0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
90 Ansichten5 Seiten
Smoldering Smoke
by Walter F Schuchard, Fire Protection Engineer
Published January 1979, NFPA 'Fire Journal'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Extract:
"The wide acceptance of the residential single-station smoke detector as a life safety device for the home has triggered a reexamination of the national test standards. . ."
Smoldering Smoke
by Walter F Schuchard, Fire Protection Engineer
Published January 1979, NFPA 'Fire Journal'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Extract:
"The wide acceptance of the residential single-station smoke detector as a life safety device for the home has triggered a reexamination of the national test standards. . ."
Smoldering Smoke
by Walter F Schuchard, Fire Protection Engineer
Published January 1979, NFPA 'Fire Journal'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Extract:
"The wide acceptance of the residential single-station smoke detector as a life safety device for the home has triggered a reexamination of the national test standards. . ."
Texas A&M University Campus Libraries
Courier
ILLiad Tw: 2686048 III
Journal Title: Fire journal
Volume: 73
Issue: 1
Article Author: Schuchard, Walter
Article Title: SMOLDERING SMOKE.
Note: Please deliver as electronic resource
not, deliver to 238 WERC, not my remote
address,
sfor2014 10:57 AM
(Please update within 24 hours)
Call #: TH9111 .F6
Location: EVANS
Not Wanted Date: 10/04/2014
Status: Distance Education
Phone: 979.575.7213
E-mail: jeffw@ tamu.edu
Name: Wischkaemper, Jeffrey
Pickup at Evans
Address:
7206 Nichols Ln
Knoxville, TN. 37920SMOLDERING
SMOKE
WALTER F. SCHUCHARD
The wide acceptance of the residential single-station
smoke detector as a life-safety device for the home has
triggered a reexamination of the national test standards
and led to several significant new requirements. Pethaps
the most important of these is the addition of a smolder-
ing smoke test requirement, since a high percentage of
fatal residential fires are of the smoldering type. The
purpose of this article is to describe briefly the new test
and its instrumentation, and to comment on its relevance
to a variety of common smoldering combustibles fire-
‘quently found in the home.
Smoldering smoke from a lighted cigarette in up-
holstered furniture offers the smoke detector its finest
opportunity to provide a life-saving early warning. But
what is smoke? What are its significant characteristics,
how are they measured, and how are these meas-
urements utilized in the development of performance
standards?
The characteristics of smoke depend upon many’ fac-
tors, including, but not limited to, the combustible
materials involved, the availability of oxygen, ait move-
ments, the distance between the fire source and the
point of measurement, temperature, carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide content, other gases, and particles of
various concentrations and size.
NFPA standards now define smoke as “the visible or
invisible particles of combustion.” UL 217, Standard for
Safety for Single- and Multiple-Station Smoke Detectors,
reflects this definition and requires two measurements,
the second of which is new to UL standards
1. A measurement of optical density by measuring the
mission loss in a five-foot-long light beam (Visible
Smoke”); and
ee ee
Mr. Schuchard, a fire protection engineer, is Vice-President for
Industry Affairs at Electro Signal Lab, Inc, Rockland, Mass.
FIRE JOURNAL — JANUARY 1979Figure 1. UL 217 smoldering smoke test pro
2A measurement of particle concentration by the
use of a Measuring Ionization Chamber (MIC) (“Invisi-
ble Smoke”)
‘The MIC, which is supplied with a mixture of smoke
and air drawn from the test room, is a precision instru-
ment calibrated against a primary standard maintained
in the Danish Research Center for Applied Electronics,
Elektronikcentralen,” It is responsive to particles
whose size is 0.3 microns or less.
So that reproducible test results may be obtained, UL
217 specifies the smoke-producing combustible, the
hot-plate heat source temperature/time profile, the test
room dimensions, and the ambient conditions. Fur-
thermore, there are three extremely important re-
quirements:
1. The smoke buildup as measured by the light beam
must be within the limits of the two profiles illustrated
by Figure 1
2. The relationship between the light beam meas-
urement and the MIC measurement must lie between
the limit lines shown on Figure 2
These limits were empirically established by the re-
cording of MIC ys obscuration values during the burning
of a cotton mattress in the UL smoke test room.)
3. Detectors must respond before the smoke obscura:
tion exceeds Tf.
Because photoelectric detectors are responsive to val
ues of obscuration (the vertical axis of Figure 2) and
Fs to MIC values (the horizontal axis),
the plots of the smoke produced by any smoldering
combustible that illustrate smoke buildup vs time and
smoke buildup vs the MIC measurement should provide
an insight of the response capability of the detectors
being tested,
In order to evaluate the new relationship between
MIC ind Optisl Density mesueneats ae nee
ionization detec
2+ FIRE JOURNAL — JANUARY 1979
characterizing smoke generated from common house. |
hold conbustibles, and to relate the findings to currently
listed detectors, tests were performed in a sealed room
measuring 12 feet by 11 feet with an 8-foot ceiling, to
simulate a small bedroom. Materials burned included
Douglas fr, a8 originally proposed, and white pine, «
later adopted in UL 217, as well as common household
throw pillows consisting of 65 percent polyester, 35 per
cent Dacron and 4 percent cotton, and a standard
urethane mattress with synthetic cotton covering
Smoke Obscuration and MIC values were recorded on
the ceiling in close proximity to the detectors under test.
A discussion of the results follows.
UL SMOKE BOX TEST
Prior to the series of room tests described earlier, a
total of 12 detectors were carefully checked for their
response in a UL smoke box, with smoke from a cotton
‘wick and with smoke generation rates in accordance with
the UL procedure. Smoke box sensitivity for each detec.
toris recorded in Table A. A plot of typical smoke obscu:
ration vs MIC during a UL smoke box test is shown in
Figure 4
twill be noted from a review of the Table and Figure
4, that response in the smoke box was obtained from all
detectors below the UL percent limit ranging from 08
percent to 4 percent, with MIC values from 65 to 30.
SMOLDERING WOOD TESTS
Figure 3 includes plots of the alarm points of ioniza-
tion and photoelectric detectors when exposed to smoke
generated by white pine and Douglas fir in accordance
with the prescribed optical density buildup rates. As will
be observed from the data, the response of ion detectors
Figure 2. Obscuration vs MIC measurement.‘Table A. Alarm Points
Smoke
Box Test #54
Type Sensitivity Douglas Fir
1 11s (AP not
recorded)
1 1.78%/f 15.6%f
P 1.68%b/fe 0.85%
I 0.85% 7.7%
1 — 10.764/
1 3.T%IR. 18.0%/8.
Pp L5ab/R. Leese
1 L396 LL 2st
ft = 18.9%
I 4.0% NA
P L23%/f 2.2%
I = 7.2%
degaded approximately 50 percent in terms of optical
density between white pine and Douglas fir, while
photoelectric response remained substantially
changed. An explanation for this relative performance is
contained in Figure 4, which plots the MIC vs optical
density output during the test.
review of Figure 4 will show that the white pine test
ret the MIC Optical Density requirements of UL 217
fn the fist 45 minutes of the test, whereas an identical
um of Douglas fir caused the MIC/Obse
‘qirement to be exceeded in approximately ten minutes.
lecause photoelectric detector response is primarily re-
luted to smoke obscuration and ionization detector
sponse is primarily dependent upon the presence of
wubmicron particles as measured by the MIC for
re the expected relative performance of each in
"ms of time and optical density is supported by the
= pptical density is supported by
ation re-
MATTRESS AND PILLOW TESTS.
es he tests of common household synthetic pillows
mattresses, smoldering ignition was initiated with a
it bulb. Once started, be smoldering was self
pa Both synthetic materials produced smoke out
OF the prescribed UL 217 smoke buildup rates, as there
Wete-no external controls being used. As shown in Fig-
we, the mattress delivered a fairly constant buildup
a, os? "foot cbscuration in 80 minotes The
Pein 0st obscuration ta 18 ines.
oe the alarm points from Table A and as
tet pt Figure 3 reveals that in the synthetic fabric
all photoelectric det
Percent and 6.8 pe
lon detector alarme
tors alarmed between 0.5
cent obscuration per foot. The first
ed at 12.1 percent, and several never
(Continued on page 73)
Test #18D Test #168
Test #UB Urethane Polyester
White Pine Mattress Pillow
74m 21.646 26.S%/t
10.4% NA 26.8
1.204 0.5% Lowi
6.24. 20,088 NA
10.650 NA NA
9.66 NA 28.4%6/R
Lae 3.6% 2. 8eft
8.9% 20.0% 21.8%
1.0% NA 33.0%
NA NA NA
1496/8, 6.5/8, 6.86
45% 18.8% 12.15
FIRE JOURNAL — JANUARY 1979+ 29Reaching the Public (continued from page 11)
Fire Prevention Week and Spring Clean-Up, for in-
stance, accur at times when homeowners may be making
repairs on their dwellings. Fire departments could de-
velop a special promotion at those times, stressing the
value and ease of including firesafety projects (such as
designing a fire-escape plan) as part of one’s home im-
provement plans.
Fire departments could also echo the book's firesafety
messages on radio or television talk shows, or in a news-
Smoldering Smoke (continued from page 29)
«lid alarm prior to termination of tests. Smoke densities
went as high as 36 percent and 21.7 percent obse
per foot for the pillow and n
cxplanation for this performance is contained in Figure
4. where a review of MIC values indicated that the pre-
scribed MICiOptical Density values of UL 217 were not
‘maintained because of an excess of optical density and a
scarcity of MIC, from 6 to 12 minutes after ignition,
paper column. The book might be a welcome resource
for home and gurden editors, or for consumer reporters
\who must field readers’ questions on home safety and on
fire protection devices, such as smoke detectors
Livba Gay BLANC
NEPA Public Affairs Staff
the data presented suggests the need for an additional
smoldering test simulating typical smoldering synthet-
ies. The Obscuration/MIC relationship for such a test
should be changed to reflect the lower small particle
content observed in the mattress and pillow tests. Sine
the minimum small particle content (MIC) was approxi-
ately 87 at 7%ifoot obscuration, a MIC value of 80 with,
a+ T tolerance at 7%foot obscuration is suggested
to be representative of smoke from smoldering fires with
minimum small particle content. Response to such a test
would give good assurance of response eapability to the
full spectrum of smolde a
CONCLUSIONS
While the smoldering test in UL 217 is a desirable test
and instrumented and structured to be quite repeatable, ng fires, a
‘The following equivalents can be used by readers who wish to
convert the US meastitementsnsed in thistssue of FIRE JOURNAL 19
the International System of unit measurement
(One square inch (in8) = 645.160 square millimetres (mim
‘One squate foot (2) = 0.0829 square metres (n#
(Ome square yard (ye?) = 0-836 square metres (m4)
‘One pound per eubic fot (#3) = 16.018 kilograms per cubic
etre (hgim®)
One pound per gallon (Ibgal) = 119.827 kilograms per cubve
metre bgin®)
ene
One ineh (in) = 25.400 millimetres (om)
One inch (in) = 2.540 centimetres (rm)
One fot (R) = 0.305 metres (im)
‘One mile = 1.609 kilometres (km)
One gallon (gal) = 3.785 ites ()
One quart (48) = 0.946 litres (
(One cubic fot (f2) = 0.0283 cubic metres (im?)
Water Deny ad Flow Hate
One gallon per minute (gpm) = 3.785 lites per
One gallon per minute _ 40.746 lites per minute
per square fot (gpmif)—~ per square metre (liin.m)
inate (Vein)
FIRE JOURNAL — JANUARY 1979