Concept for Fire Protection Rail Station

.‘ FtRE AND MATERIALS, VOL 19,71-87 (1995)

-.

. Concepts for Fire Protection of Passenger RaiITransportation Vehicles Past, Present, and Future*

Richard D. Peacock, Paul .4. Reneke, Walter W. Jonq Richard W. BukowskiBuildingand Fire ResearchLaboratory, NIST. Gaithersbur& MD 20899, USA

Vytenia BabrauakasFire Seienee and Technology, In& USA

Recent advances in passenger rail trasssportatiom fire test method%and hazard analysis necessitate r=xamination ofreqrrirements for fire safety. Several studies have indicated nearly random ability of current beneh-scale tests toprediit actual fire behavior. Fire safety in any appffcatiom including transportation, requires a muiti-facetedapproach. ~ effects of vehiile desigm rmsteriai seieetk detection and suppression system% and emergency w-and their interaction on the overail fire safety of the passenger trains must ail be considered. The strengths andweaknesses of current methods for measuring the fire performance of raii transportation systems are evaiuated.A systems approach to fire safety which addresses typicai passenger train fire scenarios is anaiyzed. A rationaie ispresented for the direerion in which most fire seienc~riented organizations in the worid are ciearly headed - the useof fire hazard and fire risk assessment methods supported by measurement methods based on heat reiease rate.

INTRODUCTION

New alternative technologies have been developed whichcan be used to increase intercity passenger train operat-ing speeds. These technologies inciude steel-wheel-on-railand magnetic levitation (magiev) systems. Fire safety isan area of particular interest for these technologies. aswell as for conventional intercity and commuter trains.Whiie the historical fire record has been very good withfew serious passenger train fires, minor incidents haveoccurred which couid have developed into potential life-threatening events.

Recent advances in fire test methods and hazard analy-sis techniques necessitate re-examination of fire safetyrequirements for passenger trains. Severai studies haveindicated almost random ability of current bench-scalemateriais tests to predict fire safety in actual use. Firesafety in any application, including transportation svs-tems. requires a multi-faceted systems approach. Theeffects of vehicle design. material selection, detection andsuppression systems. and emergency egress and theirinteraction. on the overali fire safety of the passengertrains must ail be considered.

The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, Section~oz(e), gives the Federai Raiiroad Administration {FRA )

jurisdiction over “all forms of non-highway ground trans-portation that run on rails or electromagnetic guideways.including. . . any high-speed ground transportation sys-tems that connect metropolitan areas . ‘. This author-ity thus covers conventional raiI as well as new techno-logy applications.

To address US passenger train fire safety, the FRA hasissued guidelines for the flammability and smoke emis-sion characteristics for materiais used in passenger railequipment.: These evolved from earlier versions.2” 3 Theguidelines are similar to Federal Transit Administration(FTA) recommendations for rail transit vehicies,+ but

aiso include vehicle material tests and performance cri-teria for components such as mattresses and wall cover-ings. Whiie the primary focus oi these guidelines is mater-iai fire performance. the importance of vehicle design isrecognized through requirements for separation betweenpassengers and fire sources and acceptance criteria forstructural fire testing based upon the time required forpassenger evacuation from the train.

Amtrak has issued “Specification for Flammability.Smoke Emissions and Toxicity’, Specification No. 352.for its passenger cars. s This specification describes testrequirements and criteria for tlammabiiity and smokeemission which are nearly identicai to the FRA guide-lines (with the addition of toxicity testing). In addition.the Amtrak specification requires that severai other fac-tors. (e.g. quantity of materiai present. configuration andproximity to other combustibles) be considered in combi-nation with the materiai test data to deveiop a tire-hazard assessment for use in seiecting materiais on thebasis of function. safety, and cost. Moreover. the Amtrakspecification requires testing of an assembiy to provideinformation about the actuai behavior of materiais ina ‘reai world’ vehicle tire.

The majority of the tlame spread and smoke emissiontests and performance criteria for vehicle interior mater-iais contained in the National Fire Protection Associ-ation ‘Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit System’(NFPA 130),6 intended for application to mii transitvehicies, are identicai to the FRA guidelines and theAmtrak specification. However, NFPA aiso inciudes tireprotection requirements in severai other vehicle area,such as ventilation. electrical fire safety, etc. In addition.NFPA 130 inciudes requirements for trainways (i.e. right-of-ways) and stations. as part of a systems approach.A fire risk assessment is required to evaiuate smokeemission, ease of ignition. and the rate of heat and smokerelease, in addition to tire-propagation resistance. NFPA130 indicates that a hazard load anaiysis and the use of

“This paper was prepared under the auspices of the US Government and IS therefore not subject to copyright.

Received 6 Seuremner ! 9541cceutea ! I Vmxmner i 994

72 R. D. PEACOCK ET X.

materials with appropriate properties are two meanswhich can be used to perform the fire risk assessment.NFPA 130 encourages the use of tests which evaluatematerials in certain subassemblies and the use of fuil-seale tests. Finally, NFPA 130 provides requirements forstations, trainways, vehicle storage and maintenanceare- emergency procedures. and communications.

Background

Interest in improving the fire safety of passenger trainvehicies is not new. From 1906 to 1928, the PennsylvaniaRailroad undertook an ambitious program to replacetheir wooden passenger ear fleet with all-steel passangertrain ears due to a coneem for safet y and fire prevention.’A total of 5501 all-steel passenger train ears includingbaggage, maiL express, and dining cars were invoiverLrepresenting an investment of approximately S100 roil-lion. Emphasis on passenger comfort and aesthetic ap-peal have led to the increased use of synthetic matetials.8Plastic use in rail car interiors started in the early1950s.9’0 Over the years. concern has been raised overthe flammability and impact on fire hazard of thesematerials in the end-use configuration, even though theymay be acceptable in bench-scale tests. L1

While nonmetallic materials have traditionally beenused in seat cushioning and upholstery, their use in othersystem components such as coverings for floors. wallsand ceiiin~, window glazing and window or door gasket-ing and nonstructural storage compartments have in-creased the fire load within the vehicles. In addition tothe flammability characteristics of the interior furnishingmaterials, the size and design of the vehicle are all factorsin determining the ultimate hazard to passengers andcrew as a result of a fire.

In addition to interior furnishing materials. limitedventilation and difficult egress compound the potentialfire hazard in intereity and commuter rail cars. Ventila-tion in a typical car is typica[ly 17 m3 min” 1 (60Q cfm) offresh makeup air. Exhaust is through leakage and, thusduring evacuation, through the same exits used by escap-ing passengers.

Specific requirements for the flammability of matenaisin rail transportation vehicles first appeared in 1966.9These rail ear specifications dictated ‘flame tests’ for seatfoam materials before the material use would be ap-proved for the original ,Metroliner passenger rail cars.The National Academy of Sciences 12 provided generalguidelines in 1979 for the use of flammable materials inrail transit vehicles. These guidelines recommended theuse of only those poiymenc matenais that, by testing andcomparison. are judged to be the most fire retardant andthat have the lowest smoke and toxic gas emission rates.Further, they suggest these be used sparingly, consistentwith comfort and serviceability.

Fires in passenger trains are rare, but can lead toserious disasters. The 1983 Amtrak fire in Gibson, Cali-fornia, led to two passenger deaths, two serious passengerinjuries, and numerous passenger and crew being treatedfor smoke inhalation. 13 Damage was estimated at$1190300. The National Transportation Safety Board(NTSB) report identified severai areas of concern as a re-Suit of its investigation of the fire. These included the role

of materials in fire involvement fire detection, interiorarrangement (i.e. narrow hallways, door operation),intra-train communications equipmert~ crew training inventilation control, emergency lightin~ rescue personnelemergency access, and passenger evacuation. Althoughthe materials used for the interior trim of the cars in thetrain were considered to be the best products available atthat time for fire retardancy and flammability, the use ofcertain materials was recognized as a potentially danger-ous situation requiring correction. The FRA fire safetyguidelines were issued to address the flammable materiaiconcerns raised by the NTSB. Many of the other issuesmentioned by the NTSB have been addressed by sub-sequent passenger car specifications. The recommenda-tions of the NTSB report aiso provide a starting point forthis report by pointing out important areas of concern infire safety of passenger-guided ground transportationvehicles. These areas are reflected in the organization ofthe report section’s discussing current approaches to firesafety.

Fire-related losses in rail transportation are not lim-ited to vehicles. The King’s Cross fire in the Londonsubway system ’441s demonstrated the need for fire safetyconsiderations in the design of railway stations. The tireinvolved an escalator shaft, ticket hail. along with pas-sageways leading to the streets and mainline concourseabove. As a resuit of the fire, there were 30 fatalities andnumerous injuries. New British regulations governingsub-surface railway stations are under development asa result of the fire.

Literature surveys

Preliminary to starting work on this study, prior studiesof fire safety requirements which may be applied topassenger rail transportation systems were reviewed.Rakaezkyl 6 examined the available literature on fire andflammability characteristics of materials which could beused in passenger rail transportation vehicles. With theexception of some documents published by the FT.A.limited information was available for materials that re-lated specifically to passenger raii vehicles. Much of theliterature reviewed related more to other transportationapplications (pi-imardy aircraft) than to rail transporta-tion. Key in the Rakaczky study, however, was a prevail-ing concern of many researchers of the ability of bench-scale tests in predicting real-scale burning behavior.Hathway and Litant *7 provided an assessment of thestate-of-the-art of fire safety efforts in transportationsystems in 1979. Without annotation, they provide a bib-liography of literature from 1970 to 1979. Peacock andBraunl E studied the fire behavior of Amtrak Passenger

cars for the FRA. They provide a review of materialtesting requirements and a comparison of bench- andreal-scale testing of vehicie interior materials. Recently,Schirtner Engineering Corporation studied the fire safetyof railroad tunnels and stations in New York City, in-cluding the impact of passenger trail flammability re-quirements on the fire load in tunnels and stations. 19

Of particular interest are two safety-related studiesrecently completed for the FRA. The first study by theVolpe Center presents the results ofa review to determinethe suitability of German safety requirements for applica-

PASSENGER RAIL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES 73

.tion to maglev train systems proposed for US applica-tion.20 That report provides a starting point for thereview of the systems approach to tire safety demgndiscussed in this paper. The Volpe Center report raisesa number of questions related to maglev system firesafety design. Part of the intent of this report is to addressthese questions. A second study compares intemationafsafety requirements which may be applicable to maglevsystems proposed for US operations’ and provides anovemiew of numerous areas which may be applicable tomagiev system design, including tire safety. Although thediscussion of fire testing issues and impact of different testmethodologies is minimaL the report provides a detailedreview of the overall transportation system and the inter-relationships among safety-related components of thesystem.

SYSTEMS APPROACHES TO FIRE SAFETY

Although the primary” focus of this paper is materialtesting it is important to recognize that many otherfactors can have a significant effect on overall fire safety.Fire safety for any appiicatiom including transportation+requires a muiti-faceted approach. The underlying goalsembodied in the guidelines and standards of variouscountries provide for public safety from fires. Litant2zrecognized the need for a systems approach to fire safetyin rail transportation including vehicle design, materialselection, detectio~ and suppression as components ofthe system approach.

The goafs for jire protection are universal: only themeans chosen to achieve them vary. These goals can besimpiy stated in the following list:23

(1) Prevent the fire or retard its growth and spread● Control fire properties of combustible items.● Provide adequate compartmentation.● Provide for suppression of the fire.

(2) Protect occupant; jront the jire effects● Provide timely notification of the emergency.● Protect escaoe routes.● Provide are& of refuge where necessary and pos-

sible.(3) Minimize the impact o~jre

● Provide separation by tenant. occupancy, or max-imum area.

● Maintain the structural integrity of property.● Provide for continued operation of shared proper-

ties.(4) Support jire service operations

● Provide for identification of fire location.● Provide reliable communication with areas of

refuge.● Provide for fire department access, control, com-

munication, and water supply.

To prevent the fire or retard its growth and spread,material and product performance testing is used to setlimits on the fire properties of items which represent themajor fuels in the system. Vehicle design and compart-mentation requirements along with limits on the rate offire growth perform the function of limiting fire spread.Extinguishing systems. manual or automatic, can aiso be

used to control the fire. To protect occupantsfiom thejreeflects, detection and alarm systems notify the passengersto take appropriate actions. These systems also notifydesignated employees or the public fire service to beginfire fighting operations and to assist occupants. Trainingof personnel to react appropriately to fire incidents andsystem design to facilitate passenger evacuation can playan equally important part in timely passenger evacuationand fire suppression. Structural fire endurance testing offloors and partitions provide compartmentation of thetire and are intended to minimize the impact oj the jire.OveraIf system design, personnel training extinguishingequipmen~ and communication systems support jire ser-vice operations.

This section presents the overall approaches to passen-ger train fire safety in light of these overall goals. Thesegoals are highlighted in italics to indicate the link be-tween the requirements and these goals. It wiil be seenthat although material selection plays an important role,additional areas are addressed to varying degrees in eachof the approaches which are important to the overall firesafety of the passenger train system.

United States

The majority of fire safety requirements for US passengertrains consist of material fire performance test criteriadesigned to prevent the ]re or retard its growth andspread. Based on test methods which evaluate fire proper-ties of individual materials. the FRA guidelines andsimilar requirements for other raii applications forma prescriptive set of design specifications for materialselection.

The US approach is not limited to material fire perfor-mance, however. The FRA guidelines and other require-ments include specifications for fire endurance sufficientto allow passenger evacuation. The FRA currently re-quires that each passenger car have at least four emerg-ency windows. Both of these requirements providemeasures to protect occupants from the jire eflects. Inaddition, the fire endurance requirements minimize theimpact o~jire. NFPA 1306 inciudes requirements for firedetection, emergency communication, emergency iight-ing, emergency egress, fire extinguishers, and shutdownof the vehicle ventilation system. The NFPA standardalso contains requirements for stations, train-ways. ve-hicle storage and maintenance areas, emergency proced-ures, and communications which support jire service op-erations. Fire safe design for electrical wire and cable areaddressed in both Amtrak and NFPA documents.

France

The goal of the French approach to preventing thejire orretarding its growth and spread is similar to its US coun-terparts, in that materials used in each application areaare treated individually. However, the French specifica-tion is a complex system based on several classificationindices, each derived from multiple test results. TheFrench standards then classify the materials on the per-ceived risk to occupants. The intent is to provide indiceswhich are indicative of the risk to occupants from indi-vidual materials. However, risk results from the entire

... . . ---------- . . ...4-.

system’s reaction to a fire event. Risk inherent in indi-vidual materials may be offset by other design features.Thus+ risk should be viewed for the overall system, notjust individual components of the system.

In addition to material fire performance requirements,the French approach includes perscriptive requirementsfor fire detection in engine compartments and tire extin-guishers. Fire alarm and emergency egress (via door andwindow design) provisions protect occuparrts>om thejireeflecrs. The French documents reviewed include onlyrequirements for compartmentation via fire barriers inceiling spaces to minimize the impact of fire. Minimalrequirements are included for fire endurance.

Germany

The German Federal Railways ‘Railroad Constntctionand Traffic Regulations’ (EBO) provides general safetyand operational procedures for railroad operation inGermany. 24 NO idormation is included covering firesafety. The primary German standards covering rail carfire protection are included in DIN 5510, ‘PreventiveRailway Fire Protection in Railway Vehicles’. publishedby the German Standard Institute (DIN).Z5 These stan-dards are utilized for multiple rail applications from

26 to maglev systems.streetcars ~’ The German require-ments address fire protection with more emphasis onefforts to minimize the impact o$jire than in the US orFrance. For streetcars, the older requirements for street-cars include material selection, and particularly operat-ing procedures. The more recently developed require-ments for magiev systems carries more stringent require-ments and assigns class four fire protection requirementsto magIev trains in accordance with DIN 5510. Class fouris the highest level of protection and is applied to trainsthat cannot be evacuated everywhere along the track(such as tunnels or elevated sections). The maglev speci-fication requires that the system must be designed tomaintain a safe hover long enou@ for the vehicle toreach a safe evacuation point—with vehicle, structuralintegrity, and electrical system design requirements toprovide such capability. Fire endurance requirements areextensive in DIN 5510, with application to all structuralcomponents, including floors, walls, and ceilings.

DIN 5510 requires that the supporting structures, fit-tings, and linings of passenger cars be selected and ar-ranged to prevent or delay danger to passengers, crew,and rescue personnel caused by the development, propa-gation, and spread of fire. A series of test to evaluatematerial performance are used to prove compliance withthese requirements. These measures provide a means toprevent the fire or retard its growth and spread.

Additional requirements for electrical wire and cable,batteries, lighting, heating air conditioning shutdown,automatic tire alarms, and fire extinguishers protect occu-pants from rhe jire e$ects and support jire service opera-tions. DIN 5510 and the requirements for maglev systemsalso include requirements for emergency egress andemergency rescue planning.

Other countries

The International Union of Railways Code, ‘Regulationsrelating to fire protection and fire-fighting measures in

passenger-carrying railway vehicles or assimilated ve- -‘hicles used on international services’ (UIC 564-2),2scovers passenger-carrying railway vehicle design for in- . .temational service in Europe. There is considerable over-lap between this code and the French standards. UICCode 564-2 includes as a general guideline for vehiciedesigtx ‘The coach design and interior fittings must aboveall prevent the spread of fire’. To meet this goa~ a set ofmaterial test methods is included similar in intent andimplementation to the French standards, covering ve-hicle design (to reduce potential ignition), compartmen-tation (to prevent spread of fire from one vehicle toanother), electrical systems, fire detection in engine com-partments, fire extinguishers, fire alarms, and emergencyegress (via door and window design).

Young2g discusses the British standard ‘Code of prac-tice for Fke Precautions in the Design and Constructionof Railway Passenger Rolling Stock’ (BS 6853),30 whichdefines two categories of vehicle use

o Trains which require higher resistance to fire (under-ground, sleeping cars, unmanned operating trains)

e AU other vehicies.

The British standard includes provision for material se-lection, compartmentation {particularly in sleeping cws},electrical equipment, cooking equipment. emergencylighting, and emergency egress.

Requirements in other countries take similar ap-proaches to implementing the fire safety goais discussedabove. The Mass Rapid Transit s~stem in Singapore3 Lwas constructed in the 1980s following NFPA 130 for thestation, trainway, and vehicle design. Compartmentationin stations and vehicles, ventilation systems. emergencyegress provisions, and vehicle design were all consideredin the overall design of the system. In JapanJz a combina-tion of bench-scale materiai screening tests and real-scaleproof-testing is used to evaluate overall tire protectionlevels for passenger rail cars.

Summary of overall system fire safety

The trend toward a systems approach to tire safety isevident in nearly every country of the world. This wend isdriven largeiy by the realization that the interactionsamong various system components can create mitigatingor extenuating conditions not evidertt when examiningthe performance of the individual component. Further. itis sometimes more cost effective to compensate for theperformance shortfalls of one component rather than toattempt to correct it. The traditional method of evacuat-ing overall system safety by conducting real-scale tests iseffective, but costly. Less costly (and less effective ) is totest reaI-scale assemblies of major components of a sys-tem (for example, an entire seat assembly). [n recentyears, the evoiution of predictive models as resulted inthe development of fire hazard and fire risk evaluationswhich attempt to synthesize the interactions of the com-plete system into a computational model.

This systems approach is evident in ail the fire safetyrequirements reviewed for this paper. It is demonstratedby requirements for assembly testing in addition to thetraditional component testing with bench-scale appar-atus. [n addition, fire hazard anaiyses are utilized to


. evaluate the fire load including the quantity and config-uration of the combustible materials present.

Alarm systems and extinguishe~ along with provisionfor emergency shutdown of ventilation systems are beingspecified in order to extend the time available for safeegress. Provision of emergency exits along with emerg-ency plans for rescue by extemd forces provide an addi-tional level of safety in case of failure of other provisionsto limit the size of the fire incident.

Disastrous fires are often the result of a series of fail-ures which allow the fire to develop. F]re safety requiresa multi-level approach in which all of the components ofsystem safety are treated in a systematic manner, suchthat a potential failure is countered by a safety feature.While material performance testing is importan~ it pro-vides only one facet of the overall approach to effectivefire safety for the traveling public.

US REQUIREMENTS

Within the general context of the system safety goalsdiscussed in the previous sectiom the US fire safety re-quirements addr&s specific criteria deemed necessary tomeet these goals. Individual, prescriptive requirementsare included for a range of components of the overallsystem.

There is considerable overlap of requirements for railtransportation vehicles. For example, the FRA, Amtrak,FTA, and NFPA documents contain similar require-ments covering the fire safety of materials used in passen-ger vehicles. The German requirements include testmethods used by the US Federal Aviation Administra-tion. A report to the Office of the Secretary of Transpor-tation recognized the potential for simi~ar requirementsin multiple modes oftransportation.33 The review in thereport included fire protection and control, material con-trols, engine components, structural components, pro-cedures. and buildings. Numerous areas were identifiedfor potential cooperation and common requirements be-tween different transportation modes. To date, the over-lap is primarily limited to material controls. Similar re-quirements in multiple rail transportation sectors areevident in the review below. In this paper, the detailedreview will be limited to the US requirements, and willconcentrate on material testing requirements. A moredetailed report including requirements in France andGermany is available.34

The FRA flammability and smoke emission guidelinesfor passenger train cars’ are summarized in Table 1. TheAmtraks and NFPA6 requirements are nearly identicalto the FRA guidelines, with differences noted in the tabieand discussed in the sections covering the individual testmethods. The requirements are based in large part ontwo bench-scale test methods - ASTM E 162, ‘SurfaceFlammability of Materials Using a Radiant EnergySource’35 (with a variant, ASTM E 3675 for cellularmatenals36 ) and ASTM E 662. ‘Specific Optical Densityof Smoke Generated by Solid Materiais’.37 Several addi-tional standards are specified for individual material ap-plications. With one exception. the test methods arebench-scale tests designed to study aspects of a material’s

fire behavior in a fixed configuration and exposure. Allthese requirements are reviewed and discussed below.

Ffame spread— ASTM E 162 and ASTM D 3675

The ASTM E 16Z illustrated in Fig. 1, was developed bythe National Bureau of Standards in 1955.3” 3E An al-most identical method, ASTM D-3675, is used for cellu-lar materiais such as seat cushioning. This methodmeasures flame spread and rate of energy release undera varying radiant flux from about 40 to 3 kW m -2. Theflame spread factor, F,, calculated from the flame spreadvelocity, and the heat evolution factor, Q, determined bymeasuring the temperature in an exhaust duct, are com-bined to yield a flammability index, f,, defined as

1,= F,x Q

The higher the index, the greater the flammability. Thetest instrument is calibrated to an arbitrary scaie with redoak assigned as 1, of 100.

The criteria for this test method range from ], <25 forcushions, mattresse$ floor coverings and insulation to1, <100 for window and light diffuser panels. With ex-ceptions, these values are comparable to those typicallyfound in building construction. The criteria for windowand light diffuser panels of I, < 100 is less restrictive thanthat for wall panels even though the exposure duringa fire is identical. Small differences in the criteria such asthe requirement of 1, <25 for insulation in the FRA andFTA guidelines and J, <35 in the Amtrak specificationwould have little effect on fire safety. Actual acceptancecriteria for any particular application are not inchtded aspart of the tests method.

Some published test resuits are avaiiabie for the ASTME 162 test in transportation applications. Williamson39tested six different candidate lining materials for rapidtransit vehicles. Test results ranged from a low of [, = 2to a high of I, = 59. The comparability y of the bench-scaletests with large-scale tests was seen to depend on the sizeof the ignition source in large-scale tests. However, thedata were considered by Williamson to be too sparse tocomment on an overall correlation potential for E- [62.Other work by McGuireJO for fires on corridor wall,floor, and ceiling materials initiated by a room firestrongly suggest that combustible walls are more criticaithan, perhaps ceiiings, and definitely floors. in terms offire growth potentiaL For these elements alone. f, = 35for walls led to extensive spread, while an 1$> 130 fora ceiling and an I, >435 for a floor appears necessary forextensive spread. Peacock and Braunl 8 show simiiarresults for materials in rail vehicle interiors, where wallcarpeting and carpet lining beneath luggage racks ap-peared critical to large fire development, even with mostof the materials in the mock-up of the vehicle interiormeeting the FRA guidelines. Unfortunately, for the onetest which does not fit the expected pattern of fire growthbased on bench-scale test results, complete bench-scaletest measurements, including ASTM E-162, were notavailable for the wall carpeting. Nelson et aL41 andBridgman and NeIson42 report on over 350 large-scalefire tests conducted to study the performance of materialsin real worid environments and the relationship ofbench-scale test criteria to improvements in fire safety.

76 R. D. PEACOCK ET AL.

Table 1. US Flammability and smoke emieaioo reqoiretnenta for passenger saii Yeisiilss.smek8Cmmla+l

Passenger seats

sleeping and dining carcomponents

FmsdOrletrrumrid

Cushions, mattresses

Test

ASTM 0-3675

Tns Paf—aItsnJ

ASTM E-662 D, (1 .5) s 10Q0, (4.0) <175’

ASTM E-662 0,(1 .5) < 100; D, (4.0) <200

az18rla

/,< 25

i, <35

1,<35

Seat frames. mattress frames ASTM E-1 62

ASTM E- 162seat and toilet shroud,food ways

Seat upholstery, mattressticking and covers, curtains

ASTM E-662 0$(1 .5) <10003 (4.0) <200

FAR 25.853

(vertical)

Flame time < 10s

Burn length 66 in

ASTM E-662 D, (4.0) s 250 coatedD, (4.0) <100 uncoated

Panels ASTM E-662 D$ (1 .5) < 1O(X t), (4.0) <200Wail, ceiling, partition, fables

and shelves. windscreen,

HVAC ducting

Window, light ditiaar

ASTM E-162

ASTM E-1 19ASTM E- 162

ASTM E-662

ASTM E-662

Flooring Structural ASTM E-119 Nominal

evacuation

time. at least15 min

C.R.E > 5kW -z

1, < 2!5

ASTM E-662 D$ (1 .5) < 100; 03 (4.0) <200

Covering ASTM E-646

ASTM E-1 62d

ASTM E- 162

ASTM E-662

ASTM E-662

Insulation

Elastomers

Exterior plastic

components

Component box covere

Thermal, acoustic 1, s 250 ASTM E-662 D, (4.0) <100

Window gaskets, door

nosing, diaphragms. roof mat

End cap roof housings

ASTM C-542

ASTM-162

Pass

4 <35

ASTM E-662 Dl(l .5) <100: D5(4,0) <200

ASTM E-662 D, (1 .5) < 100; D, (4.0) <200

Interior, exterior boxes ASTM E-1 62 1, <35 ASTM E-662 D,(I .5) < 100; D,(4.0) <200

aUMTA and NFPA 130 requirement is U, (1 .5) < 100 D3 (4.0) <200.b ‘“May use test criteria for floors or criteria appropriate to the physical locations and magnitude of the malor {gmtion, energy, or fuel loadingsources.”c Amtrak requirement is C.R.F. >6 kW m -2d NFPA 130 only.eAmtrak requirement is /3 <35.

These reports detail a number of factors associated withASTM E-162 which affect test results

II rneosurement /1Thermocouple and baffle placement within the ther-mocouple stackThermocouple groundingPosition of the thermocouple stack with respect to thehood canopy exhaust ductDrafts with the room housing the apparatusAir supply to the radiant panei, gas suppiyPosition, condition, and length of the pilot flame,Time to warm-upLocation of the calibrating radiation pyrometerRadiometer calibrationCalibration frequencyStandard specimens.

e

ee

eoeeeee@

u

OkJwerforradmntpanelauSUPDiV

Figure 1. The ASTM E-162 test for surface flammability of mater-ials using a radiant heat energy source.

They conciude that ASTM E 162 is reasonably predictiveof large-scale test behavior and maintain that vehicleswhich comply with the FTA guidelines have less poten-tial fire involvement, potentiality longer times for evacu-ation, and less eventual fire damage than earlier con-structions. However, large-scale testing must play animportant roie in determining the performance of a sys-tem of diverse materiais in a vehicle interior. This system

approach is in contrast to the test seiection criteria usedin the development of the flammability guidelines for railtransit vehicle intenors.43 [n the current FTA guidelines.test methods are specifically directed at the evaluation of

PASSENGER RAIL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

.

77

1=c,1

I

I Fttotodetector

—I@ht beam

dLAb

rInfrared radlotor

r specimen

9 1r\Trough forspecimen melt

Ibe burner

iii-t-- IJght source

Figure 2. The ASTM E-662 teat for sparsfic optical density of smoke generated by

so~d matariala.

the performance of individual component materials.While this allows the component supplier to determinethe adequacy of their products without having to beconcerned with other suppliers and products, synergisticeffects of material combinations cannot be evaluated.

Other comparisons of ASTM E 162 with real-scaletires and other bench-scale tests show simiiarly mixedresults. On the positive side. Bieniarz44 and Fang*s showa ‘reasonably predictive’ capability of the test. However,in a study of bench-scale tests used to evaluate aircraftcabin interior materials, Nicholas46 concludes that therewere practically no test methods that correlated ignitabil-ity, flame spread. or heat reiease for fabrics and panels.Two test methods, ASTM E 162 and the OSU rate ofheat release apparatus +7 showed good correlations for

heat release as an indicator of fire hazard. Other re-searchers have proposed that heat reiease rate, ratherthan flame spread, are more important predictors of firehazard. Like Nicholas, Quintiere48 conciudes that rate ofheat release measured in a laboratory-scale test appar-atus seems to be the most significant parameter in cor-relating full-sale data on room temperature or time toIlashover. For rail transit vehicie applications, Bonneresand Allender49 repeat this theme, promoting heat releaserate testing. In fact, heat release rate has been advancedto be the single most important predictor of fire haz-ard.50

The Smoke Density Chamber-ASTiM E 662

The Smoke Densitv Chamber (ASTM E 662)37 is usedwtdelv in testing of transportation- reiated materiais. H-

Iustrated in Fig. 2, it measures smoke generation fromsmail, soIid speeimens exposed to a radiant flux level of25 kW m - z in a flaming (piloted ignition) or nonflamingmode. The smoke produced by the burning specimen inthe chamber is measured by a light source - photometercombination. The attenuation of the light beam by thesmoke is a measure of the optical density or quantity ofsmoke’ that a material will generate under the givenconditions of the test. Two measures are typically re-ported. D, is an instantaneous measure of the opticaldensity at a particular instant in time. The maximumoptical density, D~, is used primarily in ranking therelative smoke production of a material and in identif~-ing likely sources of severe smoke production. The cr-iteria for this test method are typically D, at 1+ min < 100and D, at 4 min <200. Small differences in criteria suchas D, at 4 min < 175 for cushions and matresses con-tained in the FRA guidelines would appear to have littleeffect on fire safety. Like the small differences in require-ments for ASTM E 162, the differences are likely drivenby perceived product acceptability rather than real differ-ences in tire safety. Other criteria including the omissionof a requirement at l+ min for HVAC ducting are likelydue to the inability of an otherwise acceptable product tomeet the criteria.

Hirschler provides an excellent critique of bench-scalesmoke measurement. He divides test methods used tomeasure smoke obscuration accompanying a fire intofive broad categories:

● Static bench-scaie smoke obscuration tests on mater-ials


e Dynamic bench-scale smoke obscuration tests onmaterials

o Traditional large-scale smoke obscuration tests onproducts

o Full-scale tests measuring heat release and smoke re-lease

● Bench-scale tests measuring heat release and smokereiease

The Smoke Density Chamber (ASTM E 662) is anexample of the static bench-scale test. Many researchershave concluded that tests like the Smoke Density Cham-ber do nor do an adequate job of representing the smokeemissions to be expected in real-scale fires.51 “5s Theproblems cited includes *

eeee●

●

eoeoe

Results do not correlate with full-scale tests.Vertical orientation leads to melt and drip.Time dependency of results cannot be established.No means of weighing sample during test.Maximum incident radiant flux is 25 kW m -2.Fire seif-extinguishes if oxygen Ievei goes beiow 14?4.Composites often give misleading results.Wall losses are significant.Soot gets deposited on optics.Light source is poiychromatic.Rational units of mz kg -‘ are not available.

Christian and Watermansb” 57 conciude that no singlesmoke rating number should be expected to define reia-tive smoke hazards of materials in all situations. Nosuitable correlation was found between bench-scalesmoke density tests and real-scale fires. S8 They suggesta combination of results from tests under wideiy differingexposure conditions to account for the effects of materiallocation, fire intensity, and other factors for materials ina totally involved fire.

Dynamic bench-scale smoke obscuration testsmeasure smoke along with another fire property (typi-cally heat release rate). Implicit in this technique is therecognition that smoke is actually a result of the fire andnot a property unto itself. Many large-scale tests forsmoke obscuration have been devised for any number ofspecific situations. These include the ASTM E 84 test anda modified version of the ASTM E 648 test utilized forcarpets in rail transit applications. These are often int-ended for a specific purposes other than smoke measure-ment and have been adapted for smoke measurement tovarying degrees of success.

Like the tests for flammability, it has been proposedthat smoke can be best measured in a dynamic test whichbest stimulates actual end-use burning behaviors 1 Testsin large- and bench-scale which measure heat and smokerelease fill this niche. Requirements for a bench-scale testto measure smoke have been proposed51

e

*

*

e

Measure fire properties in such a way that they can beused for purposes other than simple rankings orpass/fail criteria.,Measure smoke obscuration together with those fireproperties of considerable fire hazard interest, princi-pally the rate of heat release.Utilize tests which have proven to give results that arerepresentative of the corresponding property in real-scale.Allow for calculations to compensate for complete

.sample consumption% characteristic of bench-scaletests.

The only tests in existence which fuifil these require- ‘<ments are those based on heat release rate calorimetry.Hirschlers 1 concludes that the best way to measuresmoke obscuration in a meaningful way for real-scalefires is to use a txnch-scale heat release rate test such asthe Cone Calorimetersg (or the OSU calorimeter’) withcompensation for incomplete burning of materials ina bench-scale test. He finds good correlation with reai-scale fires for a range of materials.

Floor covering-ASTM E-643

The Flooring Radiant Panel test or ‘Standard TestMethod for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor CoveringSystems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source’ (ASTME 648) exposes a specimen piaced horizontally to a radi-ant energy source that varies across a 1 m length froma maximum of 11 kWm-2 down to 1 kW m ‘2 (Fig. 3).60After ignition by a small line burner at the high radiantflux end, the distance at which the burning floor materialself+xtinguishes is determined. This point defines thecritical radiant flux (CRF) necessary to support con-tinued flame spread. The higher the CRF, the better is [hefire perfo~ance of the floor covering.

Lawson”’ recently reviewed the development. pre-cision, and appropriate use of the Flooring RadiantPanel. With exceptions, he notes that the precision of thetest method is considered equivalent to other fire testmethods and has generaily reduced iosses with fires in-voiving carpeting, where the flooring materials are classi-fied by this test methods. Carpeting taken from severallarge fatai fires in which the carpeting was determined tobe the means of fire spread was found to have very lowCRFS when tested according to this method — less than1 kW m -2.62 The best performing floor covering wouldhave CRF’S greater than 11 kW m -2. An acceptancecriterion of 4.5 kW m - Z for egress ways in non-sprink-Iered public occupancies is currently in use.63”5* Thelimit for rail transit vehicles of 5 kW m -2 cited in NFPA130 is a somewhat more stringent criterion. It is impor-tant to note that these test criteria essentially limit thecarpeting such that it will not spread fire from a smallignition source or become involved early in a growingtire. For fully involved fires. fluxes in excess of20 kW m -2 can be developed. In these extremes, carpet-ing may become involved.

In transportation vehicles. carpeting is also routinelyused for wall and ceiling covering. For such applications,the results of the horizontally oriented Flooring RadiantPanel test would have little meaning. The additionalrequirement to test floor covering materiais under ASTME 162 is incIuded to address vertically oriented applica-tions. In the US the acceptance criterion for carpeting isidentical to other wall and ceiiing coverings.

Fire endurance test-.ASTM E 119

Standard test methods for determining the resistance offloor, partitions, and walls to sustained fire exposurehave been available since 1903.05”66 The test method

PASSENGER RAIL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

I

aI

~~d””

Ga$Iodbtor

79

A\

Heat rlux \ //nleosurernent \,

Figure 3. The ASTM E-648 flooring radiant Panel test.

specified in the FRA guidelines, ASTM E 119 - ‘FireTests of Building Construction and Matenai’s has beenwidely used for determining the structural integrity ofconstruction for a wide variety of applications.b’ Whilenumerous minor changes have been made in the last 80years, the time-temperature curve, the basic test appar-atus, and some of the criteria have remained unchangedsince its introduction as a standard test method, thennumbered C19, in 1918.6s The complete construction,stressed with weights or hydraulic jacks to simulate themechanical loads of actual use, in subjected to heating ina furnace with a prescribed temperature-time curve.Measurement of temperature, heat transmission, andstructural integrity are used to judge acceptability. Typi-cal test criteria which cause failure of an assembly in-clude

● Failure to support load● Temperature increase on the unexposed surface 139°C

(25fYF) above ambient● Transmission of heat or flame sufficient to ignite cot-

ton waste● Excess temperature (as specified) on structural steel

members● Failure when impacted by high-pressure fire hose

streams (for walls and partitions).

The larger scale of these test methods seems to have ledto fewer questions concerning their ability to predictend-use fire behavior. Although it is recognized that theactual time to failure of an assembly may be different(either a shorter or a longer time),69 relative rankings fordifferent assemblies should be indicative of relative actualperformance. For short exposure times, this uncertaintycould be significant factor in actual fire performance. Forfire endurance testing of building materials, test dura-

tions of 1 to 4 h are typical - significantly longer than the15 min minimum specified in the guidelines. The actualacceptance criteria specified in the FRA guidelines de-pends upon the evacuation time of a vehicle and could belonger than this minimum. The effect on fire endurance ofopenings in the assembly is also addressed in the FRArequirements with a specification that ‘penetrations(ducts, etc.) should be designed against acting as conduitsfor fire and smoke’. Details of such a design are left to thesystem designer.

Bench-scale ‘Bunsen Burner’ tests

Bench-scale Bunsen burner type tests, wherein a sampleof a material is exposed to a small flame from an alcoholor gas burner, have been frequently used and misused totest the flammability of materials since the 1930s.70Dur-ing the 1950s and 1960s there was increased reliance ontesting the flammability of materials by means of Bunsenburner type tests. This dependence has decreased in re-cent years following action by the Federal Trade Com-mission. In passenger-guided ground transportation, theprimary use of these types of tests is in the FederalAviation Regulation FAR-25.853, Appendix F (Fig. 4).This standard, used in the current context to assess theacceptability of seat upholstery, mattress ticking andcovers, and curtains, defines both a test procedure andacceptance criteria for small-scale fire performance ofcompartment interior materials used in transport cat-

egory airplanes. 71 It is based on Federal Test MethodStandard No. 191. Method 5903.72 The test procedure isa vertical test with a 3.9 cm (1.5 in) flame applied eitherfor 12s or for 60s (determined by the end-use of thematerial) to the lower degree of a 5 cm (2 in) wide,

M R. D. PEACOCK ET AL

Door— Specimenholder support

Specimen holder

\

* “’””

/

>..::,.-” [ ~

/- ..’.:.-.’ ::. -.=’ ::

..- :::,.. .;::

--- ..+,.. .; --,.- ,.:.

:2=. . ~:-..::-:.;:

FIguro 4. The FAR-25.853 vertical Bunsen burner test.

30.5 em (12 in) long speeimen. The test records the flame with exposure conditions appropriate for the fire scen-time, bum length, and flaming time of dripping material. arios of interest, as an improved test method. ThisFor elastomers (defined in the FRA guidelines as windowgaskets, door nosing, diaphragms, and roof mat), a sim-ilar test, ASTM C-542, ‘Standard Specification for LockStrip Gaskets’. is used. The test consists of a 46 cm ( 18 in)long specimen suspended over a Bunsen burner flame forI 5 min.

Considerable evidence questions the usefulness ofthese tesrs- Tustin73 studied the correlations between ‘he

Bunsen burner test and tires in a full-scale airplane fuselarge interior. Bum length in the Bunsen burner testsshowed poor correlation to the fuil-scaie test results. Incontrast, bench-scale rate of heat reiease apparatus pro-vided acceptable correlations to the large-scale test withsome corrections to the bench-scale test data. Sarfros etaL74 reaffirm this finding with comparisons betweenbench-scale test results and an intermediate-scaie test ofinterior partition panels. Although these types of testsmay provide an indication of the resistance of a materialto ignition, they cannot be used to predict the perfor-mance of materials that exhibit high burning rates whensubjected to external heating conditions. Neither theBunsen burner test or the ASTM E 162 radiant panel testcorrectly predicted the rank order of interior panels inthe intermediate-scale tests. Sarkos et al. recommenda rate of heat release apparatus (the OSU apparatus~’ ),

method now supplements the vertical Bunsen burner testin airplane requirements. There is little correlation be-tween these tests and real situations, nor is there anaccepted level of the index which could be consideredhazardous. In particular, eariy BART system vehicle fireshave gone to flashover, despite passing the simiiar ASTMD-1692 Bunsen burner test.?s” 76 Later designs have im-

proved the fire performance of the vehicles considerably.Material selection consistent with the FTA guidelinesand full scale mockup testing indicated minimal firepropagation of tbe improved designs.”

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS BASED ON HE,ATRELEASE RATE TESTING

In the majority of tire cases, the most crucial questionthat can be asked by the person responsible for tireprotection ix ‘How big is the fire? Put in quantitativeterms, this translates to: ‘What is the heat release rate(HRR) of this fire? Recently the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST) examined the pivotalnature of heat release rate measurements in detail.so Not

,.9

.PASSENGERRAILTRANSPORTATIONVEHICLES 81

. only is heat release rate seen as the key indicator ofreal-scale fire performance of a material or construction,HRR i% in fac~ the single most important variable incharacterizing the ‘flammability’ of products and theirconsequent fire hazard. Examples of typical fire historiesillustrate that even though fire deaths are primarilycaused by toxic gas- HRR is the best predictor of firehazard. Conversely,the relative toxicity of combustiongases plays a smaller role. The delays in ignition time, asmeasured by various Bunsen burner type test$ also haveonly a minor effect on the development of fire hazard.

There are at least two approaches to utiliiing HRRdata in material seiection for any application

● Use the heat release rate with appropriate limitingcriteria for the selection of materials and constructionsfor the application. This is simiiar to the traditionalapproach of using the results of test methods to guidethe selection of individual materials for an application.The key limitation to this approach is the inability tojudge a material in the context in which it is used and

in conjunction with other materials in a given applica-tion.

o Use the heat release rate in a hazard analysis of theactual application. This removes the limitations of thetraditional approach above. However, it requires con-sideration of how materials are combined in an ap-plication and thus is more difficult for individual ma-terial suppliers to judge the adequacy of their productto the application.

Both these approaches are appropriate for passengertrains.

Correlation methods for prediction

A detaiied discussion of fire scenarios for passenger trainsis presented in reference 34. In this section, it is sufficientto note the most important fire scenarios in passengertrain vehiclex

(1) Fires originating outside the passenger compartment(2) Fires originating on or under a passenger seat due to

arson(3) Fires spreading from either of the above fires to

adjacent seats or to the interior lining of the vehicle.

For category (1), large-scale fire endurance tests suchas ASTM E 119 provide a measure of protection byreducing the risk of a fire penetrating the interior ofa vehicle. To address the latter two categories, availablecorrelations based on heat release rate measurements are

available. Two areas of the vehicle are primarily involvedin fires in categories (2) and (3) - upholstered seating andinterior linings. Correlations for these applications aredescribed below.

Upholstered seating. Babrauskas and Krasny’e and Amesand Rogers:9 studied the burning behavior of uphol-stered furniture. The latter study included testing of sea-ting to the BS 5852 Part II seating mock-up test includedas a requirement for British conventional mii vehicles.These studies included non- or slightly fire-retarded sea-ting assemblies. More highly fire-retarded seating mater-iak are aiready in use in passenger train vehicles. Such

seating materials are the subject of an extensive investiga-tion carried out jointly by NIST and the CaliforniaBureau of Home Furnishings (BHF).sO Furniture soldfor use in institutional occupancies in the state of Califor-nia must pass the California Technical Bulletin 133 test(T.B. 133).61Other states have also begun to adopt thistest. The T.B. 133 fire test is conducted in a room 3.7 mby 3.0 m by 24 m high, lined with gypsum board. A1ter-nativeiy, the test can be conducted in the ASTM Stan-dard Room (2.4 m by 3.6 m by 24 m high) or undera large calorimeter. The furniture is located on a weigh-ing platform in the rear comer farthest from the door-way. The ignition source is a specially-desigrtecL T-shaped gas burner placed at the back of the seat. Temper-ature% CO concentration smoke opacity, and mass lossare measured durign the test. For the purpose of thisinvestigatio~ instrumentation was added to measure theheat reIease rate by oxygen consumption.

Ten sets of chairs were tested at NIST and at BHF.These were of plaim rectilinear construction with woodframes. Only the type of fabric, type of foam and thepresence or absence of a fiberglass interiiner were varied

between the chairs. The fabrics included wool, nylon.polyoletin and PVC vinyl. The foams examined werea fire-retardant treated polyurethane that passed theCalifornia Bulletin 117 bunsen burner and cigarette testsand a more highly FR melamine-treated polyurethane.The chosen combinations provided a very large range offire performance. The total heat release rates were meas-ured in the NIST furniture calorimeter. the ASTM roomfire test, and the room fire test specified in T.B. 133. TheASTM room refers to the proposed ASTM room fire test,which is conducted in a 2.4 m by 3.6 m by 2.4 m highroom lined with calcium silicate board. The newspaperignition source specified in T.B. 133 and a propaneburner used to simulate it82 were each used to ignitethese chairs. The het release rate per unit area and theheat of combustion were measured in the Cone calori-meter for each of the ten combinations of materials.

In genera~ the total heat release rate curves of uphol-stered seating have two major peaks, one representingthe burning of the fabric and one the burning of theunderlying foam or padding. For highly tire-retarded orinstitutional seating, the foam does not get involved andso there is only one peak. For one-tire-retarded seating,the foam becomes involved so quickly that the two peaksmerge into one. For moderately fire-retardant seating,the two peaks are resolved and the separation betweenthem can be quite large. In some cases the foam maysmouider for over an hour before it frames, producing thesecond peak long after the fabric burning has stopped.The actual heat release rate curves can exhibit additionalpeaks, due to other phenomena such as collapse.

Although limited to the chair designs and construc-tions used in the study, the real-scale burning behavior ofthe chairs couid be predicted from bench-scale heat re-lease rate measurements. Two simple correlations wereseen comparing HRR measurements in the Cone calori-meter at an external tlux of 35 kw m - z (&) to thefull-scale test results (&.). For highly fire-retarded chairs(including the first fabric peak of moderately fire-re-tarded chairs)

ifs = 0.75 q;,


For chairs that are considerably flammable

~f, = 4.7&

For chairs of intermediate flammability, small changes indesign or construction can lead to either of the twoburning regimes embodied in the correlations. Thus, twocoueuts should be noted for the above correlations. Thefirst correlation is dependent on the details of the ignitionsource and its Iocatiorz the relation given applies only tothe source used for California T.B. 133 testing. The sec-ond corre~ tion is not a generaJ predictive equatiorg itworks onty because the test chairs had nearly identicalmas% frame, and style factors

However, the simplicity of these successful correlationsleads to a direct application of bench-scale heat releaserate testin~ particularly for application to seating ofextremely limited flammability. For such highly fire-re-tarded seatingj oniy the first correlation is used. Thiscorrelation combined with the State of California limit of80 kW in full-scaie testing for such seatin~ implies thata #& value of less than 107 kW m -2 is required. Forpractical application of bench-scale Cone calorimeterresults to establishing equivalency to the full-scale result,this could be rounded to 100 kW m -2. It should be notedthat these limits (80 kW in full-scale or 100 kW m - * inbench-scale) provide a stringent criterion requiting high-ly fife-retarded seating assemblies.

It should be noted that although the implied level ofrisk in institutional occupancies to which the CaliforniaT.B. 133 test criteria apply should be similar to that inpassenger train vehicle$ the actual acceptance criteriaused must also depend on the current state-of-the-art inmaterials employed in a particular application. Wide-spread test results are not yet available for materials incurrent use in passenger trains. Thus, practical accept-ance criteria could be the same or different from the limitrecommended above.

Interior linings. At least two correlations are available forpredicting the full-scale burning behavior of wall andceiling lining materials. Wickstr6m and Goransson83-a 5have shown from the results of the Cone Calorimeter thatthe full-scale room fire heat release rate curve (for the1S0 9705 room/comer test) can be calculat~d. Anothersimilar correlation has been developed by Ostman andNussbaum.a6 They have succeeded in correlating time toflashover in the Room/Comer test with time-to-ignitionand peak heat reiease rate measured in the Cone Calori-meter, and the density of the product. Both of these aredescribed below, along with the Room/Corner test.

Following the ASTM disengagement from the devei-opment of a standard room fire test, activity was acceler-ated in the Nordic countries. Development was princ-ipally pursued in Sweden. at the Statens Provningsanstaltby Sundstrom.87 The 1S0 method uses a room 2.4 by3.6 m by 2.4 m high, with an 0.8 by 2.0 m doorwayopening. 68.89 The Specimen is mounted on the wails and

ceiling and is ignited by a propane gas burner operated attwo levels, 100 kW for the first 10 min and 300 kw there-after. A classification scheme for wall and ceiling liningshas been proposed by Sundstrom and Goranssonpobased on this test scenario. The proposed classification,based on time to flashover. is shown in Table 2.

Table % Proposed chasifieatkta system forwaii/ceiiing Iiting materiak tested inthe Room/Comer test

,.:

l%mm~ W HRR

Clsn (Wnn) (kW)

A >20 <600

0 >20 No limit

c >12 No limit

o 310 No limit

E 22 No limit

In order to predict full-scale heat reiease rate frombench-scale measurements, an expression for the burningarea A(t) is required. The step function nature of theignition source in the Room/Comer test allows a simpleempirical description of this burning area. Initially, thearea in the comer behind the burner is ignited. The size ofthis area is assumed constant and the same for ali prod-ucts. The burning area is assumed to grow according toa given function of time. h wilI+ however, start to growonly if an appropriate ignition criteria is reached. This isassumed to be a fictitious surface temperature whichdepends on ignitabiiit y as well as on heat release proper-ties of the product. These parameters are obtained fromthe Cone Calorimeter. The resulting empirical correla-tion can then be expressed as

where tim is the ignition time, AO is the area behind theburner and u is an empirical constant found to be0.025s -1. The fictitious surface temperature criteriondetermines whether the fire will spread away from thevicinity of the burner. It is calculated from an empiricalcorrelation and a calculated surface temperature assum-ing the material behaves as a semi-infinite soiid.91 Com-parisons for 13 different wail and ceiling linings showreasonable agreement for ail products, even though theproducts cover a wide range of fire behavior. No prod-ucts are predicted to be in a wrong classification accord-ing to the system outlined in Table 2.

A simpler correlation has been proposed by Ostmanand Nussbaum, s6 ~ey predict time-to-flashover in the

Room/Corner test from ignition time and heat releasemeasured in the Cone Calorimeter as:

~ 2.76X 106 tignv$=

Q– 46

where t is the predicted time-to-flashover in full-scale (s),

:iw is the time-to-ignition in the Cone Calorimeter at anIrradiance level of 25 k W m -2 (s), p is the density of thematerial (kg m - 3), and Q is the heat release during thepeak burning period (J m - 2). This function gave a quitegood correlation between bench-scale and full-scale be-havior (with a correlation coefficient of 0.963) and similarrankings for materials studied in bench- and full-scale.

Unfortunately, for surface linings, a simple acceptancecriteria applicable to passenger trains is not immediatelyavaiiable as was proposed for seating. Again, test resultsof materials used in an application are required to estab-lish appropriate acceptance criteria.

. PASSENGER RAIL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES 83

Smokeemissioa The smoke emission of products is oftenviewed as a unique material property separate from otherfire performance characteristics. In a study of 35 mater-iais covering a wide range of fire behwiour, Hirschlers 1proposed five categories for material classification basedon heat release rate, ignitability, propensity to flashover(expressed as the s~e ratio of time to ignition over heatrelease rate used by &tman and Nussbausm above), andsmoke emission (expressed as a ‘smoke factor’ - theproduct of the total smoke released and the peak heatrelease rate). The proposed classifications are shown inTable 3.

Of key importance in this classification scheme is thatthe better-performing materials in terms of HRR andsmoke emission are mostly identical materials. In fac4five materials are in the top category in each of the fourclassifications. This suggests that smoke obscuration infull-scale tires is heavily dependent on tire performanceand that those materials that have the best fire perfor-mance will also tend to generate less smoke.

Tests needed. Three types of tests are seen as necessary toevaluate the fire behaviour of materials used in passengertrains

●

●

●

The Cone Calorimeter, ASTM E 1354, can providemultiple measures of tire performance for materialsand assemblies used in the construction of passengertrain vehicles. These include ignitability heat releaserate; and release rates for smoke, toxic gases andcorrosive products.Standard fire endurance testin~ such as specified inASTM E 119, provides a measure of the ability ofa given construction to prevent the spread of fire fromone compartment to another or from the underside ofa vehicle to the interior.Initial rejimence real-scale testing will always beneeded for any product category. Bench-scale tests canthen+ if suitably validated against these real-scale fires,be used to provide for most of the needed producttesting. Thus, the large-scale test will rarely be neededin actual practice. BUL it must be available for thosesituations where the bench-scale test is not applicable.Babrauskas and Wiclcstrom92 give further guidanceon this point.

What is lacking its material testing. As noted above, appro-priate acceptance criteria for application of HRR-basedtests to passenger trains have not been developed. Wide-spread bench-scale heat release rate test results are notyet available for materiais in current use in passengertrains. Actual acceptance criteria must consider not onlythe desired level of protection, but also the current state-

of-the-art in materials design for the application. Sometesting is stiil required to estabiish equivalent criteria forcurrent materials.

Once these test results are available, some real-scaletesting of materials will be required to establish or verifythe predictive ability of the bench-scale tests. This willserve two purposes (1) to provide a Ievei of verification ofthe bench-scale testing and (2) to minimize future real-scale testing needs for suppliers and manufacturers ofpassenger trains.

Fire hazard analysis

Fire hazard analyses are gaining worldwide acceptanceas means to establish the level of regulation needed toassure safe products without imposing unwarrantedrestrictions. In their efforts to harmonize regulationsamong the European nations, the EC Commission estab-lished the early goal that all fire tests selected should beconsistent with fire haxard analysis procedures and pro-vide the data needed by such techniques.93 In Japan, theBuilding Research Institute of the Ministry of Construc-tion (which promulgates the national building code andserves as the arbiter of its equivalency clauses) has for-mally established a fire hazard analysis procedure as onemeans of demonstrating the equivalency of new productsand materials to their code requirements.94 Australia isdeveloping a similar system through its Warren Centrefor Advanced Engineering (University of Sydney) andCSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engin-eering. 9s Swedem Norway, Denmark, Getmany~ France,

and Singapore all have established the precedent of ac-cepting new products, materials, or designs based on firehazard or fire risk analysis calculations.

After preventing ignition, the primary goal of firesafety engineering is to limit the impact of the fire ona construction and its occupants. This has traditionallybeen addressed by placing a limit on the burning behav-ior of products in some standard test method which wasintended to simulate a realistic threat. For example, theASTM E-8496 test evaluates the performance of interiorfinish products when exposed to a standard fire conditionrepresentative of a broad range of applications for theseproducts. The results of these test methods can be mis-leading when applied to products without proper regardto their context of use, such as the testing of low densityplastics in the E-84 test. In many cases. there is onlya tenuous connection between the results of that test andthe property that was being checked. This app[ies tovarious aspects of bench-scale tests including toxicity,flame spread, ease of ignition, and smoke emission.

Table 3. Classification of fire performance based on heat release rate, ignitability, propensity to flashover, and smoke emission

Peakhammledsa Ignnab!fii, rw pfopanswto fladwwr. Smoke facww,S&“(kWm-z) (s) f,gw~ (sm2kW“’) (MWm-z)

q“ <60 2.5< Log(fign) 1 < Log ( ~gd’~ “) 1.5> Log(S)

60<q” <100 1.5< Log(t,qn) <2.5 0< log(~gti’~”) <1 2> Log(S) >l.5

100< Q’”<2OO 1 c Log(fi~n) <1.5 –1 < Log(@’4”) <0 2.5> Log(S) >2

200< Q “ <300 0.5< Log (ti~n)<1 -2< Log(t,gJ~”) < –1 3> Log(S) >2.5

q“> 300 Log (~gn) <0.5 Log ( ~gW’cj“) <-2 Log(S) >3

Source: Reference 51.

In genera~ it is difficult to substantiate the assertionthat some critical property was measured in most bench-scaie tests. However, the advent of modeling developedmostly over the past decada is having a profound impacton the ability to realistically evaluate the fire hazards ofmateriais and products in their actual context of use. It isno longer necessary to totally depend on the stand-alonetest methods for determining the degree of fire safetytiorded by a component material. The interactions ofmtdtipie components with each other in the context oftheir application and use can be evaluated interactionswhich are not considered in traditional test methods.Deficiencies of one component may be offset by thestrengths of another, resulting in a safe combination.A good exam Ie of this is the use of biocking layers in

Yaircraft seatsg which protect the foam core for sufficienttime to ailow safe evacuation of the passengers. Thisailows retention of the benefits of light weight and com-fort while still providing an appropriate level of safety.

It is the newly emerging technology of predictive firemodeling that enables evaluation of the combination ofa material and the environment in which it is being used.A primary example of the application of this field is inassessing smoke toxicity from the burning of concealedcombustiblesgs where the surroundings of the productaffect its burning behavior as welI as the movement of thesmoke to where peopie might be harmed. Of even moreimportance, the model can keep track of the contributionof the smoke produced by other combustible items whichmay be involved. This relationship is a breakthrough,since oniy the total smoke toxicity can be measured intests.

Ultimately, fire hazard analysis utilizing necessarydata from bench-scale heat release rate measurementscan provide a true assessment of the contribution ofa material or assembly to the overall fire hazard foridentified fire scenarios in passenger guided groundtransportation. In additio~ such analyses can include theeffects of vehicle and system design, detection, sup-pression, and evacuation and any tradeoffs between mui-tiple effects.

Quantitative hazard analysis techniques have the po-tential of providing significant cost savings. Alternativeprotection strategies can be studied within the hazardanaiysis framework to give the benefit-cost relation foreach. In additiom measures are evaluated as a systemwith their many interactions, including the impact ofboth structure and contents. Providing these alternativespromote the design flexibility which reduces redundan-cies and cost without sacrificing safety. New technologycan be evaluated before it is brought into practice, thusreducing the time lag currently required for code accept-ance. Thus, quantitative hazard analysis is a powerfulcomplement to existing codes and standards and a usefultool in evaluating improvements to them.

What is lacking in fire hazard analysis. Information by which

to characterize the application environment is typicallyavailable through general statistical sources. However,there are two elements missing. The first is showing theability to predict real-scale burning behavior for specificapplications with results obtained from small scale testscombined with computational hazard analysis. Second,

in order to carry out such an analysis completely, there is

one computational piece missin% a predictive tire growth -modei which includes ignitio% flame spreacL and sup-pression. Bamett and Cappwcio9g’ ’00 outline the addi- ,tional research needs necessag to implement a hazardand risk analysis framework for rail transportation ve-hicles consistent with these two missing elements. Theyinclude three areas important for further study

● Collection of small-scale testdata for hazard analysisusing methods such as the Cone Calorimeter, the fur-niture calorimeter, and the Radiant toxicity apparatusto collect fundamental flammability properties of thematerials used in trains.

e Extension of existing compartment fire models forapplication to transit vehicle fires.

● Real-scale tests of actual trains.

Current modeis of fire growth rely on what is com-monly called a specified fire. In such an application, onemeasures the heat reiease rate, smoke production, toxic-ity and so on with the test methods described above.Then these resuits are used to describe the fire which isused for the scenario calculations. In most cases, this is anacceptable solution. The heat release and species produc-tion are constrained by the available oxygen. In general,but not always, such an analysis will yield a conservativeresult. The reason is that the amount of pyroiysate avail-able for burning is a coupled function of the heat gener-ated so often the mass flux from the fire will be differentthan expected from the tests performed in a free bumenvironment as is the case for the Cone Calorimeter andmost other test apparatus. Thus. the Ievei of hazard canbe bracketed. But to be abie to extend the predictions tomultiple products burning simultaneously or sequen-tially, such as an initial seating fire which ignites anadjacent wall panel, prediction of fire growth is essentiai.

Before such caiculational tools are available to directlypredict fire growt~ estimates from correlations such asthe Wikstr6m and Gikansson techniques for combust-ible wail panels or avaiiable correlations for upholsteredseating must be used in place of a predictive pyrolysismodel.

To date, hazard analysis techniques have focused onthe products involved in fire. Other components of a sys-tem approach to fire safety are just beginning to beincorporated into predictive models. Until these are fullydeveloped, the effects of vehicle design, fire detection, andsuppression must be estimated from traditional designstrategies. This is particularly important in transporta-tion systems where fire detection can be important andinnovative suppression systems (such as water mist i 0L)are being considered.

CONCLUSION

Considerable advances in fire safety engineering havebeen made in the decade since the original developmentof the current US guidelines for passenger train materialselection. Some requirements for system design. materialscontrols, detection, suppression, and emergency egressare inciuded in the variety of requirements re-viewed—with each applying to distinct subsets of pas-senger guided ground transportation. Better understand-


. ing of the underlying phenomena governing fire initiation and construction, material flammability, fire detectionand growth have led to the development of a new genera- and suppression systems, communication systems,tion of test methods which can better predict the real- emergency evacuation, system operation, and personnelscale burning behavior of materials and assemblies. At training must be considered.the same time. advances in fire and hazard modeling are Several independent sources support this new direc-leading a revolution in the analysis of a material’s overall tion for rail transportation fire safety. Studies by Cappuc-contribution to fire hazard in a particular application. cio and Barnettgg’ 100 on transit system analysis,Such an approach allows evaluation of factors in addi- Schirmer Engineering Corporation 9 on stations, tun-tion to material flammability and of tradeoffs in the nels, and vehicles for Amtrak, and Burdett, Ames, andfire-safe design of the entire fire safety system. These Farde11102on the King’s Cross subway station fire alladvances should be incorporated into future designs of promote new test methods coupled with mathematicalpassenger trains. To properly evaluate the fire safety of modeling to assess potential hazards under real fire con-a system, motive power unit and passenger car design ditions.

REFERENCES

1. Federal Radroad Administration. flail passenger ewpmencretssuance of guidelines for selecting materials to improve theirfire safety characteristics. Federal Register 54, No. 10,1837-40 (1 989).

2. Federal Railroad Administration, Rail passenger ecwpmerwremsuance of guidelines for selecting materials to Improve theirfire safety characteristics. Federal Register 49, No. 21744052-584 ( 1984),

3. Federal Railroad Admmwtratlon, Rail passenger equipment:guidelines for selactmg materials to improve their fire safetycharacter!st!ca. Federal Register 49. No. 162.33076-78(1984).

4. Urban Mass Transportanon Admmistratlon, Recommendedfire safety practices for rail transtt materials selectlon. Federa/Reg/srer 49, No. 158(1984).

5. Speaficatton for Flammabdity, Smoke Emissions and ToxIcItv,Amtrak Spadication No. 352, Nanonal Railroad PassengerCorporation, 29 April 1991.

6. National Fire Protection Aesoclatlon, NFPA 130, Standard forFixed Gutdeway Transit Systems, 1990 edition, NFPA. Clumcy,MA (1990).

7. The passing of the wooden passanger car. In This Radroad,Pennsvlvama Radroad Information (1 928).

8. J. J. Trov, Fire protection provwons for rapid transit svstems.Fire J. 70, 13-17 (1976).

9. J. J. Wilkins and R. R. Cavanaugh. Plast/c and Rad Transporta-tion, Polymeric Materials and Their LJse m Transportation.27-29 April, The Polytechmque Institute of New York (1977).

10. R. R. Cavanaugh, SelectIon of materials for ground transpona -oon vehicles. In Proctwding of the Sixth International Confer-ence on Fire Safety, 12-16 January 1981, Menlo Park, CA(1981).

11. Passenger Fire Safety in Transportation Vehtcles. Arthur D.Little Report No. C-78203 to Transportation Systems Center,US Depanment of Transportation (1 975).

12. Fire Safety Aspects of Po/ymer/c &fater/als. Volume 8, LandTransporratton Vehicles. National Materials Adwsory 8oardPub. NMAB 318-8, Nauonal Academy of Sciences (1979).

13.Ra}lroad Accident Report - Fire Onboard Amtrak PassengerTrain No. 11,the Coast Starlight, Gibson, California, 23 June1984, Natl Transportation Safety Board, Report No.NTSB/RAR-83/03 (1 983).

14. B, Crossland. Setting the scene for the King’s Cross fire sVm-

Posmm. In The King’s Cross Underground Fire Fire Dynam/csand rfre Organtzat/on of Safety, The Institutlon of MechanicalEngineers, London (1989).

15. K. Moodie, Oamage assessment and overview of the technicalInuest]gatlon. In The King ‘S Cross Underground Fire Fire Dv-rramlcs and the Ckgan/zat/on of Safety, The Inst Itutlon ofMechanical Engineers, London (1 989).

16.J. A. Rakaczky, Fire and Flammability Characrertst/cs of Mater-/a/s Used in Rad Passe.rrger Cars. A Literature Survey, US ArmyEallistlc Research Laboratory, Report No, AR BRL-MR -03009(1980).

17 W. T, Hathaway and 1, Lltant, Assessment of current US De-partment of transoortatlon fire safety efforts. US Department of

Transportation Report No. UMTA-MA-06-O051 -79-4(1979).

18. R. D. Peacock and E. Braun, Fire Tests of Amtrak PassengerRail Vehic/e hrfenors, Natl. Bur. Stand. (US), Techrmcal Note1193 (1984).

19. Schirmer Enginearmg Corporation, Life Safety Srud~ andComputer Modeling Anal~s/s for New York City Railroad Tun-nels and Pennsylvania Stat\on, contract to The National Ral I-road Passenger Corporation. Sec. No. 15-890-29-04-00.

20. R. M. Dorer, S. H. Markos, R. A. Wlodvka, H. S, Lee,M. Coltman, W. T. Hathaway, A. E. Barrington and A. 8recherSafety of high speed magnetic Iewanon transportation sys-tems: German high speed maglev tram “safety requ trements- potenttal for application m the United States. US Departmentof Transportation, Reoort No. DOT/FRA/ORD-92/02,DOT/VNTSC/FRA/ 92-3 ( 1992).

21. A comparison of U.S. and Fore{gn Safety Regulations forPorentia/ Application ro Maglev Systems. Arthur D. Little Re-port No. 63057 to the Volpe National Transportation SystemsCenter (1992).

22. 1. Litant. Comparison of U.S. and French regulations for ra{ltransit fire safety. Presented at Thirteenth International Confer-ence on Fire Safety, San Franctsco. CA (1 988).

23. R. W. Bukowski and T. Tanaka, Toward the goal of a perfor-mance ftre code, Fire and Matenak 15,175–80 (1 991 ).

24. German Federal Radways, Raliroad Construction andTraffic Regulanons ( EBO). 8 May 1967 Federa/ Law Gazerre(BGB1 ) 1967 (wtth updates to the 1982 edition), Pt II. P. 1563(1982).

25. Preventwe Fire Protection m Radway Vehicles: Levels of Pro-tection, Fire Preventive Measures and Certification, DIN 5510Parts 1-8. Deutsches Instttut Fur Normung eV (1 988).

26. Directive Concerning the Construction and Operation ofStreetcars. 2648, Federal Law Journal, 1987.

27. High-speed maglev trains German safety reqwrements RW-MS8 (translation of German Regelwerk Magnetschnellbah-nen Sicherhettstechn lsche Anforderungen). US Department ofTransportanon, Report No. DOT/ FRA/ORO-92/01 (1 992).

28. Regulations refanng to fire protection and fire-fightingmeasures m passenger-carrying radway vehicles or asslmdaledvehicles used on mternatlonal services, UIC code 564-2 OR,International Union of Radways. (1 991).

29. R. Young, Behawour of rad vehicle components In fires. Pro-ceeding of Fire Performance of Mater!ais m Mass Transporr. 26May 1988. Rapra Technology Ljmlted, Shawbury, UK ( 1988).

30. BS 6853, Code of Pract!ce for Fire Precautions m the Oeslgnand ConstructIon of Radway Passenger Rolling Stock, BrmsnStandards Instltutton. London (1987).

31. S. Y. Cheong, Fire protecnon and fire safety features (n Sin-gapore’s mass rapid transit svstem. Fire Eng/neers J. 57, No.164.25-28(1 992).

32. S. Sato and T. Osaka, Study on fire protecnon measures forrailcars. Japanese RaJway Engineering, No. 123. 16-22(1993).

33. W. T. Hathaway, Commonalities !n transportation fire safetv:regulations. research and development. and data bases. US


Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center,Report DOT-TSC-OST-80-5 (1980).

34. R. D. Peacock, R. W. Bukoweki, W. W. Jones, P. A. Reneke. V.Babrauskas and J. E. Brown, Fire safety of passanger trainsa review of current approaches and of new concepts. Natl.Inst. Stand. Technol., Tech. Note 1406 (1 994).

35. Standard Teat Method for Surface Flammability of MaterialsUsing a Radiant Heat Energy Source, ASTM E-162, AnnualBook of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07. American Societyfor Testing and Materiais (1 988).

36. Standard Test Method for Surface Flammability of CeiluiarMateriais Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, ASTM D 3675,Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Voiume 09.02, American

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46,

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

Society for Testing and Materials (1990).Standard Teat Method for Specific Opticai Density of SmokeGenerated by Soiid Matariais, ASTM E-662. Annual 8ook ofASTM Standards, Voiume 04.07, American Society for Testingand Materials (1983).A. F. Robertson, D. Gross and J. Loftus, A new test method forevaluating flammability of interior finishes. Natl. Bur. Stand.(US) Report 4364 (1955).R. B. Williamson. Analysis of BART Fire Hardening Program,Report to BART (Aprii 1981).J. H. McGuwe, The spread of fire in comdora. Fire Techno/oqry4, No. 2.103 (1 968).G. L Neison, A. L Bridgman, W. J. J. O’Conneii and J. 8.Williams, Material performance m transportation vehicle in-teriors. J. Fire and Flammability 8.262-78 (1977).A. L. Brldgman and G. L Nelson, Radiant panei tesls onengineering plastics. Proceedings of the L_rrernanonal Confer-ence on Fire Safety, 17 to 21 January 1983, San Francisco,CA. pp. 191-226 (1 983).W. T. Hathaway and 1. Litant. Rationale for recommended firesafety pracoces for rail transit materiais selection. Urban MassTransportation Adm!mstratton, Report UMTA-MA-06-O098-82-1 (19B3).R. D. Bieniarz, Fire experiments on structural foam plasticequipment enclosures. Underwriters Laboratories, inc. reportfor lhe Soc!ety of the Plast]c Industry (1981).J. B. Fang, Fire buildup in a room and the roie of interior finishmateriais, Natl. Eur. Stand. (US), Tech. Note 879 (1975).E.B. Nichoias, Evacuation of exlating flammability test methodsby comparison of the flammabtiity characteristics of intenormateriais. Federal Awatton Admtmstrauon, Report No. FAA-NA-79-46 (1 980).Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke ReleaseRates for Materials and Products. ASTM E-906, Annua/ Bookof ASTM Standards. Volume 04.07, American Society for Test-ing and Matsrlals (1 983).J. G. Quinttere, An assessment of correlations between labor-atory and full -scaie exgerimems for the FAA Aircrati FireSafety Program. Part 4 Flammability tests. Natl. Bur. Stand.(US), NBSIR 82-2525 (1982).F. J M. Bonneres and PJ. Allender, Fire hazard evaluation forrapid transit trams. In Fire Retardants Proceedings of 1978International Sympostum on F/ammabdity and Fire Retardants.

ed. by V. M. Bhatnagar, PP. 30-44.1 B-19 May 1978, TorontoCanada. Technomc Publishing Co., Westport, CT (1 978).V. Babrauskas and R. D. Peacock, Heat release rate the singlemost Important variable m fire hazard. Fire Safety J. 18.No. 3.255-72 (1 992).M. M. Hirschier. l-low to measure smoke obscuration in a man-ner relevant to fire hazard assessment use of heat reieasecalorimetry test equipment. J. of Fire Sci. 9, 183–222 (1991),L. H. Breden and M. Meisters, The effects of sample orienta-tion in the smoke density chamber. J. F;re Fiamma6(/ity 7.234-47 (1976).V. Babrauskas, Applicaoons of predictive smoke measure-ments. J. Fire F/ammabJity 12,51-64 (1 981).J. G. Qumtiere, Smoke measurements: an assessment of cor-relations between laboratory and fuli- scale experiments. Fireand &faterfa/s. 6, Nos 3/4, 145-60 (1 982).V. 8abrauskas, Smoke measurements results from the ConeCaionmeter. In Proceedings of rhe 8th Joirrr Pane/ Meef/ngUJNR Panel on F;re Research and Safety, 13-21May 1985.PP. 420-34 (1 985).W J. Chnsnan and T. W. Waterman, Fire behavior of !nterlorfinish materials. Fire Techrro/ogy 6, No. 3, 155 (1970).

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

W. J. Christian and T. E. Waterman, Abiiity of smail-scale teststo predict fuil-scaie smoke production. Fire Technology 7, No.4.332-44 (1 972).W. J. Christian, Correlation between laboratory flammabilityteata and fires. In Proceedings of Flammability Characteristicsof Polymeric Materials, 6-12 June 1970, University of Detroit(1970).Standard Test Method for Heat and Vistbie Smoke ReieaseRatea for Materiais and Products Using an Oxygen Consump-tion Calorimeter, ASTM E-1354, Annual Hook of ASTM Stan-dards, Voiume 04.07, American Society for Testing and Mater-ials (1 990).Standard Teat Method for Criticai Radiant Flux of Floor Cover-ing Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, ASTME-648, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07,American Society for Testing and Materiais (1 988).J. R. Lawson, Fire test and flooring materiais. Proceedings ofthe Second Fire and Materiais Internat{onai Conference, 23-24September 1993, Ariington. VA. pp. 253-62 (1 993).f_ G. Hartzeii, Development of a radiant panel test for flooringmaterials. /Vat/. 8ur. Stand. (US), N BSi R 74-495 (1974).1. A. Ben]amin and C. H. Adams, Proposed crnerla for use ofthe criticai radiant flux test method. Natl. Bur. Stand. (US),NBSIR 75-950 (1975).C. H. Adams and S. Davis. Development of the flooring radiantpanel test as a standard test method. Natl Bur. Stand. (US),NBSiR 79-1959 (1980).First lnternat!onal Fire Prevention Congress, The Offtcial Con-gress Report, British Fire Prevention Commltee, London(1903).H. Shoub, Early History of Fire Endurance Testing in theUnited States. ASTM Special Technical Publication 301,American Society for Testing and Matenais. Philadelphia, pp.1-9 (1961).Standard Test method for Fire Test of Building ConstructIonand Materiais, ASTM E-11 9, Annual Book of ASTM Stan-dards, Volume, American Soctety for Testing and Materials(1990).V. 8abrauskas and R. 8. Williamson, The historical basis of fireresistance testing, Fire Technology 14,Nos 3 and 4, 184-94,30&16 (1978).R. W. Fitzgerald, Structural Integrity during fire. Section 6,Chapter 5 in Fire Protection Handbook seventeenth edit! on,ad. by A. E. Cote, Natl. Fire ProtectIon Association, Qulncy,MA (1991).BrKish Standards Speclficatlon 476. Britmh Standards institu-tion, London (1936).Federal Aviation Regulation -- FAA Airworthiness Standard,Parr 25, SectIon 25.853, Federal Register, Vol. 34, p. 130(1 969).Federal Test Standard No. 191, Method 5903.2. Flame Resist-ance of Cloth, Verncal, 9 July 1971.E. A. Tustin, Development of fire test methods for airplaneinterior materials. Nati. Aeronautics and Space Administration,Report No. NASA CR-14568 (1 978).C. P. Sarkos. R. A. Fiiipczak and A. Abramowttz. Prelimmaryevaiuat!on of an improved flammability test method for aircraftmateriais. US Department of Transportation, Report No.

DOT/FAA/CT-84/22 (1 984).R. D. Peacock, We safety guidelines for vehicles m a down-town peopie mover system-. Nad. Eur. Stand. (US), NBSIR78-1586 (1979).C. E. Jenkins, BART experience with new set materials. J.Consumer Product Flamm 9, No. 1, 20-30 (1982).W. T. Hathaway, S. H. Markos and J. B. Baker, Rewew ofBART ‘C car fire safetv characterwtics, US Department ofTransportation. Report No. UMTA-MA-06-01 78-87-1(1987).V. Babrauskas and J, F. Krasny, Fire behavior of upholsteredfurniture. Natl. Eur. Stand. (US), Monograph 173 (1 985),S. A. Ames and S. P. Rogers, Large and small scale firecalorimetry assessment of upholstered furniture. in /NTER-FLAM 90, Proceeding of the Fifth Intl. Fire Con f., pp.221-232. Interscience Commun!catlons. London (1 990).W. J. Parker, K.-M. Tu, S. Nurbakhsh and G. H. Damant,Furniture flammability an investigation of the California Tech-nical Bulletin 133 test. Part Iii: Fuil scale chair burns. Natl. Bur.Stand (US) NISTIR 4375 (1 990).

PASSENGER RAIL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES 87.,

81. Flammability Teat Procedure for Seating Furniture Used inPublicOccupancies (Technical Bulletin 133). State of Califor-nia, Depanment of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Fur-nishings and Thermal Insulation, North Highlands, CA (Jan-uary 1991 ).

82. T. Ohlemiller and K. Villa. Furniture flammabiiiw an investiga-tion of the California Technical Bulletin 133 Test - Part 2:Characterization of ignition source and comparable gaa burner.Natl. Bur. Stand. (US), NISTIR 4348 (1990).

83. U. Wickstrom and U. Gorarraaon, Full-scale/bench-scale cor-relations of wall and ceiling linings. Fire and Materia/s 16.15-22 (1 992).

84. U. Wtckstrom and U. G&ansaon, Prediction of heat releaserates of surface materials in large-scale fire tests based onCone Calorimeter results. J. Testing and Eva/uarlon 15.36&70 (1 987).

85. U. Goranaaon and U. Wickstrom, Flame spread predictions inthe Room/Corner test based on the Cone Calorimeter. In /rrter-tlam 90 Proceedings of the Fifth International Fire Confer-ence, Interacience Communications. London, PP. 211-19(1 990):

86. B. A. &tman, and R. M. Nusabaum, Correlation betweensmall -scale rate of heat release and full-scale room fIashoverfor surfaceiinings. In Fire Safety Science - Proceedings of tfreSecond International Symposium 1988, Hemmphere Publish-ing, New York, pp. 823-32 (1 989).

87 B. Sundstrom. Room fire test in full scale for surface products( Rapport SP-RAPP 1984:1 6). Statens Provmngsanstalt.8or4s. Sweden (1984).

88. Surface products: room fire tests m full scale ( NordtestMethod NT FIRE 025). NOROTEST, Helsmgfors. Finland(1986).

89. U. Gorarrason, Nordtest full-scale fire tests. Proceedings of theFlame Retardants 90 Conference. London, pp. 34-42 (Jan-uary 1990).

90. 8. Sundstrom and U. Goransson. Possible fire classificationcntena and thetr imcrlicattons for surface materials tested m fullscale according to ISO DP 9705 or NORDTEST Fire 025.SP-Report 1988:19, Statens Provnmgsanstalt. 8or&. Sweden(1988).

91. U. Wickstrom and U. Goransaon, Correlations of wall andceding linings. Chapter 13 in Heat Re/ease in Fires, ed. by V.Babrauskas and S. J. Grayson, Elsevier Applied Science, NewYork (1 992).

92. V. Babrauekas and U. G. Wlckstrom, The rational developmentof bench-scale fire tests for full-scale fire prediction. In FireSafety Science — Proc. of the Second international Sympo-sium (1988), pp. 813-22, Hemisphere Publishing, New York,NY (1 989).

93. H. Roux, Roux Irrternatlonal, personal commumcanon.94. T. Tanaka. Pedormance basad design method for fire safety of

buildings. Proceedings of the 1 Ith UJNR, pp. 268-91, NISTIR4449, Natl. Inst. Stand. Tachnol. (1 990).

95. National 8uiiding Fire Safety Project of the Building Regula-tion Review Task Force. M icroeconomlc Reform: Fire Regula-tion. Claude Eaton, project coordinator (May 1991 ).

96. Teat for Flame Spread on Interior Finish Materials, ASTME-84, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.07,American Society for Testing and Materials (1988).

97. J. R. Hall Jr and S. W. Stiefel, Oemion analysls model forpassenger-aircraft fire safetv with application to fire-blockingof seats. Natl. Bur. Stand. (US) NBSIR 84-2B17 (19B4).

98. R. W. Bukowski. Toxic hazard anahws of Dlenum cables. FireTechnology 27. No. 4, 252-66, (1985).

99. J. A. Cappuccto, Development of Analytical Techniques forRisk Management Trammg, Master’s thesis. Worcester Poly -hschmc Institute (1 992).

100. J. R. Barnett, Development of analytical techniques for riskmanagement training. US Oeparrment of Transportation, Fed-eral Transit Admmmtraoon, Repon DOT- MA-22-0050-92-1(1992).

101. K. A. Notananm and N. H. Jason (eds), !A@er M(st FireSuppreswon Workshop. 1-2 March 1993.Proceedings. Gal-thersburg, MO, NatL Inst. Stand. TechnoL. NISTIR 5207(1993).

102, J. R, F. Eurdett. S. A. Ames and P J. Fardell, Selection ofmaterials and composnes to mmlm!ze fire hazard. In The King’s

C[osa Underground Finz Fire Oynamtcs and the Orgarvzartonof Safety, The instltutton of Mechanical Engineers. London(1989).

Concept for Fire Protection Rail Station

Documents

Transcript of Concept for Fire Protection Rail Station