Comparison of test protocols for the standard room/corner test

✍ Scribed by Robert H. White; Mark A. Dietenberger; Hao Tran; Ondrej Grexa; Les Richardson; Kuma Sumathipala; Marc Janssens

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1999
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 133 KB
• Volume: 23
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0308-0501
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1018(199905/06)23:3<139::aid-fam681>3.0.co;2-0

✦ Synopsis

As part of international e4orts to evaluate alternative reaction-to-5re tests, several series of room/corner tests have been conducted. Materials tested were mostly di4erent wood products but included gypsum board and a few foam plastics. This is a review of the overall results of related studies in which the di4erent test protocols for the standard room/corner test were used. Di4erences in the test protocols involved two options for the ignition burner scenario and whether or not the ceiling was also lined with the test materials. The test materials were placed on three walls of the room in all the tests. The two burner scenarios were (1) 40 kW for 300 s followed by 160 kW for 300 s and (2) 100 kW for 600 s and 300 kW for 600 s. The 40 and 160 kW burner scenario without the ceiling lined did not provide a severe enough test for 6ashover to occur with 5re-retardant-treated materials. Use of the 100 and 300 kW burner scenario without lining the ceiling provided the ability to di4erentiate between wood products with ASTM E 84 6ame spread indexes of 70 to 125 and those with higher 6ame spread indexes. Lining the ceiling with test material creates a more severe test.