Fire safe upholstered furniture - risefr.no · a fire, upholstered furniture contributes to a rapid...

Fire safe upholstered furniture Alternative strategies to the use of chemical flame retardants

Karolina Storesund, Anne Steen-Hansen, Anna Bergstrand

SPFR Report A15 20124:2

SP

Fire R

esea

rch A

S

Fire safe upholstered furniture Alternative strategies to the use of chemical flame retardants

VERSION

1 DATE

2015-12-18

KEYWORDS:

Fire safety Upholstered furniture Flame retardants

AUTHORS

Karolina Storesund, Anne Steen-Hansen, Anna Bergstrand

CLIENT

Swedish Contingencies Agency (Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap, MSB)

CLIENT’S REF.

Per Karlsson

PROJECT NO.

20124

NUMBER OF PAGES/APPENDICES:

46 pages + 3 Appendices

ABSTRACT

It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that

it is composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible

materials. The fire properties are usually improved by adding chemical flame

retardants to the upholstery materials.

The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient fire safety in

upholstered furniture may be achieved, without the use of flame retardant

chemicals.

A number of cover materials in different combinations with other materials

including wadding, barrier materials and foam, have been tested in small scale

cone calorimeter tests and in mock-up chair tests. Time to ignition, heat release

and smoke production of the different combinations have been examined.

It is shown that there certainly are possibility to improve these properties by

means of alternative strategies other than by adding chemical flame retardants.

PREPARED BY

Karolina Storesund

SIGNATURE

CHECKED BY

Anne Steen-Hansen

SIGNATURE

APPROVED BY

Paul Halle Zahl Pedersen

SIGNATURE

REPORT NO.

A15 20124:2

ISBN

CLASSIFICATION

Unrestricted

CLASSIFICATION THIS PAGE

Unrestricted

REPORT NO. A15 20124:2

VERSION 1

2 of 46

Document history

VERSION DATE VERSION DESCRIPTION

1 18.12.2015 Final report delivered to the client


VERSION 1

3 of 46

Contents

Preface 5

Summary 6

1 Introduction 7 1.1 Background 7 1.2 Goal 7 1.3 Methods 7

2 Testing of upholstered furniture components and fire

barrier materials 9 2.1 Experience from CBUF (Combustion Behaviour of Upholstered

Furniture) 9 2.2 Experience from testing of fire barrier materials in the USA 9

3 Selection of materials 11

4 Cone calorimeter tests 14 4.1 Test set-up 14 4.2 Results 17 4.2.1 Time to ignition 18 4.2.2 Heat release 19 4.2.3 Smoke production 22 4.2.4 Assessment of the results 24

5 Mock-up tests 29 5.1 Test set-up 29 5.2 Results 30 5.2.1 Heat release 34 5.2.2 Smoke production 37 5.2.3 Assessment of the results 39

6 Discussion and conclusions 43 6.1 Effects of cover material and fire barrier 43 6.1.1 Even light barriers may have positive effects 43 6.1.2 Barriers can reduce the heat release 43 6.1.3 Barriers can reduce the smoke production 44 6.1.4 Predicting larger scale fire behaviour on the basis of small scale

tests 44 6.1.5 Conclusions 44 6.2 Recommendations for further work 44 6.2.1 Other ways of improving fire safety of upholstered furniture 44 6.2.2 A system for fire classification of upholstered furniture is needed 45 6.2.3 Assessment and evaluation based on testing 45

References 46

Appendix A Results cone calorimeter tests

A.1 Time to ignition

A.2 Heat release rate


VERSION 1

4 of 46

A.3 Smoke production

Appendix B Results mock-up tests

B.1 Heat release rate

B.2 Smoke production

Appendix C Pictures from mock-up chair experiments

C.1 Flame application

C.2 Crib 5 application


VERSION 1

5 of 46

Preface

This report is prepared by SP Fire Research on behalf of the Swedish Contingencies

Agency (MSB).

The goal of the project has been to demonstrate alternative strategies to adding chemical

flame retardants in order to improve the fire safety of upholstered furniture. Different

materials, commonly used in furniture on the Scandinavian market, have been

investigated.

We wish to thank those who have contributed to the project with advices, knowledge as

well as materials.

Trondheim 2015-12-18

Karolina Storesund

Project manager


VERSION 1

6 of 46

Summary

Background

It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that it is

composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible materials.

The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient fire safety in upholstered

furniture may be achieved, without the use of flame retardant chemicals. It is the aim that

the findings may form a basis for discussions concerning fire safety in upholstered

furniture and alternative strategies to the use of chemical flame retardants.

Methods and materials

In order to investigate materials that are common on the Scandinavian market we have

selected the materials to be tested in cooperation with suppliers.

One important limitation of our project is that flame retardants shall not be used in any of

the components. This means that the materials shall not be chemically treated or

otherwise have chemical flame retardants added to them.

To be able to analyse the fire properties of material combinations the test method ISO

5660-1 (the cone calorimeter method) was used initially for small scale testing and the

measuring equipment normally used for testing according to EN 13823 (the SBI test),

was used for mock-up tests. In the mock-up tests both a small gas flame and crib 5 of BS

5852 were applied as ignition sources.

Results and conclusions

In this project we have included barrier fabrics as a means to improve the fire behaviour

of the upholstered material combinations. The greatest influence of barriers is to separate

the flaming surface from the flammable non-flame retardant foam. So even by using very

light fabrics as barriers, in addition to the cover fabric, it is possible to improve the

reaction-to-fire-properties of these material combinations.

Barriers can reduce the heat release, this is shown in both our cone calorimeter tests and

mock-up chair tests. The effectiveness is higher for the denser fabrics, while the

effectiveness from the light barrier fabric is more dependent upon the nature of the cover

fabric. This is also true with regards to smoke production.

It is certainly possible to improve the fire safety in upholstered furniture without the use

of flame retardants, but it requires thorough examination and a proper choice of material

combination. From a fire safety point of view, there already exist alternative strategies

and materials that have the potential to improve fire safety in upholstered furniture

without the use of chemical flame retardants. We have noted that there are many

interesting materials available - mainly for completely other applications than for

furniture - but that could be interesting to investigate further for furniture applications.

Much can also be achieved through the possibilities offered by modification of design and

construction parameters of the complete furniture. We recommend that these topics are

further explored.

A voluntary fire classification system for upholstered furniture may be a tool that would

give the purchasers a possibility to choose products that fits the desired fire safety level,

and would be useful both for private households and for commercial and public

customers. We recommend this to be considered.


VERSION 1

7 of 46

1 Introduction 1.1 Background It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that it is

composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible materials. In

a fire, upholstered furniture contributes to a rapid fire development and in modern

dwellings the time to flashover has decreased significantly over the decades. A majority

of the fire fatalities in western countries are related to dwelling fires.

If stricter requirements were to be made on upholstered furniture with regards to

flammability it would most likely lead to a greater use of flame retardants. There is a risk

that increased use of chemicals will cause adverse health- or environmental effects. It is

therefore a need to further study how the choice of non-flame retardant material

combinations can be used as a strategy for improving the fire safety of upholstered

furniture.

1.2 Goal The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient fire safety in upholstered

furniture may be achieved, without the use of flame retardant chemicals. It is the aim that

the findings may form a basis for discussions concerning fire safety in upholstered

furniture and alternative strategies to the use of chemical flame retardants.

1.3 Methods In order to investigate materials that are common on the Scandinavian market we have

selected the materials to be tested in cooperation with suppliers. More information of the

selection of the materials follows in section 3 below.

One important limitation of our project is that flame retardants shall not be used in any of

the components. This means that the materials shall not be chemically treated or

otherwise have chemical flame retardants added to them. One exception has been made,

by including a cover fabric of Trevira TC polyester, an inherently flame retardant fibre.

The aim has been to use materials that does not need to be added any treatment and use

them in such a way that a satisfactory fire safety level is still achieved.

The information about the materials are based on specifications and information given by

the suppliers. The chemical content of the materials has not been analysed in this project.

To be able to analyse the fire properties of material combinations the test method ISO

5660-1 (the cone calorimeter method) [1] was used initially for small scale testing and the

measuring equipment normally used for testing according to EN 13823 (the SBI test) [2],

was used for mock-up tests. The mock-up tests were performed in order to expose a

selection of the materials tested in the cone calorimeter to flaming ignition sources.

We have not tested the material combinations for smouldering fire (e.g. EN 1021-1[5]),

as this was not a part of the project.

The mock-up test was an adjusted method were the exhaust hood and measuring

equipment according to EN 13823 [2] was used. Two ignition sources were used; match

flame equivalent as described in European standard EN 1021-2 [3] and Crib 5 as

described in British standard BS 5852 [4].


VERSION 1

8 of 46

The tests were performed in SP Fire Research laboratories in Trondheim (cone

calorimeter tests) and in Borås (mock-up tests).

The experiments and their results are described further in chapters 0 and 5. The scope of

the testing has been relatively limited, and in order to include as many different material

combinations as possible, the experiments with certain material combinations under

specific test modes have been limited to only one. This will affect the statistical

significance of the results and of our conclusions, but we are convinced that the results

will still give a good indication on the relevant properties.


VERSION 1

9 of 46

2 Testing of upholstered furniture

components and fire barrier materials

2.1 Experience from CBUF (Combustion Behaviour

of Upholstered Furniture) CBUF (Combustion Behaviour of Upholstered Furniture) was a European fire research

programme where the final report was published in 1995 [6]. The programme developed

fire test procedures and fire models for the assessment of the burning behaviour of

upholstered furniture and its components. The test methods used were based on ISO 5660

(cone calorimeter), ISO 9705 (room corner test) and NT Fire 032 (furniture calorimeter).

CBUF also presented their findings concerning how different components (e.g. cover

fabric, filling, interliners/barriers) and design can influence the fire behaviour.

The CBUF report offers important information about the test methods and the possibility

to predict fire behaviour based on smaller scale tests. It is also an important source of

information with regards to material selection and design strategies.

2.2 Experience from testing of fire barrier materials

in the USA A report published by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in 2013 [7] has been of great

interest for this project as it shows how the cover, foam, polyester wadding and fire

barrier interact. Our project has had a slightly different approach in that it attempts to

demonstrate how different cover fabrics may assist to achieve an increased fire safety

level. The UL study used one and the same cover fabric throughout the study. One

important difference is also the use of flame retardants. Our project has not used materials

that are treated with flame retardants and hence we would not be able to use a number of

the barriers tested in the UL study.

The development of fire barriers has been pushed forward largely due to the Californian

regulations. Using fire barriers is a method of protecting the upholstery foam from heat or

flame exposure. A recent study from Underwriter's laboratory Inc. (UL) explored

"whether commercially available flame retardant treated foam and fire barrier technology

can retard and/or reduce the fire growth rate of upholstered furniture when exposed to

small open flames" [7]. The approach of the study was to use commercially available

cover fabrics, foams and fire barriers and both flame retardant and non-flame retardant

polyurethane foam were used in the study. A number of different fire barrier materials

were studied, ranging in fibre composition of the barrier and whether or not the barrier

was chemically flame retardant. Experiments were conducted both with and without the

use of polyester wadding, a common feature in upholstered furniture. The same polyester

microsuede was used as a cover fabric throughout the study. This was chosen because it

was a common cover fabric sold from the largest cover fabric supplier in the United

States.

The different materials of the study were characterised with regards to a number of

properties such as density and thickness, but also through chemical analyses.

Small scale tests – cone calorimeter

The combustibility of material combinations was examined using the method ASTM E

1354 which is a cone calorimeter using 100 mm x 100 mm specimens. The specimens

were exposed to 30 kW/m2 radiant heat flux, and an electric spark igniter was used. Each


VERSION 1

10 of 46

material combination was tested with three single tests. Variables like time to ignition, re-

ignition time, flame duration, weight loss, peak- and average heat release rates, effective

heat of combustion, total generated heat were measured.

Medium scale tests – mock-up assembly

A three sided mock-up assembly (305 mm x 305 mm) bottom cushion with two side

cushions (229 mm x 305 mm and 229 mm x 229 mm) was used on an expanded steel

mesh frame and placed on load cell. The ignition source was a match flame equivalent

(BS 5852 source 1 - gas flame). Three single tests of the same material combination were

performed with the initial ignition time of 20 seconds. Combustion products were

collected by a hood and exhaust system in order to measure exhaust flow and oxygen

concentration. The variables time to ignition, weight loss, peak heat release rate, total heat

release and effective heat of combustion were measured.

Full-scale furniture tests

Four material combinations experiments in a single seat upholstered chair were tested.

The selection was based on previous results from medium scale tests. There were three

different ignition locations used in the experiments. The ignition source was a match

flame equivalent (BS 5852 source 1 - gas flame) applied for 20 seconds.

Some results and findings relevant for our project

The cone calorimeter tests showed that the incorporation of a barrier material may be

more effective at prolonging the time to ignition and to reduce the heat release rate than

using a flame retardant foam instead of a flame retardant free foam.

Different types of physical interference may enhance the fire properties of upholstered

furniture:

1. Thermal barrier that limits the heat transfer from the ignition source to the foam.

2. Physical barrier that limits the transport of volatile gases from the foam to the

surface.

3. Increased thermal mass of the material prolongs the time to heat up the material

and to start the pyrolysis.


VERSION 1

11 of 46

3 Selection of materials Irrespective of any possible adverse effects of chemical flame retardants on health and

environment there are other incentives to avoid using foam that is flame retardant. One

common flame retardant upholstery is CMHR foam (Combustion Modified High

Resilience Foam), which is a flexible polyurethane foam that has been added flame

retardants to improve its flammability [9]. However, we have been informed from

producers that these types of foams does not offer the required comfort in some

applications.

The use of fire barriers in upholstered furniture does not appear to be a common

production method in Scandinavia yet, and publications in this area are mainly found in

USA. The article "A review of fire blocking technologies for soft furnishings" [8] gives

examples of different types of barrier fabrics that are in use and are available on the

American market. These examples include materials both with and without flame

retardants. Glass fibre fabric is one example of an inherently fire resistant material. Its

effectiveness lies in preventing an ignition source from reaching the flammable

upholstery. Its disadvantage is a relatively poor durability and resiliency. In our

experiments we have used light glass fibre scrims of 25 and 80 g/m2 respectively, but

these are also manufactured in considerably denser qualities. There are also methods of

improving the durability of the glass fibre, e.g. core spun yarn, where polyester fibres are

protecting a core of glass filament.

Adding a barrier introduces one more material and hence increases the labour involved in

production. However, this can partly be reduced by using composites or laminated

fabrics.

The starting point for the selection of the materials for the tests was to include common

textiles from the perspective of a supplier. We wanted to test different aspects of the

textiles with regards to:

Fibre composition

Tightness of the weave

Area density

The premises for the project were to not use any chemical flame retardants. There are

many types of barrier materials on the market, especially on the American market.

However, many of these are based on addition of a chemical flame retardant, and was

therefore not relevant to use in this project. One exception was made. In the selection of

cover materials, a textile made of Trevira CS, an inherent flame retardant polyester fibre,

was used. The flame retardancy is built into the fibre and the fabric is thereby not

chemically treated .

The selection of materials was limited due to the number of tests that was planned within

the framework of the project. But the aim was to select materials and material

combinations that could be used to improve the following parameters:

Time to ignition

Heat release rate (HRR)

Total heat release (THR)

Rate of smoke production (RSP)

Total smoke production (TSP)

The aim is to prevent that a fire in an upholstered furniture will lead to untenable

conditions. Upholstered furniture is a family of products that may have great impact on


VERSION 1

12 of 46

the fire development. By using furniture that do not contribute significantly to the heat

development and smoke production, the time available for evacuation in a fire may be

prolonged.

Better reaction-to-fire properties can be achieved by choosing materials that may

act as a thermal barrier - limiting heat transfer

act as a physical barrier - limiting transport of volatile gases from the foam

have an increased thermal mass - prolonging the time to heat up and pyrolyse the

material

The materials to be tested were selected to cover a range of materials common in

upholstered furniture on the Scandinavian market.

The same foam was used in all the experiments. This was a non-flame retardant

polyurethane foam with a nominal density of 35 kg/m3.

Two types of polyester wadding was used, one type in the cone calorimeter tests (W1),

and one type in the model chair tests (W2). These were different for practical reasons and

came from different suppliers, however their properties were corresponding. Wadding

was not used in all tests. It was shown in the cone calorimeter tests that the wadding had

little influence on the results, and for practical reasons it was decided to reduce the

number of specimens with wadding in the mock-up tests.

The different materials and their identification used in the tests are presented in Table 3-1

through Table 3-4. In the presentation of the test results the test samples are identified by

the composition. I.e. "C1_W1_F3" means cover 1 (plain weave of 83 % cotton, 9 %

modal, 8 % polyester) on top of foam 3, with wadding 1 in the middle.

A few of the materials that were received in the project have been deselected from the

study. However they have been registered, but not included in the following tables, and

therefore results from testing of C7, C8 and C9 are not reported.

Table 3-1 Cover material identification and specification

ID Description Composition [%] Nominal area density [g/m2]

Measured area density [g/m2]

C1 Plain weave with pile 83 % cotton 9 % modal 8 % polyester

460 435

C2 2/2 plain weave 54 % cotton 46 % viscose

519 568

C3 Plain weave 100 % polyester, Trevira CS

250 262

C4 2/2 plain weave with fleece backing

100 % polyester 430 515

C5 Felted plain weave 70 % wool 25 % polyester

400 386

C6 Artificial leather PVC coating on polyester cotton/jersey

610 ±50 648

C10 Leather (thickness 1.3 mm) 721


VERSION 1

13 of 46

Table 3-2 Wadding material identification and specification


W1 Heat set polyester wadding

100 % polyester 200

W2 Polyester wadding 100 % polyester 200

Table 3-3 Barrier material identification and specification


B1 Glass fibre plain weave scrim

100 % glass fibre 25

B2 Glass fibre twill scrim 100 % glass fibre 80

B3 Aramid fibre plain weave scrim

100 % aramid fibre

36

Table 3-4 Foam material identification and specification

ID Description Composition [%] Nominal density [kg/m3]

Measured density [kg/m3]

F3 Polyurethane foam 100 % polyurethane

35 31


VERSION 1

14 of 46

4 Cone calorimeter tests

4.1 Test set-up The test specimens for the cone calorimeter tests were prepared with (100 x 100) mm

2

foam samples. Polyester wrap, when used, was also 100 mm in width and breadth (see

Figure 4-1). The cover material was cut and sewn to cover both the top surface and the

sides of the filling (see Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3).

The tests were performed using 35 kW/m2 heat flux, with an electric spark igniter as

ignition source. The samples with foam and cover were tested in series of three parallel

tests, their average results are presented in the report. The other specimens with

combinations including wadding and barriers were only tested once. The specimens were

placed in the specimen holder as described in ISO 5660-1 using a retainer frame, but not a

wire grid (see Figure 4-4).

Figure 4-1 Foam F3 with polyester fibre wadding W1 on top.


VERSION 1

15 of 46

Figure 4-2 Foam specimen with cover textile C1.

Figure 4-3 Foam specimen with cover textile C1. Viewed from below.


VERSION 1

16 of 46

Figure 4-4 Foam specimen with cover textile C1 placed in specimen holder.


VERSION 1

17 of 46

4.2 Results Table 4-1 presents tabulated results with regards to time to ignition, total heat release rate,

peak heat release rate and total smoke production from the cone calorimeter experiments

for the different combinations tested. The results are evaluated over a period of 600

seconds from start of the test. In the following sections examples of results are presented

and discussed.

Table 4-1 Results from the cone calorimeter with regards to time to ignition,

total heat release rate, peak heat release rate and total smoke

production.

tign [sec]

THR0-600 sec

[MJ/m2] HRRmax

[kW/m2] TSP0-600 sec

[m2/m2]

C1 14 57 252 133

C1_W1 11 53 173 73

C1_B1 14 39 201 57

C1_B2 15 42 187 52

C1_B3 15 54 220 84

C2 25 55 286 46

C2_W1 23 61 242 125

C2_B1 20 48 294 43

C2_B2 23 50 282 44

C2_B3 26 42 273 30

C3 12 48 430 692

C3_W1 9 48 410 771

C3_B1 12 46 263 309

C3_B2 14 41 182 305

C3_B3 17 45 257 295

C4 18 67 386 841

C4_W1 20 64 406 852

C4_B1 25 73 347 391

C4_B2 27 42 358 227

C4_B3 34 57 333 354

C5 17 62 428 433

C5_W1 12 66 377 564

C5_B1 18 20 391 471

C5_B2 18 32 349 136

C5_B3 18 40 365 102

C6 10 64 301 1444

C6_W1 7 65 290 1304

C6_B1 9 69 310 854

C6_B2 12 48 276 474

C6_B3 11 49 256 533

C10 51 79 361 343

F3 (Foam only) 5 37 492 223


VERSION 1

18 of 46

4.2.1 Time to ignition Figure 4-5 below shows time to ignition for the different material combinations, when exposed to a heat flux radiation of 35 kW/m

2 in the cone calorimeter.

More detailed column charts for the individual cover materials are presented in Appendix 0.

Figure 4-5 Time to ignition in the cone calorimeter test at heat flux 35 kW/m

2 for all material combinations.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tim

e [

sec]

C1_F3C1_W1_F3C1_B1_F3C1_B2_F3C1_B3_F3C2_F3C2_W1_F3C2_B1_F3C2_B2_F3C2_B3_F3C3_F3C3_W1_F3C3_B1_F3C3_B2_F3C3_B3_F3C4_F3C4_W1_F3C4_B1_F3C4_B2_F3C4_B3_F3C5_F3C5_W1_F3C5_B1_F3C5_B2_F3C5_B3_F3C6_F3C6_W1_F3C6_B1_F3C6_B2_F3C6_B3_F3C10_F3F3


VERSION 1

19 of 46

4.2.2 Heat release Figure 4-6 shows the comparisons between heat release rate for the different cover

materials in combination with only foam. The result for foam alone is also shown. More

detailed graphs showing heat release rate results for the different combinations are

presented in appendix 0. Two examples are shown in Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8, with

different shapes of the graphs, and different degree of benefit from the use of barriers.

Figure 4-6 Heat release rate. Different covers directly on foam, and foam alone

(F3).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2]

Time [sec]

C1_F3Average

C2_F3Average

C3_F3Average

C4_F3Average

C5_F3Average

C6_F3Average

C10_F3Average

F3Average


VERSION 1

20 of 46

Figure 4-7 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C2.

Figure 4-8 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C3.

From the graphs one can see the effect from adding wadding or a barrier material to the

material combination.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2]

Time [sec]

C2_F3AverageC2_W1_F3

C2_B1_F3

C2_B2_F3

C2_B3_F3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2 ]

Time [sec]

C3_F3Average

C3_W1_F3

C3_B1_F3

C3_B2_F3

C3_B3_F3


VERSION 1

21 of 46

Total heat release during 0-600 seconds for covers C1 to C6 and C10 with different

component combinations are presented in Figure 4-9 below, and corresponding results for

peak heat release rate are shown in Figure 4-10. Results for foam alone are also shown

(F3).

Figure 4-9 Total heat release during 0-600 seconds. Covers C1 to C6 and C10

with different component combinations, and foam only (F3).

Figure 4-10 Peak heat release during 0-600 seconds. Covers C1 to C6 and C10


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C10 F3

Tota

l he

at r

ele

ase

[M

J/m

2]

Cover+Foam

Cover+wadding+foam

Cover+Barrier1+Foam

Cover+Barrier 2+Foam

Cover+Barrier3+Foam

F3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C10 F3

Pe

ak h

eat

re

leas

e [

kW/m

2]

Cover+Foam

Cover+wadding+foam

Cover+Barrier1+Foam


Cover+Barrier3+Foam

F3


VERSION 1

22 of 46

4.2.3 Smoke production Figure 4-11 shows the comparisons between smoke production rate for the different cover

materials in combination with only foam, and for the foam alone. Smoke production rate

results for the different combinations are presented in appendix 0. From the graphs one

can see the effect from adding wadding or a barrier material to the material combination.

Figure 4-11 Smoke production rate. Different covers directly on foam, and foam

alone (F3).

Figure 4-12 is one example where adding one of the barrier materials has a substantial

effect. The figure describes C3 (Trevira CS polyester) in different combinations.

Figure 4-12 Smoke production rate, material combinations with cover C3.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C1_F3 Average

C2_F3 Average

C3_F3 Average

C4_F3 Average

C5_F3 Average

C6_F3 Average

C10_F3Average

F3 Average

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C3_F3 Average

C3_W1_F3

C3_B1_F3

C3_B2_F3

C3_B3_F3


VERSION 1

23 of 46

Figure 4-13 Smoke production rate, material combinations with cover C2.

Total smoke production during 0-600 seconds for covers C1 to C6 and C10 with different

component combinations are presented in Figure 4-14 below.

Figure 4-14 Total smoke production during 0-600 seconds. C1 to C6 and C10


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C6_F3 Average

C6_W1_F3

C6_B1_F3

C6_B2_F3

C6_B3_F3

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C10 F3

Tota

l he

at r

ele

ase

[M

J/m

2 ]

Total smoke production 0-600 sec

Cover+Foam

Cover+wadding+foam

Cover+Barrier1+Foam


Cover+Barrier3+Foam

F3


VERSION 1

24 of 46

4.2.4 Assessment of the results In Figure 4-15 the results for peak heat release rate (HRRmax), total heat release (THR),

total smoke production (TSP) and time to ignition (tign) for each cover material applied

directly on the foam F3 are shown. All results presented are calculated over a test period

of 600 s. These values are used as reference values for assessing the effects of using

different barrier materials in the upholstery combinations.

Figure 4-15 Results from the different covers mounted directly on the upholstery

foam F3 tested in the cone calorimeter at a heat flux density level of

35 kW/m2. All results are evaluated over a test period of 600 seconds.

To study how test results from a cover fabric change when it is combined with different

underlying materials (wadding and barriers) we have used radar diagrams, as shown in

Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17. The results in these diagrams are normalized against the

results from each cover mounted directly on the foam, i.e. test results from cover + foam

are given the value 100 %. The cover designated C10 (leather) has not been further tested

with any barriers in this project, and is therefore not shown in a radar diagram.

Results on smoke and heat release are shown in one diagram, while time to ignition is

shown in a separate diagram. The results are separated because low values for heat and

smoke are regarded as good, while a high value for time to ignition is desirable. For heat

release rate and smoke production a value below 100 % means an improvement in fire

properties compared to the combination of cover directly on upholstery foam, while a

value above 100 % means a worse result. For ignitability a value above 100 % represents

an improvement compared to the combination of cover directly on upholstery foam.


VERSION 1

25 of 46

Figure 4-16 Comparison of results from different material combinations of

covers C1, C2 and C3 compared to results with the same cover

mounted directly on the upholstery foam F3. The materials were

tested in the cone calorimeter at 35 kW/m2. All results are evaluated

over a test period of 600 seconds.


VERSION 1

26 of 46

Figure 4-17 Comparison of results from different material combinations of

covers C4, C5 and C6 compared to results with the same cover

mounted directly on the upholstery foam F3. The materials were

tested in the cone calorimeter at 35 kW/m2. All results are evaluated

over a test period of 600 seconds.


VERSION 1

27 of 46

Two examples of assessments:

For C1 the diagram shows that C1_B2 gives better results on all four parameters

than for C1 on foam – i.e. below 100 % for the heat release and smoke

production, and above 100 % for time to ignition.

C2 on wadding gives a better result with regards to peak heat release rate, but

worse results with regards to time to ignition and total heat release. The results

are significantly worse on total smoke production (outside the scale of the

diagram).

These diagrams clearly show that the important reaction-to-fire properties may change in

different directions when introducing changes in the material combination. One

combination may release much heat and little smoke, while another combination may

produce much smoke but little heat. It will not be sufficient to only regard one single

variable when assessing the overall fire safety of the upholstered furniture. An assessment

of what material combination that will be the "optimal" one (if any at all) must take this

into account.

Effects of wadding

Wadding is normally used between the cover fabric and the upholstery foam to enhance

comfort and providing a "cushion appearance". The polyester wadding used in the cone

calorimeter tests was designated W1.

Time to ignition, tign

The wadding tended to decrease time to ignition with a few seconds, except for

C4 (heavy polyester fabric with a fleece back) where a small increase was

observed. This effect can be seen in the diagrams to the right in Figure 4-16 and

Figure 4-17. The reduction in time to ignition is probably due to a higher

insulation effect, and hence a reduction in the surface thermal inertia1 compared

to the cover directly applied on the foam. The effect of the wadding on time to

ignition is, however, so small that it most probably is not important with regard to

the fire safety of a complete furniture in a real life situation.

Peak heat release rate, HRRmax

The wadding tended to decrease the peak heat release rate. The largest relative

decrease of 31% was found for cover C1 (cotton –modal –polyester blend) in

combination with wadding (C1_W1). For several of the combinations only a

small decrease or increase in HRRmax was observed.

Total heat release, THR0-600 sec

The wadding did not lead to any evident changes in THR, only very small

positive or negative changes could be observed.

Total smoke production, TSP0-600 sec

The tests with wadding lead to an increase in total smoke production for all

covers except for C6 (artificial leather). The largest relative increase in TSP of

172% was measured for the combination C2 (cotton/viscose blend) and wadding

(C2_W1).

For the majority of covers the wadding did not seem to have any considerable effect on

any of the measured properties. It is therefore assumed that the polyester wadding will

have no significant effect on the test results from fire tests in larger scale.

1 thermal inertia = product of thermal conductivity, density and specific heat capacity (ISO

13943:2008 Fire Safety – Vocabulary). May be interpreted as an ability to absorb heat.


VERSION 1

28 of 46

Effects of fire barriers

Three different barriers were tested in the project. In the cone calorimeter tests the

barriers were tested without any layer of wadding.

Time to ignition, tign

There was some variation in time to ignition between the different material

combinations. For the covers C1, C3, C4 and C5 time to ignition was increased

independently of which of the barriers that was added. For the covers C2

(cotton/viscose blend) and C6 (artificial leather) an increase or decrease in time to

ignition seemed to be dependent on type of barrier. The heavier glass fibre barrier

B2 gave longer times to ignition than the lighter version B1.


The barriers tended to decrease the peak heat release rate, except for the cover C2

where HRRmax seemed to be unchanged in combination with any of the barriers.

The largest relative decrease of 58% was found for cover C3 (polyester Trevira

CS) in combination with the 80 g/m2 glass fibre barrier B2 (C3_B2). For several

of the combinations only a small decrease (or increase in two cases) in HRRmax

was observed.


The barriers B2 (glass fibre) and B3(aramid) decreased the total heat release in

combination with all cover materials. The largest decrease of 48 % was measured

for barrier B2 in combination with cover C5 (wool/polyester blend). The lightest

glass fibre barrier B1 gave results that seemed to be dependent on the cover,

either a clear reduction in THR or a nearly unchanged value.


Total smoke production was reduced for all combinations of cover and barriers,

except for the combination of cover C5 and barrier B1 where a small increase in

TSP was measured. The largest relative reduction in TSP of 76 % was measured

for the combination C5_B3.

As an overall assessment the barrier B1 gave nearly unchanged results or improved

results dependent on the type of cover fabric. B1 is the lightest of the two glass fibre

cloths, with an area density of 25 g/m2. The heavier glass fibre fabric B2, with an area

density of 80 g/m2, improved the test results in all tests, except for the cover C2 where all

results are close to the results from C2 (cotton/viscose blend) applied directly on foam F3.

The aramid barrier B3 improved all the test results in all tests, especially concerning the

total smoke production. None of the barriers lead to worse test results compared to tests

without the barrier.


VERSION 1

29 of 46

5 Mock-up tests 5.1 Test set-up A corner mock-up assembly was used for the mock-up test (see Figure 5-1), based on the

setup described in [7]. The dimensions used were:

Back cushion: (305 x 229 x 75) mm

Side cushion: (229 x 229 x 75) mm

Bottom cushion: (305 x 305 x 75) mm

The ignition source (both the gas flame and the crib) was applied in the corner of the

mock-up. The gas flame was applied for 15 seconds, as described in EN 1021-2 [3].

Figure 5-1 Test set-up, mock-up assembly with cover textile C1 during match

flame equivalent exposure.


VERSION 1

30 of 46

The different test performed using this set-up is presented in Table 5-1 below.

Table 5-1 Material combinations and scope of test

Material combination Ignition source No. of single tests

C1 + W2 + F3 Flame*) 2

Crib 5 1

C1 + B1 + F3 Crib 5 1

C2 + W2 + F3 Flame*) 2

Crib 5 1

C2 + B1 + F3 Crib 5 1

C2 + B2 + F3 Crib 5 1

C3 + W2 + F3 Flame*) 2

Crib 5 1

C3 + B1 + F3 Crib 5 1

C3 + B2 + F3 Crib 5 1

C6 + W2 + F3 Flame*) 2

Crib 5 1

C6 + B1 + F3 Crib 5 1

C10 + W2 + F3 Flame*) 2

Crib 5 1

C10 + B1 + F3 Crib 5 1

C10 + B3 + F3 Crib 5 1 *)

15 seconds application

5.2 Results Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 presents tabulated results with regards to total heat release rate,

peak heat release rate and total smoke production from the mock-up chair experiments,

for the different combinations tested. In the following sections examples of results are

presented and discussed.

Table 5-2 Results from the mock-up chair tests with regards to total heat

release rate, peak heat release rate and total smoke production.

Ignition source: gas flame

THR0-1200 sec

[MJ] HRRmax

[kW] TSP0-1200 sec

[m2]

C1_W2 21.54 60.68 54.89

C2_W2 0.03 0.59 0.01

C3_W2 1.45 0.14 0

C6_W2 0.08 1.12 0.08

C10_W2 0.04 0.81 0.02


VERSION 1

31 of 46

Table 5-3 Results from the mock-up chair tests with regards to total heat

release rate, peak heat release rate and total smoke production.

Ignition source: crib 5

THR0-1200 sec

[MJ] HRRmax

[kW] TSP0-1200 sec

[m2]

C1_W2 21.36 63.97 47.84

C1_B1 19.14 38.82 29.11

C2_W2 21.60 35.92 34.95

C2_B1 20.09 33.07 18.79

C2_B2 20.21 40.89 20.15

C3_W2 18.63 75.42 178.93

C3_B1 16.40 71.29 119.24

C3_B2 0.57 3.57 5.25

C6_W2 22.87 80.19 562.80

C6_B1 0.97 5.53 21.32

C10_W2 25.03 47.78 86.57

C10_B1 23.05 53.63 47.31

C10_B3 22.90 52.81 59.24

Pictures from the different test modes are presented in appendix 0. Examples are shown

in the following sections.


VERSION 1

32 of 46

Figure 5-2 shows the combination with the worst behaviour after the gas flame exposure.

The other cover materials tested left very little damage to the test specimen (see also

appendix 0).

t=0 t=1 min

t=2 min t=5min

Figure 5-2 C1_W2_F3, cover C1: Plain weave with pile (83 % cotton, 9 %

modal, 8 % polyester). Flame application.


VERSION 1

33 of 46

The Trevira CS in combination with polyester wadding showed relatively poor resistance

to the crib exposure, as compared to the other cover materials, see Figure 5-3. However,

as can be seen from the experiments, this behaviour can be improved by adding a barrier

material (see also 0).

t=0 t=1 min

t=2 min t=5min

Figure 5-3 C3_W2_F3, cover C3: Plain weave (100 % Trevira CS). Crib 5

exposure.


VERSION 1

34 of 46

5.2.1 Heat release Figure 5-4 shows the heat release rate for the different cover materials used together with

polyester fibre wadding, tested in the mock-up tests and exposed to crib 5. Figure 5-5 and

Figure 5-6 are examples of the possible effects of a barrier material on the heat release

rate. The results from the flame application are presented in Table 5-2.

Figure 5-4 Heat release rate. Different covers, with foam and wadding. Crib 5

exposure.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C1_W2_crib 5

C2_W2_crib 5

C3_W2_crib 5

C6_W2_crib 5

C10_W2_crib 5


VERSION 1

35 of 46

Figure 5-5 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C3. Both ignition

sources flame and crib 5.

Figure 5-6 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C6. Both ignition

sources flame and crib 5.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C3_W2_crib 5

C3_W2_flame

C3_B1_crib 5

C3_B2_crib 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C6_W2_crib 5

C6_W2_flame

C6_B1_crib 5


VERSION 1

36 of 46

Total heat release during 0-1200 seconds for covers C1, C2, C3, C6 and C10 with

different component combinations when exposed to crib 5 are presented in Figure 5-7

below. Corresponding peak heat release rate is presented in Figure 5-8. The results from

the flame application are presented in Table 5-2.

Figure 5-7 Total heat release during 0-1200 seconds. C1, C2, C3, C6 and C10

with different component combinations. Crib 5 exposure.

Figure 5-8 Peak heat release rate during 0-1200 seconds. C1, C2, C3, C6 and

C10 with different component combinations. Crib 5 exposure.

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

C1 C2 C3 C6 C10

Tota

l he

at r

ele

ase

[M

J]

Cover+wadding+foam

Cover+Barrier1+Foam


Cover+Barrier3+Foam

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

C1 C2 C3 C6 C10

He

at r

ele

ase

rat

e [

kW]

Cover+wadding+foam

Cover+Barrier1+Foam


Cover+Barrier3+Foam


VERSION 1

37 of 46

5.2.2 Smoke production Figure 5-9 below shows the smoke production rate for the gas flame mock-up tests. Only

C1 has a substantial smoke production, the other curves are marked with red. C1 was the

only cover material that showed sustained burning after removal of the burner tube.

Figure 5-9 Smoke production rate. Different covers, with foam and wadding.

Flame exposure.

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Smo

ke p

rod

uct

ion

[m

2/s

]

Time [sec]

C1_W2_flame

C2_W2_flame

C3_W2_flame

C6_W2_flame

C10_W2_flame


VERSION 1

38 of 46

Figure 5-10 below shows the smoke production rate for the crib 5 mock-up tests.

Figure 5-10 Smoke production rate. Different covers, with foam and wadding.

Crib 5 exposure.

Figure 5-11 Total smoke production during 0-1200 seconds. C1, C2, C3, C6 and

C10 with different component combinations. Crib 5 exposure.

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Smo

ke p

rod

uct

ion

[m

2 /s]

Time [sec]

C1_W2_crib 5

C2_W2_crib 5

C3_W2_crib 5

C6_W2_crib 5

C10_W2_crib 5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

C1 C2 C3 C6 C10

Smo

kw p

rod

uct

ion

[m

2 ]

Cover+wadding+foam

Cover+Barrier1+Foam


Cover+Barrier3+Foam


VERSION 1

39 of 46

5.2.3 Assessment of the results As only one of the tested combinations (C1 on wadding) ignited when tested with the

small flame ignition source, these tests are not assessed in detail in this section.

In Figure 5-12 the results for peak heat release rate (HRRmax), total heat release (THR)

and total smoke production (TSP) for the upholstery combinations tested with ignition

source crib 5 in the mock-up are shown. All combinations are tested on the polyurethane

foam F3, and the results are calculated over a test period of 1200 s. The average of these

values are used as reference values for assessing the effects of different barrier materials

in the upholstery combinations.

Figure 5-12 Results from the different upholstery combinations tested in the

mock-up with exposure to crib 5. All results are evaluated over a test

period of 1200 seconds. The value of C6_W2 on total smoke

production was 563 m2 and the column extends beyond the scale of

the diagram above.


VERSION 1

40 of 46

As for the assessment of cone calorimeter test results we have also here used radar

diagrams, as shown in Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14. The results in the diagram in Figure

5-13 are normalized against the averaged results from all the tests with crib 5 in the

mock-up. The results in the diagram in Figure 5-14 are normalized against the results

from each cover mounted on wadding W2 and the foam, i.e. test results from cover +

wadding W2 + foam F3 are given the value 100 %.

A value below 1 means an improvement compared to the average value for the assessed

fire property (i.e. less heat or less smoke than the average).

Figure 5-13 Comparison of results from for the different combinations of covers,

wadding and barriers mounted on the upholstery foam F3 tested

with ignition source crib 5 in the mock-up. All results are evaluated

over a test period of 1200 seconds, and normalized against the

average test results for each variable. Values below 1 are assessed as

better than the average. C6_W2 had a TSP value of 5.9 times the

average TSP.

From Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13 we can see that the best results on both smoke

production and heat release are achieved by cover C3 (polyester, Trevira CS) in

combination with the 80 g/m2 glass fibre barrier B2 and by cover C6 (artificial leather) in

combination with the 25 g/m2 glass fibre barrier B1.

For assessing the effect of barriers on each cover fabric, a radar diagram for each cover is

presented in Figure 5-14. In this figure the axes for the two cases where only one barrier

was tested (C1 and C6) are changed compared to the diagrams where test results from

more than one barrier are presented.


VERSION 1

41 of 46

Figure 5-14 Comparison of results from for the different combinations of covers,

wadding and barriers mounted on the upholstery foam F3 tested

with ignition source crib 5 in the mock-up. All results are evaluated

over a test period of 1200 seconds, and normalized against the test

results for each cover in combination with wadding W2 and foam F3.


VERSION 1

42 of 46

Effects of fire barriers

Material combinations with three different barriers were tested in the mock-up. Barrier

B3 was only tested in combination with cover of leather, C10.


The barriers either decreased the peak heat release rate significantly, or in some

cases the peak heat release rate value was approximately unchanged. The largest

effect was observed in the test of barrier B2 with cover C3 and cover C6 with

cover B1.


The effects on THR0-1200 sec were the same as for the peak heat release rate.


Total smoke production was reduced for all combinations of cover and barriers.

The largest relative reductions in TSP of 96-97 % were measured for the

combinations C3_B2 and C6_B1.

These results show that it is possible to improve important reaction-to-fire properties by

adding a fire barrier fabric to the upholstery combination. Even the light-weight glass

fibre fabric had dramatic effect in the mock-up scale test with the cover of artificial

leather, C6. None of the barriers lead to worse test results compared to tests without the

barrier.


VERSION 1

43 of 46

6 Discussion and conclusions

In this study we have concentrated on the initial fire development in an upholstered piece

of furniture. The aim of the study is to evaluate if – and to which degree – reaction-to-fire

properties of upholstered furniture can be improved without addition of any chemical fire

retardants to the materials. For evaluation of material fire properties we have used the

small scale cone calorimeter test. For assessment of the fire behaviour in real scale, we

have tested the material combinations in a semi-scale mock-up, exposing the test objects

to the recognised ignition sources crib 5 according to the British standard BS 5852, and

the small flame according to European standard EN 1021-2.

The focus has been on properties that are of importance with respect to detection of fire,

human reaction and evacuation. Results on ignitability, heat release and smoke

production from the tests are considered useful for evaluation of the fire hazard of

different material combinations in upholstered furniture. Because there is a limited

number of tests in this project, and thus a limited data set, proper statistical analysis of the

data is not possible. The assessments below are therefore subjective and based on

observations of the test results.

6.1 Effects of cover material and fire barrier We can see from the cone calorimeter tests that, as expected, the choice of cover material

is of importance for the time to ignition. Incorporating a barrier between the cover and the

foam increases the time to ignition in most of the cases. Some cover materials will benefit

from even a light fire barrier while others will need more optimisation of the barrier in

order to be effective.

6.1.1 Even light barriers may have positive effects The barrier fabrics we have chosen are light and transparent, they will therefore not act as

a thermal barrier that would limit the heat transfer, nor would they limit the transport of

volatile gases from the upholstery foam. The greatest influence of the barriers is to

separate the flaming surface from the flammable non-flame retardant foam. So even by

using very light fabrics as barriers, in addition to the cover fabric, it is possible to

improve the reaction-to-fire properties of these material combinations.

Even though light barriers may have positive effect on the fire properties testing is needed

to assess whether the barrier will work with a particular cover fabric. Our results have

shown that a denser barrier tends to be more independent of the choice of cover fabric

than a lighter barrier would be.

6.1.2 Barriers can reduce the heat release The barrier fabrics had positive effect by decreasing total heat release from the test

specimen in the cone calorimeter, as well as they showed a tendency to reduce the peak

heat release rate. Again, the effectiveness is higher for the denser fabrics, while the

effectiveness from the light barrier fabric is more dependent upon the nature of the cover

fabric. When the material combinations were tested as a mock-up chair and exposed to a

crib 5 open flame ignition source, the peak heat release as well as the total heat release

were reduced when adding a barrier between the cover fabric and the foam.


VERSION 1

44 of 46

6.1.3 Barriers can reduce the smoke production Generally (both in cone calorimeter and mock-up tests), total smoke production was

reduced by adding a barrier. The largest effect came from a denser barrier fabric.

However, as this may not always be the case, an assessment of a cover fabric together

with a barrier fabric should also include smoke production evaluation.

6.1.4 Predicting larger scale fire behaviour on the basis of

small scale tests Our experiments show, not surprisingly, that it may be challenging to predict the reaction-

to-fire properties of different material combinations based on small scale testing.

However, we do see a correlation in the interpretation of the experiments. This has also

been explored in the CBUF report from 1995.

6.1.5 Conclusions It has been shown that fire safety of upholstered furniture can be improved by clever

choice of materials. Applying a fabric that can act as a fire barrier between the cover and

the upholstery foam can reduce release of heat and smoke from the furniture to different

degrees depending of the barrier fabric and the material combination in the upholstered

furniture. Although our tests have not been performed strictly according to EN 1021-2

and BS 5852 respectively, it is our opinion that our experiments show that it is possible to

pass tests according to these standards without the use of chemical flame retardants, but

by using alternative strategies.

The differences in the effectiveness of cover-barrier combinations, as discussed in the

sections above, show that it is certainly possible to improve the fire safety in upholstered

furniture without the use of flame retardants. However, it requires thorough examination

and a proper choice of material combination.

6.2 Recommendations for further work 6.2.1 Other ways of improving fire safety of upholstered

furniture Further possibilities to improve the fire safety in upholstered furniture are modification of

design and construction parameters of the complete furniture, which has not been studied

in this project. Several publications offer advice on the subject, e.g. Fire Behavior of

Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses [10], Fire Safety of Upholstered Furniture – the

final report on the CBUF research programme [6], and the article "A review of fire

blocking technologies for soft furnishings" [8]. For example, chairs with large gaps in the

design, e.g. between seat and back, mean less fuel and decreased risk of fire development.

The use of armrests means more fuel and a radiative feedback to a fire in the furniture.

Upholstery with little space between the furniture and the ground can speed up a fire

development when pools of melted polymer are created under it.

Using fire barriers is one method that has a potential and that should be further explored.

We have noted that there are many interesting materials available - mainly for completely

other applications than for furniture - but that could be interesting to investigate further

for furniture applications. They should be investigated both with regards to relevant

requirements on quality, comfort and cost, but also with regards to relevant requirements

on fire safety so that the range of available fire barriers can be increased.


VERSION 1

45 of 46

6.2.2 A system for fire classification of upholstered furniture

is needed As already mentioned, even light barrier materials show positive effects, at least for

smaller size ignition sources such as gas flame (EN 1021-2) and crib 5 (BS 5852). Not all

barriers need to be resistant to significantly larger ignitions sources. However, it may be a

large step forward to improve the fire safety of upholstered furniture from today's

Scandinavian standard to a higher level by clever choice of materials and design. All

products may not satisfy some of the more severe fire tests that are in use in some

countries, where the furniture is exposed to relatively large ignition sources, but that

should not be seen as a problem.

Introducing a voluntary fire classification system for upholstered furniture could be a part

of the solution. Such a system may be a tool that gives the purchasers a possibility to

choose products that fits the desired fire safety level, and will be useful both for private

households and for commercial and public customers.

6.2.3 Assessment and evaluation based on testing The complexity in the way different cover materials behave and interact with barrier

materials and other components requires that the actual material combination is tested and

evaluated in real scale. A system for assessments that simplifies the evaluation, e.g. based

on testing with reference materials, rules for extended application of test results etc.

should be developed. This should make it possible to assess a large range of fabrics that

are nearly, but not quite, identical with regards to properties like area density, colour etc.

It will also allow for product development and smaller changes in design and material

composition while limiting the required amount of testing.


VERSION 1

46 of 46

References

[1] “ISO 5660-1:2015 Reaction-to-fire tests - Heat release, smoke production and mass

loss rate - Part 1: Heat release rate (cone calorimeter method) and smoke production

rate (dynamic measurement).” ISO Copyright office, published in Switzerland, 2015.

[2] “EN 13823: 2010 Reaction to fire test for building products - Building products

excluding flooring exposed to the thermal attack by a single burning item.” CEN,

2010.

[3] “EN 1021-2:2014 Furniture - Assessment of the ignitability of upholstered furniture -

Part 2: Ignition source match flame equivalent.” CEN-CENELEC, Brussels, 2014.

[4] “BS 5852:2006 Methods of test for assessment of the ignitability of upholstered

seating by smouldering and flaming ignition sources.” BSI, 2006.

[5] “EN 1021-1:2014 Furniture - Assessment of the ignitability of upholstered furniture -

Part 1: Ignition source smouldering cigarette.” CEN-CENELEC, Brussels, 2014.

[6] B. Sundström, Ed., Fire Safety of Upholstered Furniture: the final report on the

CBUF research programme. London: Interscience Communications Ltd, 1995.

[7] T. Fabian, “Upholstered furniture flammability,” Underwriters Laboratories Inc., Jul.

2013.

[8] “Glossary of flexible polyurethane foam technoloy.” [Online]. Available:

http://www.pfa.org/jifsg/jifsgs15.html. [Accessed: 13-Dec-2015].

[9] S. Nazaré and R. D. Davis, “A review of fire blocking technologies for soft

furnishings,” Fire Sci. Rev., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2012.

[10] J. Krasny, W. Parker, and V. Babrauskas, Fire behavior of upholstered furniture and

mattresses. Norwich, NY: William Andrew Publishing, 2001.

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A1 of A11

Appendix A Results cone calorimeter tests

A.1 Time to ignition

Figure A- 1 Time to ignition, material combinations with cover C1, plain weave

(cotton, modal, polyester)

Figure A- 2 Time to ignition material combinations with cover C2, basket weave

(cotton, viscose).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C1_F3

C1_W1_F3

C1_B1_F3

C1_B2_F3

C1_B3_F3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C2_F3

C2_W1_F3

C2_B1_F3

C2_B2_F3

C2_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A2 of A11

Figure A- 3 Time to ignition material combinations with cover C3, plain weave

(Trevira CS).

Figure A- 4 Time to ignition material combinations with cover C4, basket weave

and fleece (polyester).

Figure A- 5 Time to ignition material combinations with cover C5, felted plain

weave (wool).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C3_F3

C3_W1_F3

C3_B1_F3

C3_B2_F3

C3_B3_F3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C4_F3

C4_W1_F3

C4_B1_F3

C4_B2_F3

C4_B3_F3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C5_F3

C5_W1_F3

C5_B1_F3

C5_B2_F3

C5_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A3 of A11

Figure A- 6 Time to ignition material combinations with cover C6, artificial

leather.

Figure A- 7 C10 leather, with foam F3.

Figure A- 8 Time to ignition. Foam F3 without any cover material.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C6_F3

C6_W1_F3

C6_B1_F3

C6_B2_F3

C6_B3_F3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

C10_F3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tim

e [

sec]

F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A4 of A11

A.2 Heat release rate

Figure A- 9 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C1.

Figure A- 10 Heat release rate material combinations with cover C2.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2 ]

Time [sec]


C1_B1_F3

C1_B2_F3

C1_B3_F3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2 ]

Time [sec]


C2_B1_F3

C2_B2_F3

C2_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A5 of A11


Figure A- 12 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2]

Time [sec]

C3_F3Average

C3_W1_F3

C3_B1_F3

C3_B2_F3

C3_B3_F3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2 ]

Time [sec]

C4_F3Average

C4_W1_F3

C4_B1_F3

C4_B2_F3

C4_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A6 of A11



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2]

Time [sec]

C5_F3Average

C5_W1_F3

C5_B1_F3

C5_B2_F3

C5_B3_F3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2 ]

Time [sec]

C6_F3Average

C6_W1_F3

C6_B1_F3

C6_B2_F3

C6_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A7 of A11


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW/m

2 ]

Time [sec]

C10_F3Average

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A8 of A11

A.3 Smoke production

Figure A- 16 Smoke production rate, material combinations with cover C1.


0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Smo

ke p

rod

uct

ion

rat

e [

(m²/

s)/m

²]

Time [sec]

C1_F3 Average

C1_W1_F3

C1_B1_F3

C1_B2_F3

C1_B3_F3

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Smo

ke p

rod

uct

ion

rat

e [

(m²/

s)/m

²]

Time [sec]

C2_F3 Average

C2_W1_F3

C2_B1_F3

C2_B2_F3

C2_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A9 of A11



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C3_F3 Average

C3_W1_F3

C3_B1_F3

C3_B2_F3

C3_B3_F3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C4_F3 Average

C4_W1_F3

C4_B1_F3

C4_B2_F3

C4_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A10 of A11



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C5_F3 Average

C5_W1_F3

C5_B1_F3

C5_B2_F3

C5_B3_F3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C6_F3 Average

C6_W1_F3

C6_B1_F3

C6_B2_F3

C6_B3_F3

Appendix A


VERSION 1

A11 of A11

Figure A- 22 Smoke production rate, cover C10 on foam F3.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

RSR

[(m

²/s)

/m²]

Time [sec]

C10_F3 Average

C10_F3 Average

Appendix B


VERSION 1

B1 of B6

Appendix B Results mock-up tests

B.1 Heat release rate

Figure B- 1 Heat release rate, material combinations with cover C1.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C1_W2_crib 5

C1_W2_flame

C1_W2_flame

C1_B1_crib5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C2_W2_crib 5

C2_W2_flame

C2_B1_crib 5

C2_B2_crib 5

Appendix B


VERSION 1

B2 of B6

C2 did not ignite at exposure to flame in one of two test, therefore there is only one graph

for C2_W2_flame.



for C3_W2_flame.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C3_W2_crib 5

C3_W2_flame

C3_B1_crib 5

C3_B2_crib 5

Appendix B


VERSION 1

B3 of B6



for C6_W2_flame.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C6_W2_crib 5

C6_W2_flame

C6_B1_crib 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

He

at R

ele

ase

Rat

e [

kW]

Time [sec]

C10_W2_crib 5

C10_W2_flame

C10_B1_crib 5

C10_B3_crib 5

Appendix B


VERSION 1

B4 of B6

C10 did not ignite at exposure to flame in one of two test, therefore there is only one

graph for C10_W2_flame.

B.2 Smoke production

Figure B- 6 Smoke production rate, material combinations with cover C1.

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Sm

oke

pro

du

ctio

n [

m2 /

s]

Time [sec]

C1_W2_crib 5

C1_W2_flame

C1_W2_flame

C1_B1_crib5

Appendix B


VERSION 1

B5 of B6



0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Sm

oke

pro

du

ctio

n [

m2 /

s]

Time [sec]

C2_W2_crib 5

C2_W2_flame

C2_B1_crib 5

C2_B2_crib 5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Sm

oke

pro

du

ctio

n [

m2/s

]

Time [sec]

C3_W2_crib 5

C3_W2_flame

C3_B1_crib 5

C3_B2_crib 5

Appendix B


VERSION 1

B6 of B6



0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Sm

oke

pro

du

ctio

n [

m2 /

s]

Time [sec]

C6_W2_crib 5

C6_W2_flame

C6_B1_crib 5

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Sm

oke

pro

du

ctio

n [

m2/s

]

Time [sec]

C10_W2_crib 5

C10_W2_flame

C10_B1_crib 5

C10_B3_crib 5

Appendix C


VERSION 1

C1 of C10

Appendix C Pictures from mock-up chair experiments

C.1 Flame application

C1_W2_F3, C1: Plain weave with pile (83 % cotton, 9 % modal, 8 % polyester)

t=0 t=1 min t=2 min t=5min

C2_W2_F3, C2: 2/2 Plain weave (54 % cotton, 46 % viscose)

Flame application (15 sec) After flame application

Appendix C


VERSION 1

C2 of C10

C3_W2_F3, C3: Plain weave (100 % Trevira CS)


C6_W2_F3, C6: Artificial leather


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C3 of C10

C10_W2_F3, C6: Leather


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C4 of C10

C.2 Crib 5 application

C1_W2_F3, C1: Plain weave with pile (83 % cotton, 9 % modal, 8 % polyester)


C1_B1_F3, C1: Plain weave with pile (83 % cotton, 9 % modal, 8 % polyester). B1: Glass fibre 25 g/m2.


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C5 of C10

C2_W2_F3, C2: 2/2 Plain weave (54 % cotton, 46 % viscose)


C2_B1_F3, C2: 2/2 Plain weave (54 % cotton, 46 % viscose). B1: Glass fibre 25 g/m2.


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C6 of C10

C2_B2_F3, C2: 2/2 Plain weave (54 % cotton, 46 % viscose). B2: Glass fibre 80 g/m2.


C3_W2_F3, C3: Plain weave (100 % Trevira CS)


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C7 of C10

C3_B1_F3, C3: Plain weave (100 % Trevira CS). B1: Glass fibre 25 g/m2.


C3_B2_F3, C3: Plain weave (100 % Trevira CS). B2: Glass fibre 80 g/m2.


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C8 of C10

C6_W2_F3, C6: Artificial leather.


C6_B1_F3, C6: Artificial leather. B1: Glass fibre 25 g/m2.


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C9 of C10

C10_W2_F3, C10: Leather.


C10_B1_F3, C10: Leather. B1: Glass fibre 25 g/m2.


Appendix C


VERSION 1

C10 of C10

C10_B3_F3, C10: Leather. B3: Glass fibre 80 g/m2.


SP Fire Research AS

Box 4767 Sluppen, N-7465 Trondheim, NORWAY

Telephone: +47 464 18 000

E-mail: [email protected], Internet: www.spfr.no

www.spfr.no

SPFR Report A15 20124:2

ISBN

More information about publications published by SP: www.sp.se/publ

SP Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut

Vi arbetar med innovation och värdeskapande teknikutveckling. Genom att vi har

Sveriges bredaste och mest kvalificerade resurser för teknisk utvärdering, mätteknik,

forskning och utveckling har vi stor betydelse för näringslivets konkurrenskraft och

hållbara utveckling. Vår forskning sker i nära samarbete med universitet och

högskolor och bland våra cirka 10000 kunder finns allt från nytänkande småföretag

till internationella koncerner.

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

Our work is concentrated on innovation and the development of value-adding technology.

Using Sweden's most extensive and advanced resources for technical evaluation,

measurement technology, research and development, we make an important contribution to

the competitiveness and sustainable development of industry. Research is carried out in close

conjunction with universities and institutes of technology, to the benefit of a customer base of

about 10000 organisations, ranging from start-up companies developing new technologies or

new ideas to international groups.

Fire safe upholstered furniture - risefr.no · a fire, upholstered furniture contributes to a rapid...

Documents

Transcript of Fire safe upholstered furniture - risefr.no · a fire, upholstered furniture contributes to a rapid...