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. 37920SMOLDERING 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 1979Figure 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+ 29Reaching 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