Well-ventilated fires (¢ = 0.1, 10 Ames stoichiometric air)
, - .
_ ~ . . ~ . ~ , ,, ~ i.
~ ~N AN ~ Flame up at ceiling, Q ~ 600 kW
8 it bitt x ~ Lv X" ~ tOO to 3000 ppm
Lv~O.t to2.5m
Initiation of flashover in a ~ Ox] OX fI. high room
with a 3.2 x 6.4 ft. doorway (t = 0.33)
Q ~ 1 000 kW
Xco ~ 300 to 30,000 ppm
·v ~0.03to O.7m
Ventilation limited fire following flashover (¢ ~ ~ less than
or equal to stoichiomeiric mr)
Q ~ 4500 kW
XcO ~ 20,000 to 70,000 ppm
Ev ~ 0.001 to O.i m
FIGURE 2 Range of possible conditions in a typical residential room fire (Quintiere, 1990~.
Onset of Flashover
The initiation of flashover was assumed at a compartment gas temperature rise of
500 °C. At this point, the fire is still well ventilated with three times stoichiometric air. From
hazard estimates, it can be seen that some materials can pose serious hazard conditions, but the
occurrence of flashover would make conditions much worse. Thus, flashover also marks a
OCR for page 50
Sr~
Improved Fire- aru] Smoke-Resistant Materials
transition from a fire state that is controlled by material fire growth to a state of elevated
temperature in which many more materials and products contribute.
Ventiiation-Limited Fire
For typical residential rooms, the contents and ventilation openings usually lead to the
ven~cilation-limited fire state following flashover. Most combustible contents become involved,
and the incomplete combustion state in the room leads to flame extensions to the surroundings
and to greater burning rates and yields of soot and toxic products, such as carbon monoxide.
THE DEVELOPING FORE ON MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS
The evaluation of the fire hazard due to materials and products must depend on the fire
scenario. The role of the regulator and the engineer is to define the scenario at issue. In most
regulatory applications, the concern is the early development of a fire on a material or product
due to a plausible ignition source. This process would comprise the developing stage of the fire
and would principally be a result of the material properties. Whether flashover is considered as
the critical condition for hazard, or tolerance levels associated with the variables T. Xi, and [v,
a primary measure of hazard is the burning rate, m, Equation 2. Moreover, if the thermal hazard
is perceived as the most significant hazard during this period, then the energy release rate, mAHc
is the key hazard indicator. This is the underlying premise for most "flammability" tests for
materials and products. However, the concept of flammability is complex, being composed of
several distinct processes.
FLAMMABILITY COMPONENTS
Material flammability is defined as the process of fire growth on the material due to
ignition and the resulting release of energy. It is composed of the following processes:
I. ignition,
2. flame spread, and
3. burning rate.
Mathematically, this can be represented by the energy release rate following an ignition
challenge:
~ = m AHc and
m = m"A
(3)
(4)
OCR for page 51
James G. Quintiere
51
where me is the burning rate per unit area, and A is the area involved due to flame spread. Each
of these components are distinct phenomena that do not necessarily depend on the same factors.
Dependent Factors
The components that represent flammability can be examined further in view of the state
of current knowledge in order to describe their significant dependent factors. More-deta~led
descriptions can be found in the literature on fire growth (e.g., Quintiere, 19921. Here, the more
important factors are qualitatively listed below.
Ignition
Flame Spread
Burning Rate
Time to ignite depends on:
I. ignition temperature,
2. thermal properties, and
3. ignition heat flux.
Lateral or horizontal flame-spread rate depends on:
I. ignition temperature,
2. thermal properties, and
3. flame heat flux.
Upward or ceiling flame-spread rate depends on:
I. ignition temperature,
2. thermal properties,
3. flame heat flux, and
4. flame length (which is dependent or energy release rate).
Burning rate per unit area depends on:
I. thermal and decomposition properties,
2. flame heat flux, and
3. time.
OCR for page 52
52
Improved Fire- aM Smoke-Resistant Materials
In examining these factors, it is seen that some are identical. Flame heat flux that depends on
orientation is a factor of considerable prominence and is not necessarily the same for each
flammability component. Time is a factor in all cases' with upward flame-spread rate possibly
~ . . ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , e ~ ~ ~ ~ e ,~ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ · , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~1_ _
being exponential in time. Time Is explicitly listed under burning rate to symbolize that the
process is not steady and that the burning time is a significant factor in flammability. It is
probably seen more clearly from these dependent factors that these components of flammability
are independent although they are integrated in the process of fire growth. Any attempt to
evaluate the flammability hard from these components, or from stylized test methods, must
be consistent with the fire scenario of concern, or there will be differences in the perception of
hazard.
FLAMMABILITY HAZARD CLASSIFICATION
Wall and ceiling products for building construction have been extensively regulated with
respect to fire safety. Many flammability test methods address this situation. Due to lack of
confidence in such tests and as a basis of validation, full-scale standard room tests have been
developed for these configurations. Several "room-corner tests" exist with venous corner ignition
procedures. For example, the International Standards Organization pSO) Room-Corner Test
subjects the wall and ceiling material to an ignition source of 100 kW for 10 minutes followed
by 300 kW for additional 10 minutes if flashover (1,000 kW) has not yet been reached.
Extensive tests of materials in the ISO scenario have been described by Sundstrom (1986) and
Soderbom (19911. Additional data, for these same materials, have been taken in European
national tests and in new tests such as the Cone Calorimeter. These data have provided a basis
for analysis and evaluation of methodologies. Many of these studies have contributed to the
process of selecting a unified flammability test for the European Community. That process has
not yet been successful and has identified the deficiencies with the current national tests. The
lack of harmony represents the general status of identifying a universal flammability hazard
methodology for this important problem.
Classification by Traditional Tests
An example of the status of national test methods to rank the performance of wall and
ceiling materials in the ISO Room-Corner Test is shown in Figure 3. These results are based on
a compilation by Sundstrom and Goransson (19881. They classify the performance in the ISO
Room-Corner Test for 13 materials according to the time to flashover or energy release rate into
five classes plus an unclassified category (UC) for the worst materials. Results from the national
Bests of England (0-4), Germany (Al, 2, Bl-3), France (MI-M4), Holland (~-4), and Sweden
(~-~IT, UC) were also included. To present those results in a unified graph, only four classes
were considered for each classification system. The ISO Room-Corner Test is represented as no
flashover in Class I, and decreasing flashover times with the most rapid flashover ~ ~ ~ min) in
Class 4. National tests with five categories were classed into four, for example, England 0 =
Class I, and Germany Al and A2 = Class I.
OCR for page 53
James G. Quintiere
4.0
c
a
._
-
·O (~,
..
In
u'
-
_ ~
ce 0
.o
_ ~
z ~
53
3.0
._-E
~ ~,
_
_ . ~
. Lit L ~ LO
~3 ~
0.0
o.o 1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
ISO Room-Corner Test Classification
based on flashover time
EI England
Germany
France
Holland
- Sweden
FIGURE 3 Comparison of the ISO Room-Corner Test with the National Test Classifications (Sundstrom and
Goransson, 1988).
The results of these comparisons show that over one-third of the results are not
consistent. This lack of agreement among standard national test methods, intending to measure
the flammability of a material, is well known. By examining the materials and the results, it can
be observed that low density materials fall into Class 4, wood products fall into Class 3, thin
wall coverings fall into Class 2, and plasterboard is in Class I. These are almost intuitively
acceptable, but the materials and products that are not consistent raise many questions. The
reasons probably vary and cannot easily be explained. But these reasons are significant to the
lack of consistency and understanding between the test and the full-scale scenario.
Evaluation by Scientific Methods
Analyses of the ISO Room-Corner Test series (Sundstrom, 1986; Soderbom, 1991) by
Karisson (1992), Quintiere (1992), Wickstrom and Goransson (1992), and Quintiere et al. (1993)
have produced theoretical methods to predict the full-scale results from material data from such
tests as the Cone Calorimeter. These analyses provide a basis to quantitatively evaluate the
hazard in terms of flashover and energy release rate. They provide an alternative classification
method.
OCR for page 54
OCR for page 56
OCR for page 57
OCR for page 58
OCR for page 59
OCR for page 60
Representative terms from entire chapter:
burning rate
54
Imp roved Fire- aM Smoke-Resistant Materials
To illustrate this type of result, an empirical correlation, which was motivated by a more
complete theoretical simulation (Quintiere, 1992; Quintiere et al., 1993), is presented. This gives
an explicit formulation for flashover time in terms of components of the fire growth process
significant for the ISO Room-Corner Test. The empirical correlation is presented as the
dimensionless time to flashover:
too /tis = pb)
(5)
where b = 0.01 Q" - 1 - ti':ltb. Q" is the energy release rate per unit area (kW/m2) evaluated at
an incident flux of 60 kW/m2 indicative of the ignition heat flux in the ISO test, ti' is the time
to ignite at 30 kW/m2 indicative of the heat flux for wall spread, and to is the burning time.
These quantities can be computed from material property data deduced from the Cone
Calorimeter.
The correlation results are shown for the ISO Room-Corner Test series (Sundstrom,
1986; Soderbom, 1991) in Figures 4a and 4b. Materials from a portion of that series make up
Figure 3. Figure 4a shows the results in terms of the flashover time, and Figure 4b shows the
results for the dimensionless time. Theory suggests flame spread accelerates for b ~ O and decays
for b
James G. Quin~iere
DO, of
°§b
~.~
~oo
~ ~400
E 0
In
~ E
0
~ 0
0 a:
~ 0 200
cn
O
- 6 - 4
o
o
~0 ' O
O O 0 0
, · , · , c, ,
, . 1
-2 0 2 4 6
Dimensionless Correlation Parameter, b
FIGURE 4a Correlation of flashover times in the ISO Room-Corner Test (Quintiere et al., 1993~.
2Q
10
o" _
_ ~_
~. ~
-
-
o
LL
_
E
i~
o
a'
-
0e
~n
~:
o
-
-
o
o
0
o
o4O9O9Oo ° o
- 6 - 4
-2 0 ,2 4 6
Dimensionless Correlation Parameter, b
FIGURE 4b Dimensionless correlation for flashover in the ISO Room-Corner Test (Quintiere et al., 1993~.
55
56
0 15
30 45
External Flllx (kW/m^2)
FIGURE 5 Effect of heat flux on the time to ignite (Rhodes, 1994~.
Improved Fire- aru] Smoke-Resistant Materials
350
300
250
200
o
=
·_
o
150
100
50
I ~ .\
1 2 3
1 1
' W~
O Ills
NISI. Standard Cone [8]
lbompsm and Drysdale
Milckola and Wichman t23l
T(ig) = 25O C
Wig) = 300 C
\ \ trig) = 350 C
_L, ~ ~
, . . .
60 75
Figure 6 shows how the steady mass-Ioss rate per unit area differs for various PMMA
materials under external radiant heat fluxes for flaming and nonflaming cases (Rhodes, 19941.
These results show an increase in burning rate due to flame heat flux, which in general depends
on the burning configuration. They also show that different PMMA materials do not have the
same vaporization response to heat flux (or that their heats of gasification differ).
Figure 7 shows results using various apparatuses and sample holder procedures to
measure the peak energy release rate per unit area for polystyrene and thermoses foam materials
(Clearv and Ouintiere. 19911. These are small-scale tests (aDDroximatelv 10 cm x 10 cm) that
~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
display serious sample holder effects for the polystyrene samples, as well as other issues of
reproducibility. The results are not necessarily indicative of all materials but do dramatize the
issues of reproducibility and small-scale sample edge effects.
The heat flux in the test method must be consistent with that in the fire scenario, or a
methodology must exist to make the relationships. In some test methods, ignition is measured
under an external radiant heat flux but with a contacting pilot flame of unknown heat flux. Such
results can not be quantitatively useful and have no basis for comparison. Yet, a contacting pilot
might be essential in some cases to ensure ignition under the conditions of that test method.
Finally, it should be realized that, in general, the heat flux received by the material is composed
of both the flame heat flux and the external radiant heat flux. This can be inferred from Figure
6 for the Cone Calorimeter, where it has been found that the flame heat flux for PMMA remains
approximately constant at 37 kW/m2 for a wide range of irradiance levels.
James G. Quintiere
40 ~
^ 30
Ice
E
-
a
_1
cat
20 ~
10 ~
O" .
O Pat (amigo
NISTCale(Bam~g)
Jacked (N2) 125]
Vavelle (~) - ~re~cal [151
0 ~qra (N2) 1141
Tc~on and Pim [241
(naming)
.
,~'
Clear~'~ f~
~' ~
_
~Mnfct Cast
20
B lack'8'
=/~
5'
40
c,. ~
o'
o/
/ White
E'cternal Flux (kW/m^2)
FIGURE 6 Effect of heat flux on burning rate (Rhodes, 1994~.
~ooo
E
-
~:
' 1 0 0
1 0
57
60
O O O . ~
· · THERMOSET
° 0 0
· ~0 0
· · ~0
PS
O Nl8T CONE HEIGHT ADJU8TED o O
o Nl8T CONE CAL.
~Nl8T CONE WIEDGE FRAIIdE
· flU APPARATU8
· UL CONE CAL
~, , , .
0 1 2 3 4 5
Material
~7 8 ~10
80
FIGURE 7 Lack of reproducibility in energy release rate for polystyrene and thermoses foams at 50 kW/m2
irradiance (Clearly and Quintiere, 1991~.
58
Improved Fire- arm Smok;e-Resistara Materials
Heat Flux In Fire Scenarios
The ignition source in a fire scenario sets the initial heat flux and may even control the
heat flux during early flame spread to flashover. The flame configuration after ignition will
follow the configuration of the ignition source. Several recent reviews and studies (Kokkala et
al., 1992; Back et al., 1994; Quintiere and Cleary, 1994) indicate the range of wall heat flux
using square burners against walls and in corners. For square burners, the maximum flame heat
flux is principally dependent on the energy release rate and roughly ranges from 40 to 120
kW/m2 for 50 to 500 kW. The ISO Room-Corner Test burner appears to have a nominal
maximum heat flux of 60 kW/m2. Wall flames appear to have a maximum heat flux of 30
kW/m2. Window flames appear to have heat fluxes as high as 200 kW/m2 to facades. Tt should
be clear that scenario heat fluxes vary significantly, and that hazard evaluations must match these
heat flux conditions.
TESTING STRATEGIES
A valid testing strategy for hazard evaluation must have
integrity with the scenario,
integrity with the fire processes, and
integrity with the hard measure.
Products and materials must be Bested at a sufficient size and configuration to be representative
of the scenario, or analytical methods must exist to make predictions. The scenario must be
examined to understand its parameters, and scenario testing must be done to establish these
parameters and validation points. The strategy needs to be support by scientific analysis as
much as possible, and insupportable empirical approaches are not acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS
Fire-hazard analyses for materials and products must be supported by the state of fire
science. They need to be consistent with the scenario and representative of the material
properties. Regulators and engineers must work together to ensure consistency between the
hazard measures, the test method, and the scenario.
Measures of hazard relate to material properties and the burning rate. The burning rate
or energy release rate is a reflection of "flammability," which includes ignition, flame spread,
and the burning rate per unit area. These components are inclependent and depend on a distinct
set of material properties and heat flux. It is the heat flux experienced by the material in a test
and in a scenario that must be consistently considered. Current flammability tests are deficient
since they do not provide a basis for analysis and do not necessarily correlate. Scientific
approaches provide more generality but may be incomplete.
James G. Quintiere
59
REFERENCES
Back, G., C. Beyler, P. DiNenno, and P. Tatem. 1994. Wall Incident Heat Flux Distributions
Resulting from an Adjacent Fire. Presented at the Fourth Symposium on Fire Safety
Science, Ottawa.
Belles, D.W. 1985. Full-scale smoke toxicity tests in furnished rooms. Fire Journal
79~2~:35-37, 40-41, 83-85.
Clearv T G. .
I, _ , and J.G. Quintiere. 1991. Flammability Characterization of Plastics. NISTIR
4664. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Karlsson, B. 1992. Modeling Fire Growth on Combustible Lining Materials in Enclosures.
Report TUBB-1009. Department of Fire Safety Engineering. Lund, Sweden: Lund
University.
Ko~cala, M., U. Goransson, and I. Soderbom. 1992. Five ~rge-Scale Room Fire Experiments.
VTT Publication 104. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Center of Finland.
Purser, D.A. 1988. Toxicity assessment of combustion products. Pp 200-245 in The SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Quincy, Massachusetts: The National Fire
Protection Association Press.
Quintiere, I.G. 1990. Furniture Flammability: An Investigation of the California Technical
Bulletin 133 Test. Part 1: Measuring the Hazards of Furniture Fires. NISTIR 4360.
Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Quintiere, I.G. 1992. A simulation model for fire growth on materials subject to a room-corner
test. Fire Safety Journal 20:313-339.
Quintiere, I.G., and T.G. Cleary. 1994. Heat flux from flames to vertical surfaces. Fire
Technology 30~2~:209-231.
Quintiere, I.G., G. Haynes, and B.T. Rhodes. 1993. Applications of a model to predict flame
spread over interior finish materials in a compartment. Pp. 207-224 in International
Conference for the Promotion of Advanced Fire Resistant Aircraft Interior Materials.
Atlantic City, New Jersey: Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center.
Rhodes, B. 1994. Burning Rate and Flame Heat Flux for PMMA in the Cone Calorimeter.
Master of Science Thesis, Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of
Maryland, College Park.
Soderbom, I. 1991. EURIFIC ~rge-Scale Tests According to ISO DIS 9705. SP Report.
1991:27. Boras, Sweden: Swedish National Testing Institute.
Sundstrom, B. 1986. Full-Scale Fire Testing of Surface Materials. Technical Report SP-RAPP
1986:45. Boras, Sweden: Swedish National Testing Institute.
Sundstrom, B., and U. Goransson. 1988. Possible Fire Classification Criteria and Their
Implications for Surface Materials Tested in Full Scale According to ISO DP 9705 or NT
FIRE 025. SP Report 1988:19. Boras, Sweden: Swedish National Testing Institute.
Tewarson, A. 1988. Generation of heat and chemical compounds in fire. Pp 179-199 in The
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Quincy, Massachusetts: The National
Fire Protection Association Press.
Wickstrom, U., and U. Goransson. 1992. Full-scale/bench-scale correlations of wall and ceiling
linings. Fire and Materials 16: 15-22.
