AGENDA NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Tests …...M 7/17/1998 FIZ-AAA Kathleen A. Newman Principal...

AGENDA

NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Tests

F2016 Second Draft and F2017 First Draft Meeting March 29, 2016 - York, PA

1. Call to order. Call meeting to order by Chair B. Badders.

2. Introductions. For a current committee roster, see page 2.

3. Meeting Minutes. Approval of F2016 meeting minutes. See page 6.

4. The process. – Staff PowerPoint presentation by T. Vecchiarelli. See page 13.

5. NFPA Second Draft preparation. For Public Comments, see page 17.

a. 252 – 4 comments

b. 257 – 2 comments

c. 268 – 4 comments

d. 269 – 0 comments

e. 275 – 4 comments

f. 287 – 2 comments

g. 288 – 0 comments

h. 285 – 9 comments*

*additional attachments

6. NFPA First Draft preparation. For Public Input, see page 46.

a. 259 – 8 inputs

b. 261 – 3 inputs

c. 270 – 3 inputs

d. 274 – 7 inputs

e. 289 – 6 inputs

f. 290 – 27 inputs

g. 705 – 2 inputs

h. 260 – 5 inputs*

*additional attachment

7. NFPA 277 Task Group Report. G. Damant.

8. Revision Cycles. See page 128.

9. Other business.

10. Future meetings.

11. Adjournment.

Page 1 of 128

Address List No PhoneFire Tests FIZ-AAA

Tracy L. Vecchiarelli03/11/2016

FIZ-AAA

Barry L. Badders, Jr.

ChairIntertek Testing Services16015 Shady FallsElmendorf, TX 78112-5108Alternate: Matthew Freeborn

RT 04/14/2005FIZ-AAA

Scott W. Adams

PrincipalPark City Fire Service DistrictPO Box 980010Park City, UT 84098-0010International Fire Marshals Association

E 11/2/2006

FIZ-AAA

Farid Alfawakhiri

PrincipalAmerican Iron and Steel Institute380 Cottonwood LaneNaperville, IL 60540-5020Alternate: Robert J. Wills

M 7/28/2006FIZ-AAA

James A. Burns

PrincipalNew York State Department504 Creek RoadPoughkeepsie, NY 12601-1012Firemen's Association of the State of New York

E 03/03/2014

FIZ-AAA

Benjamin H. Caldwell

PrincipalSkidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP14 Wall StreetNew York, NY 10005

SE 08/11/2014FIZ-AAA

Gordon H. Damant

PrincipalInter-City Testing & Consulting Corp. of California3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 6Sacramento, CA 95821

SE 7/20/2000

FIZ-AAA

Scott E. Dillon

PrincipalCrane Engineering2355 Polaris Lane North, Suite 120Plymouth, MN 55447-4777


William E. Fitch

PrincipalPhyrefish.com31 SE 5th Street, Suite 3815Miami, FL 33131-2528

SE 1/1/1993

FIZ-AAA

Richard G. Gann

Principal100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8665Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8665

SE 7/1/1995FIZ-AAA

Marcelo M. Hirschler

PrincipalGBH International2 Friar’s LaneMill Valley, CA 94941Alternate: Timothy Earl

SE 4/1/1996

FIZ-AAA

Paul A. Hough

PrincipalArmstrong World Industries, Inc.2500 Columbia AvenueLancaster, PA 17603

M 1/16/2003FIZ-AAA

William E. Koffel

PrincipalKoffel Associates, Inc.8815 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200Columbia, MD 21045-2107Alternate: Erik H. Anderson

SE 4/1/1996

FIZ-AAA

Sergei V. Levchik

PrincipalIsrael Chemicals Ltd. (ICL-IP)430 Saw Mill River RoadArdsley, NY 10502-2605ACC-North American Flame Retardant Alliance

M 08/11/2014FIZ-AAA

Richard T. Long, Jr.

PrincipalExponent, Inc.17000 Science Drive, Suite 200Bowie, MD 20715-4427Upholstered Furniture Action CouncilAlternate: Joe Ziolkowski

M 10/18/2011

1Page 2 of 128



FIZ-AAA

James Andrew Lynch

PrincipalAmped I Research & Development6 Ferndale RoadSeven Valleys, PA 17360-9660Alternate: Justin A. Geiman


John Martell

PrincipalProfessional Fire Fighters of Maine/IAFF41 Brickyard Cove RoadHarpswell, ME 04079-4103International Association of Fire FightersAlternate: Matthew T. Vinci

L 08/11/2014

FIZ-AAA

Rodney A. McPhee

PrincipalCanadian Wood Council99 Bank Street, Suite 400Ottawa, ON K1P 6B9 CanadaAlternate: Ineke Van Zeeland

M 7/17/1998FIZ-AAA

Kathleen A. Newman

PrincipalFiretect28298 Constellation RoadValencia, CA 91355-5000

M 3/2/2010

FIZ-AAA

Arthur J. Parker

PrincipalJENSEN HUGHES3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817Baltimore, MD 21227-1652Alternate: Jesse J. Beitel

SE 10/4/2001FIZ-AAA

Jillian Roberts

PrincipalAlaska Fire Marshals Office5700 East Tudor RoadAnchorage, AK 99507

E 08/17/2015

FIZ-AAA

Kenneth Roberts

PrincipalICC Evaluation Services900 Montclair RoadBirmingham, AL 35213

U 10/28/2014FIZ-AAA

Michael L. Savage, Sr.

PrincipalCity of Rio Rancho3200 Civic Center Circle NERio Rancho, NM 87144-4503

E 10/23/2013

FIZ-AAA

David T. Sheppard

PrincipalUS Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & ExplosivesFire Research Laboratory6000 Ammendale RoadAmmendale, MD 20705Alternate: Stephen P. Fuss

RT 10/3/2002FIZ-AAA

Dwayne E. Sloan

PrincipalUL LLC12 Laboratory DrivePO Box 13995Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995Alternate: Randall K. Laymon

RT 7/28/2006

FIZ-AAA

Stanislav I. Stoliarov

PrincipalUniversity of Maryland3104C J. M. Patterson BuildingCollege Park, MD 20742


Kuma Sumathipala

PrincipalAmerican Wood Council222 Catoctin Circle, SESuite 201Leesburg, VA 20175-3730Alternate: Sam W. Francis

M 7/24/1997

FIZ-AAA

Robert A. Wessel

PrincipalGypsum Association6525 Belcrest Road, Suite 480Hyattsville, MD 20782-2173Alternate: Michael Schmeida

M 4/17/1998FIZ-AAA

Richard J. Davis

Voting AlternateFM Global1151 Boston-Providence TurnpikePO Box 9102Norwood, MA 02062-9102

I 4/3/2003

2Page 3 of 128



FIZ-AAA

Marc L. Janssens

Voting AlternateSouthwest Research InstituteFire Technology6220 Culebra Road, Building 143San Antonio, TX 78238-5166

RT 1/1/1991FIZ-AAA

Erik H. Anderson

AlternateKoffel Associates, Inc.8815 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200Columbia, MD 21045-2107Principal: William E. Koffel

SE 03/05/2012

FIZ-AAA

Jesse J. Beitel

AlternateJENSEN HUGHES3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817Baltimore, MD 21227-1652Principal: Arthur J. Parker

SE 1/1/1980FIZ-AAA

Timothy Earl

AlternateGBH International6862 Shallowford WayPortage, MI 49024Principal: Marcelo M. Hirschler

SE 8/9/2011

FIZ-AAA

Sam W. Francis

AlternateAmerican Wood Council1 Dutton Farm LaneWest Grove, PA 19390Principal: Kuma Sumathipala

M 7/1/1996FIZ-AAA

Matthew Freeborn

AlternateIntertek Testing Services130 Derry CourtYork, PA 17406-8405Principal: Barry L. Badders, Jr.

RT 10/28/2014

FIZ-AAA

Stephen P. Fuss

AlternateUS Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & ExplosivesFire Research Laboratory6000 Ammendale RoadAmmendale, MD 20705Principal: David T. Sheppard


Justin A. Geiman

AlternateAmped I Fire and Risk Alliance LLC1914 Tyrone RoadWestminster, MD 21158-2628Principal: James Andrew Lynch

SE 04/08/2015

FIZ-AAA

Randall K. Laymon

AlternateUL LLC333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Principal: Dwayne E. Sloan


Michael Schmeida

AlternateGypsum Association3730 Sharon-Copley RoadMedina, OH 44256-9778Principal: Robert A. Wessel

M 12/08/2015

FIZ-AAA

Ineke Van Zeeland

AlternateCanadian Wood Council99 Bank Street, Suite 400Ottawa, ON K1P 6B9 CanadaPrincipal: Rodney A. McPhee

M 10/3/2002FIZ-AAA

Matthew T. Vinci

AlternateInternational Association of Fire Fighters1750 New York Avenue NWWashington, DC 20006-5395Principal: John MartellVoting Alt. to IAFF Rep.

L 08/11/2014

FIZ-AAA

Robert J. Wills

AlternateAmerican Iron and Steel Institute907 Spyglass CircleBirmingham, AL 35244-2252Principal: Farid Alfawakhiri

M 1/1/1992

3Page 4 of 128



FIZ-AAA

Joe Ziolkowski

AlternateAmerican Furniture Manufacturers Association317 West High Avenue, 10th FloorHigh Point, NC 27260Upholstered Furniture Action CouncilPrincipal: Richard T. Long, Jr.

M 1/1/1992FIZ-AAA

Robert H. Barker

Nonvoting MemberAmerican Fiber Manufacturers Association3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700Arlington , VA 22201-3868American Fiber Manufacturers Association

M 1/1/1995

FIZ-AAA

Rohit Khanna

Nonvoting MemberUS Consumer Product Safety Commission4330 East West HighwayBethesda, MD 20814US Consumer Product Safety Commission

C 7/1/1997FIZ-AAA

Tracy L. Vecchiarelli

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

01/04/2010

4Page 5 of 128

NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Tests

NFPA 252, NFPA 257, NFPA 268, NFPA 269, NFPA 275, NFPA 285, NFPA 287 and NFPA 288

FIRST DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

NFPA Headquarters Quincy, MA March 24, 2015

1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barry Badders at 8:00 AM on

March 24, 2015.

2. Introduction of Committee Members and Guests. THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE EITHER PRESENT OR PARTICIPATED VIA THE WEB/TELECONFERENCE OPTION:

NAME COMPANY Barry Badders, Chair Intertek Testing Services Benjamin Caldwell, Principal Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP Gordon Damant, Principal Inter-City Testing & Consulting Corp. of

California Scott Dillon, Principal Crane Engineering William Fitch, Principal Phyrefish.com

Marcelo Hirschler, Principal GBH International

Paul Hough, Principal Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Mohammed Khan, Principal FM Global William Koffel, Principal Koffel Associates, Inc. Richard Long, Principal Exponent, Inc./Representing Upholstered

Furniture Action Council John Martell, Principal Portland Fire Department/Representing

International Association of Fire Fighters

Arthur Parker, Principal JENSEN HUGES Dwayne Sloan, Principal UL LLC Kuma Sumathipala, Principal American Wood Council Robert Wessel, Principal Gypsum Association Richard Davis, Alternate to Mohammed Khan

FM Global

Matthew Freeborn, Alternate to B. Badders

Intertek Testing Services

Ineke Van Zeeland, Alternate to R. McPhee

Canadian Wood Council

Matthew Vinci, Alternate to J. Martell International Association of Fire Fighters

Page 6 of 128

THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE NOT PRESENT/DID NOT PARTICIPATE (Whose Alternates Did Not Attend):

NAME COMPANY Scott Adams, Principal Park City Fire Service

District/Representing International Fire Marshals Association

Farid Alfawakhiri, Principal American Iron and Steel Institute James Burns, Principal New York State Department/Representing

The Firemen’s Association of the State of New York

Marc Janssens, Voting Alternate Southwest Research Institute

Sergi Levchik, Principal Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL-IP)/Representing ACC-North American Flame Retardant Alliance

Kathleen Newman, Principal Firetect Kenneth Roberts, Principal ICC Evaluation Services David Sheppard, Principal US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms

& Explosives Stanislav Stoliarov, Voting Alternate University of Maryland

THE FOLLOWING GUESTS PARTICIPATED IN PERSON OR VIA TELECONFERENCE:

NAME COMPANY Amy Butler Roetzel & Andress Rick Curkeet Intertek Testing Services Steven Taylor Coming Clean Bob Luedeka Polyurethane Foam Association Tom Rattay Curries, Division of ASSA ABLOY Door

Group Marcos Chaos FM Global David Panning BIFMA Jim Groulx Bob Kilduff Boston Fire Marc A. Sanders Boston Fire Local 718 Michael O’ Reilly Boston Fire Local 718 Rich Paris Boston Fire Local 718 Mike Mullane International Association of Fire Fighters,

3rd District, VP

John Soarks Boston Fire

Bob Petitti Boston Fire

John Sarro Boston FireChris Dubay NFPARobert Solomon NFPA

Page 7 of 128

Diane Matthews NFPAJacqueline Bock NFPA

Ellen James NFPAClaire Ross NFPA

Dominique Nigloschy NFPA

3. Approval of the March 18, 2014 Second Draft Meeting Minutes -The minutes of the March 18, 2014 meeting were approved as written and submitted.

4. Chair’s report. – Barry Badders welcomed the committee and reviewed the agenda.

5. New Process Review Update and Staff Liaison Report - T. Vecchiarelli reviewed the meeting procedures and reviewed the first draft process.

6. NFPA 268 Public Inputs – The committee acted on and resolved the public inputs.






12. NFPA 277 Task Group Report. Gordon Damant presented the report of the NFPA 277 Task Group. See minutes attachment A for a copy of the presentation.



15. Other business – No other business was discussed.

16. Next meeting – The F2016 Second Draft Meeting will be held sometime in late March 2016 and possibly hosted by Intertek Labs in York, PA. A poll will be sent to the committee to determine the exact date.

17. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned by Chair Barry Badders at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, March 24, 2015.

Page 8 of 128

ATTACHMENT A

Page 9 of 128

4/7/2015

1

Upholstered Furniture

Task Group Report

NFPA FIRE TEST COMMITTEE

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY

• 2013 - NFPA Fire Test Committee requested NFPA Standards Council’s approval to consider a new fire test method to evaluate fire/ignition resistance of upholstered furniture subject to flaming ignition sources.

• March 2014 – The Council, after soliciting public comment, voted to approve the request.

• 2014 – NFPA, along with the Fire Test Committee chair, assigned two task groups to work on developing a draft test method.

MAIN TASK GROUP MEMBERSHIP

• Membership – Fire Test Experts

• Gordon Damant – Consultant (Chair)

• Dr. Bill Pitts – NIST

• Bob Backstrom – UL

• Dr. Richard Gann – NIST

• Rik Khanna - CPSC

MAIN TASK GROUP RESPONSIBILITIES

• Identify hurdles and gaps (e.g. hazard type, fuel sources, specimen size)

• Identify concurrent activities (e.g. NIST, CPSC etc.)

• Identify where research could help fill the gaps (How could FPRF help?)

• Review findings

• Develop draft of a new fire test standard in stages or portions.

• Submit portions to Secondary Task Group

• Review comments from Secondary Task Group and revise drafts accordingly

• Submit portions to Technical Committee

SECONDARY TASK GROUP MEMBERSHIP

• Jesse Beitel – Hughes (Chair)

• Tom Long – UFAC

• Stanislav Stoliarov – University of Maryland

• Rudolph van Mierlo - Efectis

• Matthew Vinci - IAFF

SECONDARY TASK GROUP RESPONSIBILITIES

• Ensure that interested parties are given opportunity to contribute to development of the new standard.

• Review submissions from the Main Task Group

• Provide comments and suggested revisions to the Main Task Group

Page 10 of 128

4/7/2015

2

TASK GROUP STRUCTURE – GENERAL COMMENTS

• Intent of task group structure is for Main Task Group to develop the draft of a new standard, and address Secondary Task Group’s suggestions.

• Fire Test Committee to receive portions of draft from the Main Task Group

• Fire Test Committee will have option of revising the draft, or sending draft back to Main Task Group for revision.

• Fire Test Committee responsible for compiling and submitting draft standard to the Standards Council.

MAIN TASK GROUP ACTIVITIES TO DATE -SUMMARY

• Five telephone conference calls – 1 to 3 hours each.

• One all-day face-to-face meeting at NIST.

• All meetings have been monitored by a variety of 3rd parties.

• Guests can generally only observe meetings – but may been allowed to comment, upon request to do so, and after agreement of the chair.

MAIN TASK GROUP ACTIVITIES TO DATE –CONSIDERATION OF KEY ISSUES

• Scope – Furniture 1st Item Ignite or Secondary Item ignited.

• Flaming Ignition Scenarios for Secondary Ignition – Table prepared by Dick Gann and Bill Pitts (NIST).

• Test Scale – Component, Composite or Full-Scale.

• If component or composite tests are deemed to be appropriate – specimen size?

• Review of available open-flame fire tests for Upholstered Furniture, and/or identify test methods which might be used for upholstered furniture.

• Style and geometry issues of residential furniture. Potential for classification of products.

• Review of current Upholstered Furniture flammability activities – CPSC, California and NIST


• Lessons learned from development of 16 CFR 1633 test method for mattress and bed sets, and California TB 133 for contract furniture.

• Validation of chosen or developed test protocol, if less than full-scale test.

• Discussion of potential viable engineering solutions to improve fire safety of upholstered furniture – e.g. Fire Barrier technology.

• Criteria for a suggested test – Ignition, Flame Spread, Heat Release?

• Magnitude, Duration, Location of selected Ignition Source(s) in one or more test protocols.

• Characterization of various ignition sources, and their possible applicability for testing upholstered furniture.


• Identification of gaps in current upholstered furniture flammability test methods, and suggest a way forward.

• Identification of specific flaming fire scenario(s) that should be the main focus of the task group.

• New test method, or Modification of existing test method(s)?

• One test, or a suite of tests?

MAIN TASK GROUP – OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES

• Review of many documents, including:

• “White Paper on Upholstered Furniture Flammability” September 2013 – Dr. John Hall.

• “Item First Ignited in Home Structure Fires in which Upholstered Furniture Contributed to Flame Spread Beyond the Object of Origin”, Marty Ahrens -October 2014

• “Evaluating Smoldering Behavior of Fire-blocking Barrier Fabrics” Shonali Nazare, William M. Pitts, Szabolcs Matko & Rick D. Davis, NIST Technical Note 1859 - January 2015

• “Proposed Open Flame Test for Barrier Materials”, California Bureau of Electronics and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation - August 2014

Page 11 of 128

4/7/2015

3

MAIN TASK GROUP - OTHER RELATEDACTIVITIES

• Additional Documents Reviewed include:

• “Towards a New Approach for Evaluating Fire Blocking Barrier Fabrics”, Shonali Nazare, William M. Pitts, Shaun Flynn, John R. Shields & Rick D. Davis, NIST Technical Note 1798 - April 2013.

• “Fire Behavior of Upholstered Furniture”, Vytenis Babrauskas & John Krasny, NBS Monograph 173 - November 1985.

• “Wide Awake – A study of 220 Fires Involving Mattresses”, Joint Study of the National Association of State Fire Marshals and the Sleep Products Safety Council - December 1997.

MAIN TASK GROUP - OTHER RELATEDACTIVITIES

• Additional Documents Reviewed include:

• “The Influence of Ignition Source on the Flame Fire Hazard of Upholstered Furniture”, Thomas G. Cleary, Thomas J. Ohlemiller & Kay Villa; Fire Safety Journal – 1994

• “Study of the Effectiveness of Fire Service Vertical Ventilation and Suppression Tactics in Single Family Homes”, Steven Kerber; UL Firefighter Safety Research Institute – June 2013.

Page 12 of 128

3/11/2016

1

F16 Second Draft & F17 First Draft Meeting

Fire Tests

March 29, 2016 | Staff liaison: Tracy Vecchiarelli, P.E.: | Chair: Barry Badders

NFPA Second Draft Meeting

At this and all NFPA committee meetings we are concerned with your safety.

If the fire alarm sounds, please proceed to an exit.

nfpa.org 2

Reminders

Update your contact information

Recording of the meeting is prohibited

Declare your interests

Robert’s Rules of Order Call the Question

nfpa.org 3

Committee Breakdown

nfpa.org 4

nfpa.org 5

NFPA Second Draft Schedule

Comment Stage (Second Draft):Public Comment Closing Date: 11-16-2015Second Draft Meeting todayPosting of Second Draft for Balloting Date 6/13/16

Tech Session Preparation:NITMAM Closing Date: 8/22/2016NFPA Annual Meeting: 6/4-7/2017

Standards Council Issuance:2017 edition date

nfpa.org 6

Timeline F16

Page 13 of 128

3/11/2016

2

Second Draft Actions

Resolve Public Comments

Create Second Revisions

Motion through the Chair – requires second

Simple majority voting during the meeting

nfpa.org 7

Technical Committee Actions:

nfpa.org 8

Second Draft- New Material

• No “new material” after the Public Input Stage since it hasn’t had the benefit of public review.

• What constitutes new material is decided by the TC or Correlating Committee.

• Adding “new material” at this Comments stage could successfully be challenged through appeal to the NFPA Standards Council

nfpa.org 9

New material

nfpa.org 10

First Draft Schedule

Comment Stage (Second Draft):Public Comment Closing Date: 11/17/2016Second Draft Meeting Dec-May/2017

Tech Session Preparation:NITMAM Closing Date: 8/31/2017NFPA Annual Meeting: 6/4-7/2018Standards Council Issuance:2018 edition date

nfpa.org 11

Timeline F17

First Draft Actions

• Create First Revisions (new material or based on Public Input)

• Resolve Public Inputs

• Create Committee Inputs

nfpa.org 12

Page 14 of 128

3/11/2016

3

nfpa.org 13

Legal

It is the policy of the NFPA to strictly comply with state and federal antitrust laws.

NFPA expects all participants in its standards development activities to conduct themselves in strict accordance with these laws.

It is the obligation of each participant to read and understand NFPA’s Antitrust Policy. (You can access this policy at nfpa.org/regs.)

nfpa.org 14

Antitrust Matters

Legal

Participants must avoid any conduct, conversation or agreement that would constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Conversation topics that are off limits include:• Profit, margin, or cost data;

• Prices, rates, or fees;

• Selection, division or allocation of sales territories, markets or customers;

• Refusal to deal with a specific business entity.

nfpa.org 15

Antitrust Matters (cont’d)

Legal

NFPA’s standards development activities are based on openness, honesty, fairness and balance.

Participants must adhere to the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards and the Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process. (You can access the Regulationsand Guide at nfpa.org/regs.)

Follow guidance and direction from your employer or other organization you may represent.

Be sure to ask questions if you have them.

nfpa.org 16


Legal

Manner is which standards development activity is conducted can be important.

The Guide requires standards development activity to be conducted with openness, honesty and in good faith.

Participants are not entitled to speak on behalf of NFPA.

Participants must take appropriate steps to ensure their statements whether written or oral and regardless of the setting, are portrayed as personal opinions, not the position of NFPA.

Be sure to ask questions if you have them.nfpa.org 17


Legal

Disclosures of essential patent claims should be made by the patent holder.

Patent disclosures should be made early in the process.

Others may also notify NFPA if they believe that a proposed or existing NFPA standard includes an essential patent claim.

NFPA has adopted and follows ANSI’s Patent Policy.

It is the obligation of each participant to read and understand NFPA’s Patent Policy. (You can access this policy at nfpa.org/regs.)

nfpa.org 18

Patents

Page 15 of 128

3/11/2016

4

TC Struggles with an Issue

• TC needs data on a new technology or emerging issue

• Two opposing views on an issue with no real data

• Data presented is not trusted by committee

Code Fund Lends a Hand

• TC rep and/or staff liaison submits a Code Fund Request

• Requests are reviewed by a Panel and chosen based on need / feasibility

Research Project Carried Out

• Funding for project is provided by the Code Fund and/or industry sponsors

• Project is completed and data is available to TC

www.nfpa.org/codefundnfpa.org 20

Page 16 of 128

Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 252-2015 [ Global Input ]

Type your content here ...Some of the Fahrenheit to Celsius conversions in thisdocument are incorrect. Can they be modified to show the correct conversions?

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

National_Fire_Protection_Association_Report.pdf

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

Corrected values would be used for temperature conversions.

Related Public Comments for This Document

Related Comment Relationship

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 252-2015 [Section No. B.9.2]

Related Item

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 252-2013 [Section No. 5.1]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Jim Dever

Organization: Cornell Iron Works Inc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Sep 30 07:42:49 EDT 2015

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 4 11/19/2015 3:20 PM

Page 17 of 128

Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 252-2015 [ Section No. 2.3.1 ]

2.3.1 ASTM Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA19428-2959.

ASTM E119. Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction andMaterials,2014 2015 .

ASTM E2226, Standard Practice for Application of Hose Stream,2012 2015b .


date updates

Related Item

Public Input No. 11-NFPA 252-2014 [Section No. 2.3.1]


Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler

Organization: GBH International

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Oct 21 17:14:28 EDT 2015


2 of 4 11/19/2015 3:20 PM

Page 18 of 128

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 252-2015 [ Section No. 8.1.3.2.1 ]

8.1.3.2.1

The correction described in 8.1.3.2 shall be done by multiplying the indicated duration bytwo-thirds of the difference in area between the curve of the average furnace temperature andthe standard temperature-time curve for the first three-fourths of the test duration and thendividing the product by the difference in area between the standard temperature-time curve anda baseline of 20°C (68°F) for the same portion of the test, increasing the latter area by30°C 12°C /hr (54°F/hr) [1800°C 1784°C /min (3240°F/min)] to compensate for the thermal lagof the furnace thermocouples during the first part of the test.


Correct temperature conversions would be shown.



Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 252-2015 [Section No. B.9.2]

Related Item

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 252-2013 [Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



3 of 4 11/19/2015 3:20 PM

Page 19 of 128

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 252-2015 [ Section No. B.9.2 ]

B.9.2

The standard describes a standard procedure for measuring the unexposed surfacetemperatures. However, unexposed surface temperatures are not a mandatory performancecriterion for NFPA 252. Building regulations do restrict temperature transmission for somewall-opening protectives [6, 9]. For instance, it is usual for codes to limit the temperature rise onthe unexposed side of fire doors protecting exit stairways to 250°C 232°C (450°F) during thefirst 30 minutes of the test. This criterion assumes that a higher temperature would provideenough radiant heat to discourage, if not prevent, occupants from passing by the door during anemergency. It is current practice for testing laboratories to provide labels on fire doors indicatingthat the maximum transmitted temperature on the unexposed side is 140°C 121°C ,250°C 232°C , or 361°C 343°C (250°F, 450°F, or 650°F) above ambient. If not indicated on thelabel, the temperature rise during the first 30 minutes might or might not be in excess of 361°C343°C (650°F). Temperature rise on the unexposed side of glass panels and louvers is notmeasured.


Correct temperature conversions would be shown.



Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 252-2015 [Global Input]

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 252-2015 [Section No. 8.1.3.2.1]

Related Item

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 252-2014 [Section No. 4.2]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 4 11/19/2015 3:20 PM

Page 20 of 128




ASTM E2226, Standard Practice for Application of Hose Stream,2012 2015b .


update

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Nov 06 12:01:51 EST 2015


1 of 2 11/19/2015 3:22 PM

Page 21 of 128


6.2.1

Within 10 Within 2 minutes of completion of the fire test, the fire-exposed side of the firewindow assembly shall be subjected to a standard hose stream test as described in ASTME2226, Standard Practice for Application of Hose Stream.


We agree with the negative comments from the Technical Committee members.

Related Item

First Revision No. 3-NFPA 257-2015 [Section No. 6.2.1]


Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir

Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, WA

Affilliation: NFPAs Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Nov 09 20:27:56 EST 2015


2 of 2 11/19/2015 3:22 PM

Page 22 of 128




ASTM E176, Standard Terminology of Fire Standards , 2015.ASTM E511, Standard TestMethod for Measuring Heat Flux Using a Copper-Constantan Circular Foil, Heat-Flux Gage,2007 (2015) .


Date update for ASTM E511. ASTM E176 is proposed by another comment not to be referenced in the body of the standard but in the annex and therefore the reference to ASTM E176 should move from section 2 into an annex.

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



1 of 5 11/19/2015 3:25 PM

Page 23 of 128

Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 268-2015 [ Section No. 3.3 ]

3.3 General Definitions* .

3.3.1 Heat Flux.

The rate of heat transfer per unit area to a surface, typically expressed in kW/m2 or Btu/ft2-sec.

3.3.2 Heat Flux Meter.

An instrument used to measure the level of heat flux energy incident on a surface.

3.3.3 Ignitability.

The propensity for ignition, as measured by the time to sustained flaming, in seconds, at aspecified initial test heat flux.

3.3.4 Initial Test Heat Flux.

Amount of heat received by a specimen surface per unit area and unit time at the initiation of atest.

3.3.5 Sustained Flaming.

For the purposes of this standard, the uninterrupted existence of a flame on or over the surfaceof a test specimen for a specified time period.

* A.3.3 ASTM E176, Standard Terminology of Fire Standards, should be referenced fordefinitions of terms used in this test method and not defined in section 3.3.


This replaces a requirement which is not a definition and references a standard in the definitions section. This places the information appropriately in the annex.



Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 268-2015 [Section No. 3.4]

Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 268-2015 [Section No. C.1.2.1]

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 5 11/19/2015 3:25 PM

Page 24 of 128

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 268-2015 [ Section No. 3.4 ]

3.4 Testing Terminology.

ASTM E176, Standard Terminology of Fire Standards , shall be referenced for definitions ofterms used in this test method not defined in Section 3.3 .


This is not a definition and it is inappropriate to reference a standard in the section on definitions. This information needs to be contained in the annex as an annex note.




Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 268-2015 [Section No. C.1.2.1]

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 5 11/19/2015 3:25 PM

Page 25 of 128

Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 268-2015 [ Section No. C.1.2.1 ]

C.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM E176, Standard Terminology of Fire Standards, 2015a

ASTM E511, Standard Test Method for Measuring Heat Flux Using a Copper-ConstantanCircular Foil, Heat-Flux Gage, 2007 (2015) .


Date update for ASTM E511 and inclusion of ASTM E176 when the so-called definition in 3.4 is moved to an annex note.





Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



5 of 5 11/19/2015 3:25 PM

Page 26 of 128


1.3.1

Part I measures the temperature rise on the unexposed face of the thermal barrier when it issubjected to a standard fire exposure specified in ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for FireTests of Building Construction and Materials, or ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests ofBuilding Construction and Materials. This part I test shall be conducted on the thermal barrieronly, without the foamed plastic in place, to determine the heat blocking ability of the thermalbarrier.


It has always been my opinion that a thermal barrier should be protecting the foamed plastic from reaching temperatures that would cause degradation (i.e. 250 degrees F above ambient would begin the decomposition of the foamed plastic). If the foamed plastic is part of the test, and the sample thermocouples are located between the foamed plastic and the calcium silicate board, then we are not really testing the heat blocking ability of the thermal barrier, but rather putting an ignition barrier over the foam. Ther foam will still degrade unless it , itself, is fire retardant. If tested with the foam in place, the entire thermal barrier would need to be the "system" tested where as if the thermal barrier alone keeps the calcium silicate board interface temperatures below 250 degF above ambient, it would be a true themal barrier, much like some of the inorganic (cement and gypsum based) materials are. Intumescent coatings would have a difficult time passing such a test, but many are considered "thermal barriers" where they should probably be considered as ignition barriers.

Related Item

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 275-2014 [Chapter 2]


Submitter Full Name: EDWARD TAYLOR

Organization: CARBOLINE

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Aug 17 14:21:33 EDT 2015


1 of 4 11/19/2015 3:27 PM

Page 27 of 128




ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,2014 2015 .


update

Related Item

First Revision No. 1-NFPA 275-2015 [Chapter 2]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 4 11/19/2015 3:27 PM

Page 28 of 128


2.3.2 FMGR FM Publications.

FM Global, 1301 Atwood Avenue 270 Central Avenue , P.O. Box 7500, Johnston, RI02919-4923 .

ANSI/FM 4880, Approval Standard for FM Approval 4880, Class I Fire Rating of InsulatedWall or Wall and Roof/Ceiling Panels, Interior Finish Materials or Coatings and Exterior WallSystems, 2010.


Referenced current FM Global address.

Related Item

First Revision No. 1-NFPA 275-2015 [Chapter 2]


Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Nov 12 00:33:25 EST 2015


3 of 4 11/19/2015 3:27 PM

Page 29 of 128

Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 275-2015 [ Section No. B.1.2.1 ]

B.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,2014 2015 .


update

Related Item

First Revision No. 2-NFPA 275-2015 [Section No. B.1.2]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 4 11/19/2015 3:27 PM

Page 30 of 128




ASTM E1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materialsand Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2014 e1 2015a .


update

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



1 of 2 11/19/2015 3:30 PM

Page 31 of 128

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 287-2015 [ Section No. D.1.2.1 ]

D.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM E906/E906M, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates forMaterials and Products Using a Thermopile Method, 2014.

ASTM E1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materialsand Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2014 e1 2015a .


update

Related Item

First Revision No. 8-NFPA 287-2015 [Chapter D]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 2 11/19/2015 3:30 PM

Page 32 of 128




ASTM C1396/C1396M, Specification for Gypsum Board, 2014a.

ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials,2015 2015a .

ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at750°C, 2012.

ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace with aCone-shaped Airflow Stablilzer, at 750°C, 2012.


standard date update

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



1 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 33 of 128


5.7.3 *

Where the test specimen contains vertical or horizontal joints or seams, joints or seamsrepresentative of standard construction practices shall be incorporated into the test specimen.At least one horizontal joint or seam shall be located between 1 ft (305 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm)above the top of the window opening. At least one vertical joint or seam shall extend upwardfrom the center of the window opening.


The NFPA 285 standard has been used for many years to determine the acceptability of combustible cladding assemblies and assemblies containing combustible components where noncombustible construction is typically required. The proposed modification would render essentially all of the cladding assembly testing done in the past of no code value because the joints are not located in the new prescribed locations. This change does not seem to be required because the standard: a) already identifies that the "joints or seams representative of standard construction practices shall be incorporated in to the test specimen" and b) there has been no evidence provided indicating that assemblies tested and meeting the performance criteria of NFPA 285 have been leading to extensive failures when constructed in the field in the manner that was tested.

There has been some comment about specifically locating vertical and horizontal joints over the window opening so that this detail is exposed during the test. If that was the intent of the current language, then clarify this point without being so specific on location as to eliminate the acceptability of past testing.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: ANDY WILLIAMS

Organization: MCA

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Aug 19 10:50:45 EDT 2015


2 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 34 of 128


5.7.3 *



If the proposed language that adds a new requirement to two joints in specific locations and orientations is accepted, then it will have the effect of rendering significant amount of good test data invalid; even for successful tests. What are the implications of this change for foam-insulated metal building panels which are, in a great many cases, installed with vertical joints only? How should one interpret this new requirement in the case of continuous insulation materials that will include joints or seams; e.g. rigid foam plastic or mineral fiber? In the case of an exterior wall covering panel, over rigid foam continuous insulation, over exterior grade gypsum sheathing; will a manufacturer be required to align all of the joints in all of the materials up the centerline of the window in direct conflict with good construction practice?

Given the increasing complexity of exterior wall assemblies and the multiple combustible materials (ACM / MCM / HPL panels, foam plastic insulation, various AVBs / WRBs, etc), it is difficult to describe a "worst case" configuration in the absence of supporting data and evaluation in support of such a determination. Put simply, what is worst case for one configuration is not necessarily also the worst case for another.

The proposed language should go into Annex A as background information and, at most, an issue for consideration relative to designing test specimens.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: ERIC BANKS

Organization: BASF CORPORATION

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



3 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 35 of 128


5.7.3 *



The Foam Sheathing Committee of the American Chemistry Council is opposed to the proposed revision in section 5.7.3 for the following reasons:

Reason #1 – No evidence has been brought forward that quantifies the need for this change.Substantiation – There has been no credible evidence or reason to believe the current test method is no longer viable. The current test has been used through generations and is considered by many building engineers to be the acceptable industry standard, citing Section A.6.1, “Over time may new and different wall constructions and configurations have come into use and have been tested” without changing the method. These proposed joint placements would garner opposition from many building construction professionals who would agree the changes are baseless and assumptive. Wall assemblies should be tested in a way that replicates current construction standards using the manufacturers’ installation instructions. Reason #2- This change would require retesting of all current assemblies.Substantiation –The proposed change would require retesting of many, if not all currently approved assemblies, without any substantiation of the need for this change through a risk-based assessment of the current and proposed changes. The wall assemblies currently approved without specific joint placement had been successfully tested and are consistent with the way the materials will be installed. With only a few labs capable of performing the NFPA 285 testing, it could be a significant financial undertaking and an incredibly time consuming process to re-test all of these assemblies.

Reason #3- This change will require testing of impractical construction techniques.Substantiation - The construction of the test specimen is to be done in a way that is representative of the actual field sample and it’s stated several times in the NFPA Standard 285: within the introduction “the standard to reflect current construction and testing practices”; Section 5.7.1 “… construction details representative of actual field installations”; Section 5.7.3 “… standard construction practices shall be incorporated into the test specimen”; and Section A.5.7.2 “The construction of the wall assembly should be typical of actual product use.”

Typical field installation lines up horizontal and vertical joints to provide better visual aesthetics of sight lines and to limit number of panels used. Vertical joints extending from center of the window would be less than ideal due to water and debris affecting window glass. The scenario to be tested ought to replicate common construction practices of wall assemblies to mimic what would happen in a real world fire, not to a worst case scenario of components. Performing NFPA 285 with arbitrary changes, as the revision proposes, would not replicate a typical field installation and thereby create confusion.

Related Item




4 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 36 of 128

Submitter Full Name: Shari Jackson

Organization: ACC Foam Sheathing Committee

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



5 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 37 of 128


5.7.3*

Where the test specimen contains vertical or horizontal joints or seams, joints or seamsrepresentative of standard construction practices shall be incorporated into the test specimen.At least one horizontal joint or seam shall be located between 1 ft (305 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm)above the top of the window opening. At least one vertical joint or seam shall extend upwardfrom the center of the window opening shall be incorporated into the test specimen .


The mandated joint locations are not typical of any of the components in the wall assembly.

To force joint locations would:1) Compromise the integrity of the test itself which should be be "typical" of the installation itself2) Invalidate hundreds of sucessful (and very expensive) tests done over the last 15 years or so3) Create conflict with the IBC which states " system shall include seams, joints and other typical details used in the installation and shall be tested in the manner intended for use."4) Create confustion with building officals tring to match NFPA test results with the actual wall assembly they are inspecting.

I am not aware of any properly tested NFPA 285 wall assembly failing in the field.

This is a very expensive solution to a nonexistent problem.

Related Item

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 285-2014 [Chapter 1]


Submitter Full Name: JAMES MOSES

Organization: MPCA

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



6 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 38 of 128


5.7.3*



The Miller-Clapperton Partnership, Inc. (MCP) does not feel that the modification to the test wall assembly mentioned in section 5.7.3 of the NFPA 285 Test Standard is warranted for the following reasons:

- MCI is unaware of poorly performing systems that are installed in the same manner as have been tested in accordance with NFPA 285.

- Many dozens of NFPA 285 tests have been successfully run and the installation systems used in construction applications since the creation of the NFPA 285 test. To mandate specific location of horizontal and vertical joint locations would void test reports and halt construction of these systems. With the limited number of test facilities and the high test cost, this would pose an undue burden on this segment of the construction market.

Related Item



Submitter Full Name: Tyler Bruton

Organization: The Miller-Clapperton Partnership, Inc.

Affilliation: Metal Construction Association

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Oct 19 15:29:54 EDT 2015


7 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 39 of 128

Public Comment No. 5-NFPA 285-2015 [ New Section after 8.1.10 ]

8.1.11 Any residual burning on the test specimen shall note be extinguished until not less than 10minutes after the gas supply is shut off, unless the test laboratory determines that extinguishmentis required to maintain safe conditions in the test facility.


This is a very important observation and should not be deleted. It is very useful to know whether there is residual burning. This section was recently added and it captures an aspect of the test that is a characteristic of the assembly being assessed. Several committee members agreed that this requirement needs to stay in the standard.

Related Item





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



8 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 40 of 128

Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 285-2015 [ Section No. A.1.1.2 ]

A.1.1.2

This standard addresses fire exposures from interior fires that reach flashover, break exteriorwindows, and expose the building facade. It is not intended to address fire exposures thatoriginate from the building's exterior.


Just like the change that was made in 1.1 (by FR 22), the applicability is a function of the codes. The test method does assess, to some extent, exposures from the exterior.

The deleted text should remain as this is important in understanding the fire exposure this test represents and helps to explain why the incident heat flux in the test is so low. Deleting this text could mislead the average user of the document into thinking that the exposure fire is representative of an exterior fire exposure, when in fact it is very much lower.

Related Item

First Revision No. 7-NFPA 285-2015 [Section No. A.1.1.2]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



9 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 41 of 128

Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 285-2015 [ Section No. B.1.2.1 ]

B.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D1929, Test Method for Ignition Properties of Plastics, 1996 2014 edition.

ASTM E84, Standard Method of Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials,2015 2015a .

ASTM E108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, 2011.

ASTM E119, Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction andMaterials, 2014 2015 .


Standards date updates

Related Item

First Revision No. 5-NFPA 285-2015 [Chapter B]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



10 of 10 11/19/2015 3:28 PM

Page 42 of 128

Tracy/Barry, I wish to request the NFPA Fire Test Committee to slip the current NFPA 285 revision cycle from Fall 2016 to Fall 2017, for the following reasons:

1. Revisions proposed to NFPA 285, appear to create a conflict with IBC 2018, as will be highlighted at the upcoming meeting by Jeff Shapiro and Marshall Kein on behalf of water resistive barrier manufactures and the multi-family housing council.

2. The wood industry plans to conduct research in 2016 to verify the performance of cladding systems on exterior wood walls. This research would allow development of further proposals to make NFPA 285 suitable for assessing cladding systems for exterior wood walls.

Slipping a cycle will avoid a potential conflict with IBC 2018, and allow for the expansion of the use of NFPA 285 to a newer class of construction. Thank you in advance for your consideration for inclusion of the above for the NFPA Fire Test Committee review. Sincerely, Kuma Sumathipala American Wood Council Kuma Sumathipala, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Director of Fire Technologies AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL

222 Catoctin Circle, SE, Suite 201 Leesburg, VA 20175-3730 202 463 2763 V 703 771 4079 F

Page 43 of 128

http://www.awc.org/

http://www.awc.org/standards/nds.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanWoodCouncil

http://www.twitter.com/woodcouncil

http://www.awc.org/NewsReleases/2014/newsreleases2014.php#20141210

Proposed Second Revision to NFPA 285 1.1.1* This standard provides a test method for determining the fire propagation characteristics of

exterior non-load-bearing wall assemblies and panels used as components of curtain wall assemblies,

that are constructed using combustible materials or that incorporate combustible components, and that

are intended to be installed on buildings required to have exterior walls of noncombustible construction.

Reason: The phrase “required to have exterior walls of noncombustible construction” was deleted from

the scope in a first revision, and it is recommended that this text be reinstated for several reasons:

1. Eliminating this text, as proposed by the first revision, created a conflict with Section 1.2

(purpose) which currently includes almost identical text to Section 1.1.1. Unless the text is

reinstated, the scope will not limit use of the standard to buildings required to have exterior

walls of noncombustible construction, but the Section 1.2 will continue to indicate that the

purpose of the standard is to only apply in such cases.

2. Eliminating this text, as proposed by the first revision, created a conflict with the associated

Annex text. A.1.1.1 states “The fire test method described is intended to evaluate the inclusion

of combustible components within wall assemblies/panels of buildings that are required to have

exterior walls of noncombustible construction.”

3. As documented in A.1.1, NFPA 285 was created at time when buildings of Types I-IV

construction were required to have non-combustible exterior walls. Since that time, the UBC,

and later the IBC, were changed to allow the use of fire-retardant treated wood (FRTW) in

exterior walls in some cases. Accordingly, these wall assemblies were no longer technically

required to be of “noncombustible construction” because FRTW is not a noncombustible

material.

Although NFPA 285 could theoretically be used as a test basis for wall assemblies with FRTW,

the proposed first revision didn’t specifically consider this consequence. In addition, a gap

would still exist in the scoping because FRTW walls are often bearing, yet NFPA 285 is still

scoped to non-load-bearing wall assemblies and panels. Bearing FRTW walls will continue to be

scoped out of NFPA 285 lacking additional changes.

If the committee truly desires to reconsider the document scope to correlate with or defer to

building codes, a more comprehensive effort is needed. The proposed first revision does not

accomplish this objective.

4. The proposed change to NFPA 285’s scoping has brought to light some deficiencies in Section

1403 of the International Building Code (IBC), which references NFPA 285 testing for some wall

assemblies that contain water-resistive barriers. Because the current scope of NFPA 285 limits

application of the standard to wall assemblies that are required to be noncombustible, wall

assemblies allowed to use FRTW with a water resistive barrier are technically excluded from

NFPA 285 testing simply because they contain FRTW (however, if such assemblies contain foam

plastic insulation, NFPA 285 testing could still be required by IBC Section 2603).

A proposal has been developed to address Section 1403’s deficiencies in the next IBC code-

development cycle, and it is preferable for NFPA 285 to revisit scoping after the IBC’s

deficiencies in referencing the standard have been resolved.

Page 44 of 128

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 259-2015 [ Section No. 2.3.1 ]


ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM D 5865, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke, 2011a 2013 .

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

update



Organization: Gbh International

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Dec 24 15:41:35 EST 2015


1 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 45 of 128

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 259-2016 [ Section No. A.1.4.5 ]

A.1.4.5

In general, heat release rates of materials can be determined by such bench scale test methods as ASTM E 906, Standard Method ofTest for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products; ASTM E 1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and VisibleSmoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter); and ASTM E1474, Standard Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and Mattress Components orComposites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, for upholstered furniture and mattress composites. Fordetermining heat release rates of specific products, such as upholstered furniture, mattresses, textile wall coverings, and interiorfinish, ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Seating Furniture; ASTM E 1590, Standard Fire Test forFire Testing of Mattresses; ASTM E1822, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Stacked Chairs , NFPA 265, Standard Methods ofFire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls;and NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth,respectively, can be used. NFPA 289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, was developed in order to assessthe heat release of individual products or fuel packages under a variety of exposure conditions.

In 2015 a new test method was developed, ASTM E2965, Standard Test Method for Determination of Low Levels of Heat ReleaseRate for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. ASTM E2965 is intended to measure very low levels ofheat release by the technique of oxygen consumption calorimetry by using a modification of the cone calorimeter with a larger coneheater and a larger test specimen.


Adds information on other test methods.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship

Public Input No. 5-NFPA 259-2016 [Section No. D.1.2.1]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jan 06 14:24:52 EST 2016


2 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 46 of 128

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 259-2016 [ Chapter B ]

Annex B Application of Potential Heat Data

This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.

B.1 Use of Potential Heat Data in Codes and Regulations

B1.1 A number of NFPA codes and standards, including NFPA 101, NFPA 5000, NFPA 13 and NFPA 90A, potentially used forregulations, use the potential heat of materials, assessed via NFPA 259, as part of the determination as to whether a material is alimited combustible material.

B1.1.1 A limited combustible material is a material that is not a noncombustible material but that exhibits a potential heat value of nomore than 3500 BTU/lb (8141 kJ/kg) and complies with either B1.1.2 or B1.1.3.

B1.1.2 The material has a structural base of a noncombustible material with a surfacing nor exceeding a thickness of 1/8 in. (3.2mm) where the surfacing exhibits a flame spread index not greater than 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL723.

B1.1.3 The material is composed of materials that, in the form and thickness used, neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than25 nor evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723 and are of suchcomposition that all surfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the material on any plane would neither exhibit a flamespread index greater than 25 nor exhibit evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E84or ANSI/UL 723.

B1.2 A number of documents, including NFPA 5000, the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code(IRC) use NFPA 259 to assess the potential heat of foam plastic materials for varieous applications.

B.2 Application of Potential Heat Data.

This potential heat test method provides an assessment of one property of a material — the total heat given off that is possible withan electric muffle furnace exposure of the test specimen, under oxidizing conditions, at 750°C. The appropriate use of this procedureshould recognize its nature as a property-type test. (See Robertson, “Test Method Categorization and Fire Hazard Standards.”) Inmany applications, additional supporting test data by other fire test methods can be required for qualifying materials for various firesafety applications. For example, it should be recognized that under actual fire conditions some materials release all or most of theirheat rapidly. Other materials release heat slowly and, depending on thickness and fire conditions, can never release all the heatpossible. Information on the actual end use of the material in conjunction with additional supporting data is usually needed forclassifying the material.

Some materials, such as gypsum and concrete, can have negative values for potential heat as determined by this test method. Suchmaterials contain certain chemical compounds that react endothermically during the oxidation process or have water of hydration orfree water, which also absorbs heat. If these materials also have little organic content, then it is possible that they will be determinedto have a negative potential heat. (See Annex C.)

B.2 3 The Test Method.

The potential heat test method (see Loftus, Gross, and Robertson, “Potential Heat, a Method for Measuring the Heat Release ofMaterials in Building Fires”) makes use of oxygen bomb calorimetric measurement methods. It measures the difference between theheat of combustion of a test specimen as determined by an oxygen bomb calorimeter and that of the residue remaining afterexposure of another test specimen to a standardized intense thermal exposure using an electric muffle furnace. Results of the testmethod are usually reported in terms of heat given off per unit mass of the specimen involved.

The test procedure is based on combustion of the specimen as complete as is possible within a 2-hour exposure period in an electricmuffle furnace at 750°C.

The oxygen bomb calorimetry techniques use small test specimens of about 1 g mass. Because of this, the sampling and specimenpreparation procedures used are of considerable importance, especially with heterogeneous, layered, or composite materials. Forsuch materials, two procedures are available to the investigator. One involves pulverizing a representative section of the completecomposite and then testing the resultant mixture in the form of a small pellet. Another involves measuring the potential heat of theindividual components of the material and then, on the basis of computations, deriving an overall value for the composite.

The selection of a test specimen for thermal exposure in the electric muffle furnace will, of course, depend on which preparationprocedure is to be used.

The electric muffle furnace exposure must be severe, involving combustion of most of the oxidizable material at 750°C; this isessential for its consideration as a property-type test method. This factor must be carefully considered when potential heat data areapplied as a basis of code or regulatory procedures for building or other fire safety purposes. This is especially true when life safety isof prime concern.

For example, the potential heat of two wall components can be identical, yet in one wall the combustible component might be placedon the exposed wall surface while in the other it might be buried deep beneath an exposed masonry construction. In the hazardpresented by a wall to building occupants in the event of a fire, these walls represent two possible extremes. Thus, simpleconsideration of the potential heat of the wall materials yields little information on the relative fire participation hazard of the two walls.This problem is characteristic of property-type fire tests. It emphasizes the need for discretion in the use of the test methods and inthe application of the resulting test data.


3 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 47 of 128

B.3 4 Auxiliary Tests.

As indicated in Section B.2 3 , property-type fire tests are not comprehensive enough to form the sole basis of acceptance ofmaterials or products. Additional tests are usually required. Original work by Gross and Robertson and by Parker and Long haveproposed tests based on an adiabatic furnace and on smoldering that have not been standardized but that have the potential to be ofvalue in evaluating the fire hazard of materials (See Gross and Robertson, “Self-Ignition Temperatures of Materials from KineticReaction Data,” and Parker and Long, “Development of a Heat Release Rate Calorimeter at NBS.”) A number of standard testmethods have been issued, primarily by the NFPA Fire Tests Committee and by the ASTM Committee E05 on Fire Standards, whichaddress different fire test–response characteristics and which are useful to assess components of the fire hazard of materials,products, or assemblies. Fire tests addressing heat release are of particular importance in the development of a fire hazardassessment. Many such tests are discussed in A.1.4.5.

B.4 5 Precision of the Potential Heat Test Method.

The original paper on this test method (see Loftus, Gross, and Robertson, “Potential Heat, A Method for Measuring the Heat Releaseof Materials in Building Fires”) discussed the precision level possible within a single laboratory (repeatability). It was concluded thatwith technicians skilled in the procedure involved, the standard deviation of differences between duplicate determinations of potentialheat would be equal to about 219 kJ/kg. This prediction, based on early work at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now theNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), was later confirmed for three of the five materials tested in the interlaboratorystudy. (See Gross and Natrella, Interlaboratory Comparison of the Potential Heat Test Method.) In this reference, a value of 214 kJ/kgwas reported. This value corresponds to expected repeatability between duplicates of 465 kJ/kg with a 95 percent confidence level.

In the original paper, it was stated that this order of repeatability was independent of the potential heat measured. The basis of thisclaim is illustrated in the chart in Figure B. 4 5 . This figure represents plotted data of the difference between duplicate determinationsof potential heat as a function of the average. Because of the precision, most of the recent measurements of potential heat haveinvolved a single determination and thus are not useful for this plot. The materials represented by the data make up a widely variedgroup. They include materials of laminated, homogeneous, and heterogeneous characteristics. Both very low and very high values ofpotential heat are shown. Different symbols are used as a means for identification of slightly different procedures used for deriving thedata. Thus, all the data above 18,600 kJ/kg represent a single calorimetric determination as permitted by the test procedure whennegligible ash remains following the test specimen exposure in the electric muffle furnace. The data reproduced as dots are based ontwo oxygen bomb calorimetric determinations and one measurement of the heat of combustion of the ash from an electric mufflefurnace–exposed test specimen. All remaining data are based on duplicate determinations of both the oxygen bomb–exposed testspecimen and the muffle furnace–exposed test specimen. It should be noted that all the NBS (NIST) data derived in connection withthe interlaboratory study (see Gross and Natrella, Interlaboratory Comparison of the Potential Heat Test Method) are included inFigure B. 4. 5 Thus, the figure tends to confirm the predictions made with regard to reproducibility in that study.

Figure B.4 NBS 5 NBS Data Difference Between Duplicate Potential Heat Measurements, as a Function of the Average.

Actually, the test procedure has been slightly modified from that used in the last interlaboratory test, with the objective of improvingthe precision on those materials that proved most difficult in the study. These changes have included more detailed instructions on thepreparation of specimens from laminated materials or those of nonhomogeneous character, and the fact that four of the elevenlaboratories participating in the interlaboratory study were successful in producing data for all materials that were within 465 kJ/kg.Repeatability and reproducibility values reported, based on three of the materials, would also be applicable to the full range ofmaterials likely to be tested in the future. These precision levels involve a repeatability within a laboratory of 465 kJ/kg and areproducibility between laboratories of 1160 kJ/kg based on duplicate tests. Thus, the procedure appears to provide adequateprecision when skilled laboratory technical work is available.


This adds information on the use of NFPA 259 in codes and regulations.



Public Input No. 5-NFPA 259-2016 [Section No. D.1.2.1]

Public Input No. 7-NFPA 259-2016 [New Section after D.2]

Public Input No. 8-NFPA 259-2016 [Section No. D.1.1]




Street Address:

City:


4 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 48 of 128

State:

Zip:



5 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 49 of 128

Public Input No. 8-NFPA 259-2016 [ Section No. D.1.1 ]

D.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2016.

NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems, 2015.

NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2018.

NFPA 265, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coveringson Full Height Panels and Walls, 2011 edition 2015 .

NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth, 2011edition 2015 .

NFPA 289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, 2013 edition 2015 .

NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, 2018.

The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd edition, 2002, p. A-41–A-42, Table C.4.


Added references mentioned in the public input to Annex B.



Public Input No. 6-NFPA 259-2016 [Chapter B]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



6 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 50 of 128

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 259-2015 [ Section No. D.1.2.1 ]



ASTM E 906 E906 /E 906M E906M , Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and ProductsUsing a Thermopile Method ,2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1354 E1354 , Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter), 2011b 2015a .

ASTM E 1474 E1474 , Standard Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and MattressComponents or Composites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1537 E1537 , Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Seating Furniture, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 1590 E1590 , Standard Fire Test for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2013 .

Gross, D., and M. G. Natrella, “Interlaboratory Comparison of the Potential Heat Test Method,” in ASTM STP 464, Fire TestPerformance, 1970, pp. 127–152.

Loftus, J. J., D. Gross, and A. F. Robertson. “Potential Heat, a Method for Measuring the Heat Release of Materials in Building Fires,”ASTM Proceedings, Vol. 61, 1961, pp. 1336–1348.

Parker, W. J., and M. E. Long. “Development of a Heat Release Rate Calorimeter at NBS,” in ASTM STP 502, Ignition, Heat Releaseand Noncombustibility of Materials, 1972, pp. 135–151.

Robertson, A. F. “Test Method Categorization and Fire Hazard Standards,” ASTM Standardization News, Nov. 1975, pp. 18–20.


Referenced current editions.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sun Oct 25 00:39:19 EDT 2015


7 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 51 of 128




ASTM E 906/E 906M, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products,2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter), 2011b 2015a .

ASTM E 1474, Standard Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and Mattress Components orComposites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Seating Furniture, 2007 2015 .

ASTM E 1590, Standard Fire Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2013 .






updates




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



8 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 52 of 128




ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2015b.

ASTM E 906/E 906M, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products,2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter (Cone Calorimeter), 2011b 2015a .

ASTM E 1474, Standard Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and Mattress Components orComposites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Seating Furniture, 2007 2015 .

ASTM E 1590, Standard Fire Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007. 2013.

ASTM E1822, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Stacked Chairs, 2013.

ASTM E2965, Standard Test Method for Determination of Low Levels of Heat Release Rate for Materials and Products Using anOxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2015.






Date updates and additional standards recommended in revisions of annexes proposed in associated public inputs.



Public Input No. 4-NFPA 259-2016 [Section No. A.1.4.5]





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



9 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 53 of 128

Public Input No. 7-NFPA 259-2016 [ New Section after D.2 ]

D1.3 UL Publications

ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2008.

D1.4 ICC Publications

International Building Code (IBC), 2015

International Residential Code (IRC), 2015


Additional references included in public input on Annex B.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



10 of 10 1/8/2016 10:02 AM

Page 54 of 128

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 261-2015 [ New Section after 1.4.3 ]

1.5* Precision. Annex A.1.5 contains information on a repeatability and reproducibility study conducted on this test method.


Information on the repeatability and reproducibility of this test method is contained within ASTM E1352 and should be incorporated here, especially since it is possible that the ASTM E1352 standard may be withdrawn soon.



Public Input No. 2-NFPA 261-2015 [Sections A.1.1.1, A.3.3.9, A.4.1]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



1 of 3 1/8/2016 10:11 AM

Page 55 of 128

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 261-2015 [ Sections A.1.1.1, A.3.3.9, A.4.1 ]

Sections A.1.1.1, A.3.3.9, A.4.1

A.1.1.1

This test method is similar to that described in ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-UpUpholstered Furniture Assemblies.

A. 1.5 (see proposed text attached)

A. 3.3.9 Upholstery Material.

This definition includes, but is not limited to, material such as foam, cotton batting, polyester fiberfill, bonded cellulose, or down.

A.4.1

Figure 1.4.2(a) and Figure 1.4.2(b) show the completed mock-up assemblies.

Add also a reference to ASTM E691 (Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision ofa Test Method, 2014) into the section on Informational References.



Annex_on_precision_for_NFPA_261_Dec_15.docx Text to be included in A.1.5


The proposed information containing data for repeatability and reproducibility of NFPA 261, as obtained by a complete study, is included, in an attachment. A reference to ASTM E691 needs to be added into the section on informational referenced standards.



Public Input No. 1-NFPA 261-2015 [New Section after 1.4.3]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 3 1/8/2016 10:11 AM

Page 56 of 128

E1352

A.1.5 An interlaboratory evaluation was performed to provide an estimate of the precision of the test

method, wherein 5 laboratories conducted tests on 12 systems, each with 8 different fabrics. The

individual fabrics in each class are identified as Sample 1 through 8 on Tables 1–5. The systems tested, in

triplicate, are as shown below:

1 Fabric class fiberglass.

2 Fabric class untreated cotton.

3 Cover fabric FR cotton.

4 Back seat FR cotton.

5 Back seat foam.

6 Back seat PE/FR cotton.

7 Side seat FR cotton.

8 Side seat foam.

9 Side seat 1 in. PE/FR cotton.

10 Cushion foam.

11 Cushion FR cotton.

12 Cushion 1 in. PE/FR cotton.

The statistical analyses for repeatability and reproducibility were conducted in two ways: based on actual

measurements of char length (as stated in the standard test method) and based on pass/fail, since the test

method is, in practical use, a pass/fail test. The results of the statistical analysis for repeatability and

reproducibility of the individual systems in the interlaboratory study were determined in accordance with

ASTM E691, in spite of the fact that the number of laboratories (five) is lower than that recommended by

ASTM E691 (which recommends 6 laboratories).

The results shown in Table A.1.5.1 correspond to the analysis involving actual numerical results. Note

that results of char lengths of over 2 inches were not reported by the laboratories and that, therefore, any

result greater than 2 inches was considered, for the analysis, to be 2 inches, since testing was

discontinued at that point. The reason for this is that 2 inches is the maximum char length usually

permitted by users. The precision calculated by assuming that the maximum char length measurement is

2.0 in. does not address the precision of the measurement over the entire possible range, but includes all

values up to the point of failure, which are the measurements of concern.

The results of the statistical analysis for repeatability and reproducibility of the individual systems, for the

interlaboratory study, with the data analyzed as if they produced pass/fail results (with a fail taken to be a

char length value of over 2.0 inches, as used in practice) are shown in Table A.1.5.2. Test results greater

than 2.0 inches were assigned a “Fail” value of 0 and test results less than 2.0 inches were assigned a

“Pass” value of 1, for a binary analysis. This analysis was conducted assuming that there can be only two

possible outcomes: Pass or Fail.

Table A.1.5.3 contains the overall repeatability and reproducibility of the test, analyzed both ways. The

precision of the pass/fail data is significantly better than that of the numerical data. There is a lack of fit

between the repeatability and reproducibility analyses and it indicates that r and R are not correlated.

Bias. The true value of cigarette ignition resistance of upholstered furniture composites can only be

defined in terms of a test method. Within this limitation, this test method has no known bias and is

generally accepted as a referee method.

Page 57 of 128

E1352

TABLE A.1.5.1 Interlaboratory Study for NFPA 261 (Results in inches) Class of Test Material Average STD Repeat STD Repro r R

Fabric Class Fiberglass

Sample 1 0.647 0.089 0.136 0.25 0.38

Sample 2 1.927 0.128 0.195 0.36 0.54 Sample 3 0.573 0.070 0.106 0.20 0.30 Sample 4 0.620 0.056 0.083 0.16 0.23 Sample 5 1.800 0.256 0.352 0.72 0.98 Sample 6 1.053 0.277 0.608 0.78 1.70 Sample 7 0.753 0.191 0.259 0.53 0.72 Sample 8 0.567 0.037 0.061 0.10 0.17 Fabric Class Untreated Cotton

Sample 1 1.100 0.278 0.700 0.78 1.96

Sample 2 1.467 0.299 0.563 0.84 1.58 Sample 3 0.493 0.060 0.137 0.17 0.38 Sample 4 0.793 0.174 0.551 0.49 1.54 Sample 5 1.660 0.393 0.565 1.10 1.58 Sample 6 1.440 0.405 0.614 1.13 1.72 Sample 7 1.680 0.280 0.558 0.78 1.56 Sample 8 1.180 0.411 0.687 1.15 1.92 Cover Fabric FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.853 0.303 0.310 0.85 0.87

Sample 2 1.087 0.224 0.534 0.63 1.50 Sample 3 0.573 0.042 0.152 0.12 0.43 Sample 4 0.693 0.084 0.141 0.24 0.40 Sample 5 1.273 0.280 0.740 0.79 2.07 Sample 6 0.900 0.420 0.512 1.18 1.43 Sample 7 1.133 0.307 0.498 0.86 1.39 Sample 8 0.733 0.084 0.124 0.24 0.35 Back Seat FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.467 0.060 0.170 0.17 0.48

Sample 2 0.567 0.037 0.246 0.10 0.69 Sample 3 0.493 0.047 0.156 0.13 0.44 Sample 4 0.520 0.063 0.172 0.18 0.48 Sample 5 0.607 0.149 0.452 0.42 1.27 Sample 6 0.533 0.073 0.324 0.20 0.91 Sample 7 0.533 0.056 0.237 0.16 0.66 Sample 8 0.407 0.089 0.162 0.25 0.45 Back Seat Foam Sample 1 0.547 0.079 0.181 0.22 0.51 Sample 2 1.920 0.253 0.273 0.71 0.77 Sample 3 0.487 0.047 0.228 0.13 0.64 Sample 4 0.573 0.070 0.162 0.20 0.45 Sample 5 1.713 0.042 0.642 0.12 1.80 Sample 6 0.700 0.101 0.345 0.28 0.97 Sample 7 1.133 0.335 0.601 0.94 1.68 Sample 8 0.620 0.076 0.228 0.21 0.64 Back Seat PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.413 0.042 0.124 0.12 0.35

Sample 2 0.607 0.267 0.413 0.75 1.16 Sample 3 0.600 0.052 0.187 0.14 0.52 Sample 4 0.533 0.070 0.212 0.20 0.59 Sample 5 0.573 0.042 0.223 0.12 0.62 Sample 6 0.580 0.067 0.257 0.19 0.72 Sample 7 0.527 0.052 0.226 0.14 0.63 Sample 8 0.500 0.047 0.159 0.13 0.45

Abbreviations: STD Repeat: standard deviation of the repeatability; STD Repro: standard deviation of the

reproducibility; r: system repeatability; and R: system reproducibility.

Page 58 of 128

E1352

TABLE A.1.5.1 Interlaboratory Study for NFPA 261 (Results in inches) (continued) Class of Test Material Average STD Repeat STD Repro r R

Side Seat FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.467 0.067 0.224 0.19 0.63

Sample 2 0.533 0.105 0.251 0.30 0.70 Sample 3 0.407 0.037 0.129 0.10 0.36 Sample 4 0.527 0.047 0.240 0.13 0.67 Sample 5 0.513 0.092 0.264 0.26 0.74 Sample 6 0.427 0.056 0.149 0.16 0.42 Sample 7 0.467 0.042 0.183 0.12 0.51 Sample 8 0.460 0.030 0.225 0.08 0.63 Side Seat Foam Sample 1 0.527 0.067 0.178 0.19 0.50 Sample 2 1.920 0.132 0.209 0.37 0.58 Sample 3 0.513 0.047 0.200 0.13 0.56 Sample 4 0.560 0.063 0.214 0.18 0.60 Sample 5 1.360 0.389 0.710 1.09 1.99 Sample 6 0.713 0.084 0.281 0.24 0.79 Sample 7 0.920 0.094 0.649 0.26 1.82 Sample 8 0.587 0.067 0.197 0.19 0.55 Side Seat 1 in. PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.407 0.056 0.165 0.16 0.46

Sample 2 0.553 0.037 0.206 0.10 0.58 Sample 3 0.560 0.056 0.219 0.16 0.61 Sample 4 0.540 0.042 0.212 0.12 0.59 Sample 5 0.527 0.056 0.202 0.16 0.56 Sample 6 0.573 0.052 0.122 0.14 0.34 Sample 7 0.507 0.030 0.232 0.08 0.65 Sample 8 0.480 0.037 0.199 0.10 0.56 Cushion Foam Sample 1 0.320 0.037 0.114 0.10 0.32 Sample 2 0.427 0.052 0.198 0.14 0.55 Sample 3 0.360 0.047 0.173 0.13 0.49 Sample 4 0.380 0.030 0.163 0.08 0.46 Sample 5 0.393 0.030 0.164 0.08 0.46 Sample 6 0.413 0.030 0.145 0.08 0.41 Sample 7 0.373 0.047 0.162 0.13 0.45 Sample 8 0.347 0.021 0.195 0.06 0.54 Cushion FR Cotton Sample 1 0.353 0.042 0.131 0.12 0.37 Sample 2 0.807 0.276 0.796 0.77 2.23 Sample 3 0.393 0.021 0.188 0.06 0.53 Sample 4 0.420 0.037 0.181 0.10 0.51 Sample 5 1.027 0.021 0.899 0.06 2.52 Sample 6 0.360 0.047 0.163 0.13 0.46 Sample 7 0.447 0.030 0.226 0.08 0.63 Sample 8 0.373 0.047 0.156 0.13 0.44 Cushion 1 in. PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.313 0.042 0.179 0.12 0.50




Page 59 of 128

E1352

TABLE A.1.5.2 Interlaboratory Study for NFPA 261 (Results as Pass/Fail) Class of Test Material Average STD Repeat STD Repro r R

Fabric Class Fiberglass

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.55 0.83 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 0.27 0.26 0.43 0.71 1.22 Sample 6 0.73 0.26 0.43 0.71 1.22 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fabric Class Untreated Cotton

Sample 1 0.67 0.27 0.47 0.76 1.32

Sample 2 0.53 0.29 0.51 0.81 1.42 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 0.87 0.20 0.30 0.55 0.83 Sample 5 0.27 0.26 0.37 0.71 1.02

Sample 6 0.47 0.29 0.45 0.81 1.25 Sample 7 0.27 0.26 0.43 0.71 1.22 Sample 8 0.60 0.28 0.43 0.79 1.22 Cover Fabric FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.93 0.14 0.15 0.40 0.42

Sample 2 0.93 0.14 0.15 0.40 0.42 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 0.53 0.29 0.51 0.81 1.42 Sample 6 0.87 0.20 0.18 0.55 0.51 Sample 7 0.87 0.20 0.30 0.55 0.83 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Back Seat FR Cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Back Seat Foam Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 2 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Back Seat PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Page 60 of 128

E1352

TABLE A.1.5.2 Interlaboratory Study for NFPA 261 (Results as Pass/Fail) (continued) Class of Test Material Average STD Repeat STD Repro r R

Side Seat FR Cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Side Seat Foam Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 2 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.55 0.83 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 0.47 0.29 0.45 0.81 1.25 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 7 0.80 0.23 0.45 0.65 1.25 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Side Seat 1 in. PE/FR cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cushion Foam Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 2 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cushion FR cotton Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 2 1.00 0.16 0.17 0.45 0.47 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.70 1.40 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cushion 1 in. PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Page 61 of 128

E1352

TABLE A.1.5.3 Repeatability and Reproducibility of Test Method

Numerical

data Pass/Fail

Avg 0.69 0.90

r 0.30 0.16

R 0.80 0.24

Coeff STD fit 1.95 1.59

Coeff Variance fit 3.01 2.70

RSQ STD fit 0.18 0.97

RSQ Variance fit 0.31 0.93

Abbreviations: Avg: average; r: overall repeatability; R: overall reproducibility; Coeff STD fit:

multiplicative coefficient of the linear regression analysis of reproducibility vs. repeatability;

Coeff Variance fit: multiplicative coefficient of the linear regression analysis of reproducibility

variance vs. repeatability variance; RSQ STD fit: linear least squares correlation coefficient of

the fit between reproducibility and repeatability; RSQ Variance fit: linear least squares

correlation coefficient of the fit between reproducibility variance and repeatability variance.

Page 62 of 128

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 261-2015 [ Sections A.1.1.1, A.3.3.9, A.4.1 ]

Sections A.1.1.1, A.3.3.9, A.4.1

A.1.1.1

This test method is was originally similar to that described in ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistanceof Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies. However, the cigarette used as ignition source in this test method (NFPA 261) has anignition potency (as assessed by ASTM E2187) similar to that of the ignition source used when the test method was developedinitially, while the ignition source used in ASTM E1352 has a much lower ignition potency (see also A.4.2).

A.3.3.9 Upholstery Material.

This definition includes, but is not limited to, material such as foam, cotton batting, polyester fiberfill, bonded cellulose, or down.

A.4.1

Figure 1.4.2(a) and Figure 1.4.2(b) show the completed mock-up assemblies.

(ASTM E2187, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Ignition Strength of Cigarettes, 2015) needs to be added to thesection on informational references)


The revised text explains the difference between ASTM E1352 and NFPA 261.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



3 of 3 1/8/2016 10:11 AM

Page 63 of 128

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 270-2015 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of therequirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications. (Reserved)

2.3 Other Publications.



ASTM E 176 E176 , Standard Terminology of Fire Standards, 2010 ae1 2015 .

2.3.2 ISO Publications.

International Standards Organization, 1 rue de Varembé, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Genève 20, ISO Central Secretariat, BIBC II,8, Chemin de Blandonnet, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland .

ISO 5659-2, Determination of Specific Optical Density by a Plastics - Smoke Generation - Part 2: Determination Of Optical DensityBy a Single-Chamber Test , 2002 3rd edition, 2012 .

ISO 13943, Fire Safety — Vocabulary, 2008.

2.3.3 Other Publications.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.

(Reserved)


Referenced current SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and editions.



Public Input No. 2-NFPA 270-2015 [Chapter E]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Jun 15 22:22:05 EDT 2015


1 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 64 of 128

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 270-2015 [ Section No. 2.3 ]

2.3 Other Publications.



ASTM E 176, Terminology of Fire Standards, 2010 ae1 2015a e1 .

2.3.2 ISO Publications.

International Standards Organization, 1 rue de Varembé, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Genève 20, Switzerland.

ISO 5659-2, Determination of Specific Optical Density by a Single-Chamber Test, 2002 2012 .

ISO 13943, Fire Safety — Vocabulary, 2008.

2.3.3 Other Publications.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.


date updates


Submitter Full Name: MARCELO HIRSCHLER

Organization: GBH INTERNATIONAL

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Jul 02 13:20:34 EDT 2015


2 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 65 of 128




ASTM E 176, Terminology of Fire Standards, 2010 ae1 2015 .


Date updates.


Submitter Full Name: Timothy Earl


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Jan 05 09:43:51 EST 2016


3 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 66 of 128

Public Input No. 5-NFPA 270-2016 [ Section No. 4.2.6.2 ]

4.2.6.2

A manometer, pressure sensor (such as a manometer or pressure transducer) with a range of up to 1.5 kPa, 5 kPa shall beprovided for connection to a monitor chamber pressure regulator and to a tube in the top of the chamber and leakage .


This section requires an update to reflect modern technology incorporated into smoke density chambers. Manufacturers typically use an electronic pressure transducer where a manometer was used in the past. This update allows for any type of pressure sensor. The language about the location and connection to a pressure regulator is unnecessary, as pressure regulation is covered by the preceding section.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 67 of 128

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 270-2015 [ Chapter E ]

Annex E Informational References

E.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections of this standard and are notpart of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2.

E.1.1 NFPA Publications. (Reserved)

E.1.2 Other Publications.

E.1.2.1 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D 2843 D2843 , Test Method for Density of Smoke from the Burning or Decomposition of Plastics, 2010.

ASTM D 4100 D4100 , Test Method for Gravimetric Determination of Smoke Particulates from Combustion of Plastic Materials, 1982(reapproved 1989 with editorial change, discontinued Withdrawn 1997).

ASTM D 5424 D5424 , Standard Test Method for For Smoke Obscuration Caused by Burning Cables in a VerticalConfiguration, 2010 Of Insulating Materials Contained In Electrical Or Optical Fiber Cables When Burning In A Vertical CableTray Configuration , 2014 .

ASTM E 84 E84 , Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2012 2015A .

ASTM E 603 E603 , Standard Guide for Room Fire Experiments, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 662 E662 , Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid Materials, 2009 2015 .

ASTM E 906 E906 /E906M, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1354 E1354 , Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter, 2011b 2015 .

ASTM E 1474 E1474 , Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and Mattress Components orComposites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1537 E1537 , Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Upholstered Furniture Items, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 1590 E1590 , Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Mattresses, 2007 2013 .

E.1.2.2 British Publications.

BSI British Standards, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL, United Kingdom.

BS 6809, Method of Calibration of Radiometers for Use in Fire Testing, 1987, reaffirmed 2012 .

E.1.2.3 ISO Publications.

International Organization for Standardization, 1 rue de Varembé, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Genève 20, ISO Central Secretariat,BIBC II, 8, Chemin de Blandonnet, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland .

ISO 5659-2, Determination of Specific Optical Density by a Plastics - Smoke Generation - Part 2: Determination Of OpticalDensity By A Single-Chamber Test , 1994 3rd edition, 2012 .

ISO 5725-1, Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results — Part 1: General Principles and Definitions,1994 (with Cor 1: 1998) , Technical Corrigendum 1, 1998 .

ISO 5725-2, Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results — Part 2: Basic Method for the Determinationof Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Standard Measurement Method, 1994, Corrigendum 1, 2002 .

E.1.2.4 Articles.

Grand, A. F. “Defining the Smoke Density Hazard of Plastics,” Journal of Fire and Flammability 7, 1976, pp. 217–233.

E.2 Informational References. (Reserved)

E.3 References for Extracts. (Reserved)





Public Input No. 1-NFPA 270-2015 [Chapter 2] Referenced current SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and editions.



5 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 68 of 128



Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



6 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 69 of 128

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 270-2015 [ Section No. E.1.2.1 ]



ASTM D 2843 D2843 , Test Method for Density of Smoke from the Burning or Decomposition of Plastics, 2010.

ASTM D 4100 D4100 , Test Method for Gravimetric Determination of Smoke Particulates from Combustion of Plastic Materials, 1982(reapproved 1989 with editorial change, discontinued 1997).

ASTM D 5424 D5424 , Test Method for Smoke Obscuration Caused by Burning Cables in a Vertical Configuration, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 84 E84 , Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2012 2015a .

ASTM E 603 E603 , Guide for Room Fire Experiments, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 662 E662 , Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid Materials, 2009 2015a .

ASTM E 906 E906 /E906M, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1354 E1354 , Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter, 2011b 2015a .

ASTM E 1474 E1474 , Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and Mattress Components orComposites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1537 E1537 , Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Upholstered Furniture Items, 2007 2015 .

ASTM E 1590 E1590 , Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Mattresses, 2007 2013 .


date updates


Submitter Full Name: MARCELO HIRSCHLER

Organization: GBH INTERNATIONAL

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Jul 02 13:22:21 EDT 2015


7 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 70 of 128

Public Input No. 7-NFPA 270-2016 [ Section No. E.1.2.1 ]



ASTM D 2843, Test Method for Density of Smoke from the Burning or Decomposition of Plastics, 2010.

ASTM D 4100, Test Method for Gravimetric Determination of Smoke Particulates from Combustion of Plastic Materials, 1982(reapproved 1989 with editorial change, discontinued 1997).

ASTM D 5424, Test Method for Smoke Obscuration Caused by Burning Cables in a Vertical Configuration, 2010.

ASTM E 84, Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2012 2015 .

ASTM E 603, Guide for Room Fire Experiments, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 662, Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid Materials, 2009 2015 .

ASTM E 906/E906M, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1354, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen ConsumptionCalorimeter, 2011b 2015 .

ASTM E 1474, Test Method for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Upholstered Furniture and Mattress Components orComposites Using a Bench Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, 2010 2014 .

ASTM E 1537, Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Upholstered Furniture Items, 2007 2015 .

ASTM E 1590, Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Mattresses, 2007 2013 .


Date updates.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



8 of 8 1/8/2016 10:15 AM

Page 71 of 128


5.4.1

The exhaust collection system shall be constructed with the following requirements required components :

(1) A blower

(2) A steel hood

(3) A duct

(4) A bidirectional probe

(5) A thermocouple(s)

(6) An oxygen measurement system

(7) A smoke obscuration measurement system (white light photocell lamp/detector or laser)

(8) A combustion gas sampling and analysis system


The revised wording more clearly states the intended purpose. Existing wording refers to “requirements” then the list follows of inclusions that are not “requirements” but rather components of the test apparatus.


Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir

Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, WA

Affilliation: NFPAs Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Nov 10 11:45:36 EST 2015


1 of 6 1/8/2016 10:20 AM

Page 72 of 128

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 274-2016 [ Section No. B.4 ]

B.4

The Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) uses this test for regulation of pipe insulation materials in plenums. The conditions ofacceptance in the UMC are slightly different from those in Section B.3. The International Mechanical Code (IMC), NFPA 5000 andNFPA 90A use ASTM E84 or UL 723 for regulation of both pipe insulation and duct insulation.


Additional information.



Public Input No. 5-NFPA 274-2016 [Section No. D.1.1]

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 274-2016 [New Section after D.1.2.1]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 6 1/8/2016 10:20 AM

Page 73 of 128

Public Input No. 5-NFPA 274-2016 [ Section No. D.1.1 ]

D.1.1 NFPA Publications. (Reserved)

NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems, 2015.

NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, 2018.


Publications used in the public input to annex B.



Public Input No. 4-NFPA 274-2016 [Section No. B.4]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



3 of 6 1/8/2016 10:20 AM

Page 74 of 128

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 274-2016 [ New Section after D.1.2.1 ]

D1.2.3 ASTM Publications

ASTM E84, 2015b

D1.2.4 ICC PUblications

International Mechanical Code (IMC), 2015

D1.2.5 UL Publications

ANSI/UL 723


added references included in public input to annex B



Public Input No. 4-NFPA 274-2016 [Section No. B.4]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 6 1/8/2016 10:20 AM

Page 75 of 128


D.1.2.1 IAPMO Publications.

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 Walnut Drive South, Walnut 4755 E. Philadelphia St.,Ontario , CA 91789 91761 .

Uniform Mechanical Code, 2012 2015 .


Referenced current address of IAPMO.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sun Jul 19 18:46:37 EDT 2015


5 of 6 1/8/2016 10:20 AM

Page 76 of 128


D.1.2.1 IAPMO Publications.

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 Walnut Drive South, Walnut, CA 91789.

Uniform Mechanical Code, 2012 2015 .


update




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



6 of 6 1/8/2016 10:20 AM

Page 77 of 128


1.1.6 When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research, this test standard shall apply to individualfuel packages, including but not limited to those described 1.1.4 and 1.1.5.


When tests are conducted for fire reconstruction or research the items excluded above can be included.


Submitter Full Name: David Sheppard

Organization: US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Jan 07 15:04:18 EST 2016


1 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 78 of 128

Public Input No. 12-NFPA 289-2016 [ Section No. 4.1.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

The test methods described herein shall use a gas burner to produce a diffusion flame to expose the individual fuel package , exceptas discussed in 4 . 1.8.


When tests are conducted for fire reconstruction or research an alternate ignition source is allowed




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 79 of 128


5.4.1

Artificial vegetation items shall be tested by placing the item in the center of the a protective barrier covering a load cell (seeSection 7.5) and exposing it to the gas burner described in 4.1.7 at a 20 kW power level.


clarification




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



3 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 80 of 128


5.4.3

For artificial Christmas trees, the vertical centerline of the burner shall be located 150 mm ± 2.5 mm (6 in. ± 0.1 in.) inside theoutermost portion of the tree located at the worst case position with respect to flame impingement on the branches and within100 mm (4 in.) vertically from the bottom branches.


This proposes a change to the placement of the ignition source when testing artificial trees. Repeat testing experience at UL has shown that placement of the ignition source at 6 inches inside the outermost portion of the tree is not always the location that exposes the highest concentration of tree branches. Depending on the tree construction and configuration, placing the ignition source in a worst case location, where there is the highest concentration of branches, can yield a more representative result.

This proposal also adds an Annex commentary that UL Outline 2358 has been successfully used to test and certify pre-lit artificial Christmas trees.



Public Input No. 10-NFPA 289-2016 [New Section after A.5.3.5]


Submitter Full Name: Ronald Farr

Organization: Ul Llc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 81 of 128


5.5 Natural Christmas trees

5.5.1 In order to investigate the effect of fire retardant treatments on natural Christmas trees the procedure to be followed shall be asshown in 5.5.2 through 5.5.4.

5.5.2 The Christmas tree shall be tested by placing it in the center of a protective barrier, placed above a load cell (see Section 7.5),and exposing it to the gas burner described in 4.1.7 with the power level described in 5.5.4.

5.5.3 The vertical centerline of the burner shall be located 150 mm - 2.5 mm (6 in. - 1 in.) inside the outermost portion of the tree andwithin 100 mm (4 in,) vertically from the bottom branches.

5.5.4 The gas supplied to the propane gas burner shall be controlled linearly from a zero flow rate to a flow rate of 234 cm 3 /s (29.8

standard ft 3 /hour) at 2.5 minutes to provide a theoretical net peak heat release rate of 20 kW/m 2 at 2.5 minutes. The gas inputshall then be linearly decreased to reach an input of 0 kW (zero flow rate) at 5.0 minutes.

5.6 Other Individual Fuel Packages.

5.5 6 .1

For individual fuel packages other than those described in 4 5 .1.2 through 4 5 .1.4 , the individual fuel package shall be centrallypositioned on a weighing platform protective barrier covering a load cell as described in Section 7.5.

5.5 6 .2

The weighing platform load cell shall be located centrally under the collection hood.

5.5 6 .3

The ignition source shall be placed on the protective barrier (see 5.1.3) and in contact with the individual fuel package or located tooptimize ignition and fire growth of the individual fuel package.


A procedure for studying fire retardant treatments on natural Christmas trees is being added, based on studies at UL. The research suggested that natural Christmas trees cannot withstand 20 kW for 15 min without reaching flashover and a less severe ignition source is being proposed.

The change relating to the weighing platform is intended to provide language consistent with the language in 7.5, where the term weighing platform does not appear.

The other proposed change to the section on other fuel packages is a correction of the referenced sections.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



5 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 82 of 128


5.5.1

For individual fuel packages other than those described in 4.1.2 through 4.1.4, the individual fuel package shall be centrallypositioned on a weighing platform as described in Section 7.5. When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic firereconstruction or research the use of a weighing platform may be omitted


When tests are conducted for fire reconstruction or research this instrumentation may not be required.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



6 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 83 of 128


5.5.2

The weighing platform individual fuel package shall be located centrally under the collection hood.


It is more important that the test sample be centered under the hood rather than the weighing device




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



7 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 84 of 128


5.5.3

The ignition source shall be placed on the protective barrier (see 5.1.3) and in contact with the individual fuel package or located tooptimize ignition and fire growth of the individual fuel package , except as discussed in 4 . 1.8


For fire reconstruction and research tests an alternate ignition source is allowed.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



8 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 85 of 128


6.1.5 When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research alternativesample conditioning shall be permitted. The alternative sample conditioning shall be documented as partof the test record.


For fire reconstruction and research tests an alternate conditioning may be required. For example if the purpose of the test is to replicate the burning rate of an item in Alaska in February.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



9 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 86 of 128


When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research alternative environmental conditionsshall be permitted. The alternative environmental conditions shall be documented as part of the test record.


For fire reconstruction and research tests an alternate environment may be required for the purpose of the testing.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



10 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 87 of 128


7.1 Ignition Source.

7.1.1

The ignition source for the test shall be a gas burner with a nominal 305 mm × 305 mm (nominal 12 in. × 12 in.) porous top surface ofa refractory material.

7.1.1.1 2

The refractory material through which the gas is supplied shall be a nominal 25 mm (nominal 1 in.) thick porous ceramic fiberboardover a 152 mm ± 5 mm (6 in. ± 0.2 in.) plenum. porous material referenced in 7.1.1

.2

Alternatively, shall be a minimum 102 mm (4 in.) layer of white Ottawa silica sand shall be permitted to be used to provide thehorizontal surface through which the gas is supplied, as shown in Figure 7.1. 1. 2 .

Figure 7.1.1. 2 Gas Burner Using White Ottawa Silica Sand as Refractory Surface.

7.1.1. 3

The burner with a layer of white Ottawa silica sand as shown in Figure 7.1.1.2 shall be used for individual fuel packages with apotential for dripping.

7.1.2

The

The top surface of the burner through which the gas is applied shall be located horizontally 305 mm ± 50 mm (12 in. ± 2 in.) abovethe protective barrier (see 5.1.3 and 7.5.2.1).

7.1.3 4

The gas supply to the burner shall be propane of C.P. grade (99 percent purity) or having a net heat of combustion of 46.5 MJ/kg ±0.5 MJ/kg.

7.1.3 4 .1

Flow rates of gas shall be calculated using a net heat of combustion of propane of 85 MJ/m3 (2280 Btu/ft3) at standard conditions of101 kPa (14.7 psi) pressure and 20°C (68°F) temperature.

7.1.3 4 .2

The gas flow rate shall be metered throughout the test, with an accuracy of at least ±5 percent.

7.1.3 4 .3

The heat output to the burner shall be controlled within ±5 percent of the prescribed value.


11 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 88 of 128

7.1.4 5

The gas supply to the burner shall produce a net heat output of any of the following for a total of 15 minutes:

(1) 20 kW

(2) 40 kW

(3) 70 kW

(4) 100 kW

(5) 160 kW

(6) 300 kW

7.1.5 6

Burner controls shall be provided for automatic shutoff of the gas supply if flameout occurs.

7.1.6 7

The burner shall be ignited by a pilot burner or a remotely controlled spark igniter.


Recent experience has indicated that the porous material to be used needs to be the Ottawa sand. One reason is that it is often not possible to know in advance whether a material to be tested will drip. Therefore discussing what material is to be used for dripping materials is unnecessary.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



12 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 89 of 128


7.1.7 When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research, a different ignition sourcemay be used, as discussed in 4.1.8.


For fire reconstruction and research tests an alternate ignition source is allowed.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



13 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 90 of 128


7.2.2.1

A nominal 300-watt flood-type, quartz halogen lamp shall be positioned near the floor level and aimed at a level above theburner. The test sample shall be adequately illuminated so that the entire sample is visible for video and still photography.


The important part of this requirement is that the sample is properly lighted. Specifying a specific type of bulb is unnecessary. Most labs are moving to low power LED lights.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



14 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 91 of 128

Public Input No. 20-NFPA 289-2016 [ Section No. 7.2.2.2.3 ]

7.2.2.2.3

A timer depicting “elapsed time” shall be included in all videos. The timer shall be clearly viewed throughout the test period. The timershall be permitted to be integral to the video camera. The timer can be added to the video in post production


DVR based video recording systems embed the time in each frame of the digital video file. These video systems often apply the elapsed time automatically when recording is completed.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



15 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 92 of 128


7.2.2.2.4

Prior to ignition of the burner, the date and laboratory test report identification number shall be recorded on the video. The video shallbe started at least 30 seconds prior to ignition of the burner, and the video recording shall be continuous for the duration of the testperiod . For digital video recording systems this information can be recorded as part of the electronic record


Many laboratory video recording systems are directly linked to a data acquisition and/or LIMs system. These systems store the test information automatically as part of the test record. The old method of putting a sign in the video is redundant for these systems.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



16 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 93 of 128


7.2.2.3.1

A timer depicting “elapsed time” shall be included in all photographs. The timer shall be clearly viewed throughout the test period. Thetimer shall be permitted to be integral to the camera. For digital cameras this information can be recorded as part of the electronictest record.


Digital cameras embed the date and time information as metadata into the digital file. Therefore, the time information is saved by default. When including digital photographs in reports many laboratories use software that include this meta data as the picture caption by default.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



17 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 94 of 128


7.2.2.3.2

Prior to ignition of the burner, the date and laboratory test report identification number shall be photographed. For digital cameras thisinformation can be recorded as part of the electronic test record.

Color slides, photographs, or digital images shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 15 seconds for the first 3 minutes of the test andat intervals not exceeding 30 seconds thereafter for the duration of the test.

When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research it shall be permitted to take photographs atdifferent intervals.


Many laboratory import the test photographs directly into a LIMs system. These systems store the test information automatically as part of the electronic record. The old method of putting a sign in the picture is redundant for these systems.The requirement to take a picture at 15 second intervals is redundant when HD video is typically being recorded at the same time.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



18 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 95 of 128

Public Input No. 22-NFPA 289-2016 [ New Section after 7.4.7.6.3 ]

When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research the use of smoke obscurationinstrumentation may be omitted.


For fire reconstruction and research this instrumentation may not be required for the intended purpose of the tests.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



19 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 96 of 128


7.5.6 When tests are conducted for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research the use of n alternativeweighing platform and protective barrier may be used or omitted. Any use of an alternative weighing platform orprotective barrier shall be documented in sufficient detail that another laboratory could replicate the test.


For fire reconstruction and research the weighing platform and the barrier with a lip may not be required for the intended purpose of the tests. For example, a barrier without a lip may be required, or a weighing platform under only a portion of the test sample may be what is important.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



20 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 97 of 128


8.1.2.3

The calibration test shall use the standard ignition source intended for the test, centered under the exhaust hood. . If a differentignition source is used for the purpose of forensic fire reconstruction or research, then the calibration test shall use an ignition sourcedescribed in 7.1.1


When an alternate ignition source is used for fire reconstruction tests, the standard gas burner should still be used to calibrate the heat release rate instrumentation.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



21 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 98 of 128


8.1.3*

The data resulting from a calibration test shall provide the following: The output output as a function of time, after the burner isactivated, of all instruments normally used for the standard fire test

The maximum extension of the burner flame, as recorded by still photographs taken at 30-second intervals or by continuous videorecording

The temperature and velocity profiles across the duct cross-section at the location of the bidirectional probe

The differential pressure across the bidirectional probe

.


Remove 1. There is no reason to photograph or record video for every calibration test.Remove 2. There is no practical reason to record velocity and temperature profiles across the duct for every calibration test. Measuring these values would require the installation of an array of temperature and velocity probes across the ducts. These measurements are often performed when commissioning a new hood, but I have never heard of this being done for every test.Remove 3. The raw data from the test will include the bidirectional probe pressure as well as many other instrument readings. There is no reason to single out the bidirectional probe pressure.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



22 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 99 of 128


A.1.1.1

This standard is referenced, including requirements for a maximum heat release rate of 100 kW, in several codes where specificindividual fuel packages are exposed to a 20 kW ignition source. The applications include foam plastics in signs (NFPA 101, LifeSafety Code, and NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code), foam plastic displays (NFPA 101 and the International FireCode), artificial decorative vegetation (International Fire Code), foam components of children’s playground structures (NFPA 1, FireCode, and the International Building Code) and , foam plastics in kiosks (NFPA 101 and International Building Code) and decorativematerials (including curtains and drapes) ( International Fire Code ) .


clarification, based on IFC language




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



23 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 100 of 128

Public Input No. 10-NFPA 289-2016 [ New Section after A.5.3.5 ]

A.5.4 Artificial Vegetation

Type your content here ...

An alternate test method that has been used for the tes ng and cer fica on of ar ficial Christmas Trees is UL Subject 2358, “Outline ofInves ga on for Fire Tests of Pre‐Lit Ar ficial Seasonal Use Trees and Other Seasonal Decora ve Items” The igni on fire source exposure representsa 5 minute growth and decay fire challenge that peaks at 20 kW. The condi ons of acceptance are as follows :1) peak heat release rate does notexceed 100 kW, 2) total heat release rate does not exceed 15 MJ during the first 10 minutes of the test, and 3) t he sample shall not lose structuralintegrity such as pping, falling, or loss of branches during the test.


This proposes a change to the placement of the ignition source when testing artificial trees. Repeat testing experience at UL has shown that placement of the ignition source at 6 inches inside the outermost portion of the tree is not always the location that exposes the highest concentration of tree branches. Depending on the tree construction and configuration, placing the ignition source in a worst case location, where there is the highest concentration of branches, can yield a more representative result.

This proposal also adds an Annex commentary that UL Outline 2358 has been successfully used to test and certify pre-lit artificial Christmas trees.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



24 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 101 of 128

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 289-2015 [ Chapter C ]

Annex C Informational References

C.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections of this standard and are notpart of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for other reasons.

C.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2012 edition.

NFPA 101 ®, Life Safety Code ®, 2012 edition.

NFPA 265, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coveringson Full Height Panels and Walls, 2011 edition.

NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth, 2011edition.

NFPA 5000 ®, Building Construction and Safety Code ®, 2012 edition.

C.1.2 Other Publications.



ASTM E 603 E603 , Standard Guide for Room Fire Experiments, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 800 E800 , Standard Guide for Measurement of Gases Present or Generated During Fires, 2007 2014 .

ASTM E 1354 E1354 , Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter , 2015 . 2011

ASTM E 1537 E1537 , Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 1590 E1590 , Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 1822 E1822 , Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Stacked Chairs, 2009 2013 .

ASTM E 2067 E2067 , Standard Practice for Full-Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimetry Tests (Annual Book of ASTM Standards,Vol. 4.07), 2008 2012 .

ASTM E 2257 E2257 , Standard Test Method for Room Fire Test of Wall and Ceiling Materials or Assemblies, 2008 2013a .

C.1.2.2 ICC Publications.

International Code Council, 5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 600 Falls Church, VA. 22041.

International Building Code, 2012 edition 2015 .

International Fire Code, 2012 edition 2015 .

C.1.2.3 ISO Publications.

International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20 ISO CentralSecretariat, BIBC II, 8, Chemin de Blandonnet, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva , Switzerland .

ISO 9705, Fire Tests — Full Scale Room Fire Tests for Surface Products, 1993.

C.1.2.4 UL Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.

UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes, 2006.

C.1.2.5 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Printing Government Publishing Office, 732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20402 20401-0001 .

Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1633.


25 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 102 of 128

C.1.2.6 Other References.

California Technical Bulletin TB 133.

Chow, W. K., and K. F. Lai, “Optical Measurement of Smoke,” Fire and Materials, vol. 16, 135–139, 1992.

Coaker, A. W., M. M. Hirschler, and C. L. Shoemaker, “Rate of Heat Release Testing for Vinyl Wire and Cable Materials with ReducedFlammability and Smoke: Small Scale and Full Scale Tests,” in Proc. 15th. Int. Conference on Fire Safety, Product SafetyCorporation, San Francisco, Ed., C. J. Hilado, January 8–12, pp. 220–256, 1990.

Janssens, M. L., “Measuring Rate of Heat Release by Oxygen Consumption,” Fire Technology, pp. 234–249, August 1991.

Janssens, M. L., and W. J. Parker, “Oxygen Consumption Calorimetry,” in Heat Release in Fires, Ed. V. Babrauskas and S. J.Grayson, Elsevier, London, Chapter 3, pp. 31–59, 1992.

McCaffrey, B. J., and G. Heskestad, “A Robust Bidirectional Low-Velocity Probe for Flame and Fire Application,” Combustion andFlame, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 125–127, February 1976.

Ostman, B., “Comparison of Smoke Release from Building Products,” Int. Conf. FIRE. Control the Heat...Reduce the Hazard, London,Oct. 24–25, 1988, Fire Research Station, UK, paper 8.

Ower, E., and R. Pankhurst, The Measurement of Air Flow, Pergamon Press, 5th Edition, pp. 112–147, 1977.

C.2 Informational References. (Reserved)

C.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections. (Reserved)






Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



26 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 103 of 128

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 289-2015 [ Section No. C.1.2.1 ]



ASTM E 603, Guide for Room Fire Experiments, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 800, Standard Guide for Measurement of Gases Present or Generated During Fires, 2007 2014 .

ASTM E 1354, Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter, 2015a . 2011

ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 2015 .

ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2013 .

ASTM E 1822, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Stacked Chairs, 2009 2013 .

ASTM E 2067, Standard Practice for Full-Scale Oxygen Consumption Calorimetry Tests (Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.4.07), 2008. , 2015.

ASTM E 2257, Standard Test Method for Room Fire Test of Wall and Ceiling Materials or Assemblies, 2008 2015 .


date updates




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



27 of 27 1/8/2016 10:21 AM

Page 104 of 128


2.3.1 ANSI/UL Publications.


ANSI/UL 385, Standard for Safety Play Pipes for Water Supply Testing in Fire Protection Service, 2005, revised 2011 2015 .


Revised the revision year.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



1 of 2 1/8/2016 10:25 AM

Page 105 of 128


2.3.1 ANSI/UL Publications.


ANSI/UL 385, Standard for Safety Play Pipes for Water Supply Testing in Fire Protection Service, 2005, revised 2011 2015 .


Referenced UL Standard has been revised/updated to a newer edition.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 2 1/8/2016 10:25 AM

Page 106 of 128


1.3.4

Materials applied to surfaces of buildings or backing materials as interior finishes in buildings should be tested and classified inaccordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials , or NFPA 286,Standard NFPA 286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room FireGrowth or of ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials , with the provisions requiredby codes or regulations .

1.3.4.1 In the case of textile wall coverings (and expanded vinyl wall coverings) , the use of NFPA 265, Standard Methods of FireTests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile or Expanded Vinyl Wall Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls, isalso appropriate, with some limitations .

1.3.4.2 Ceiling coverings should not be tested using NFPA 265 because the test flame does not reach the ceiling.


Clarifications




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sun Jan 03 21:21:59 EST 2016


1 of 4 1/8/2016 10:26 AM

Page 107 of 128




ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010b 2015A .


Referenced current edition.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sat Oct 24 23:18:49 EDT 2015


2 of 4 1/8/2016 10:26 AM

Page 108 of 128




ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010b 2015b .


update




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sun Jan 03 21:19:15 EST 2016


3 of 4 1/8/2016 10:26 AM

Page 109 of 128




ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2010b 2015b .


Update reference standard.


Submitter Full Name: Richard Davis

Organization: FM Global

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 4 1/8/2016 10:26 AM

Page 110 of 128


1.5* Precision Annex A.1.5 presnts information on a repeatability and reproducibility study conducted on this test method.


Information on the repeatability and reproducibility of this test method is contained within ASTM E1353 and should be incorporated here, especially since it is possible that the ASTM E1353 standard may be withdrawn soon.



Public Input No. 6-NFPA 260-2015 [New Section after A.1.2.3]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



1 of 5 1/8/2016 10:06 AM

Page 111 of 128


2.3.1 GSA Publications.

U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.

Federal Specification CCC.C.438.E A-A-50186 , Cloth, Ticking Buckram , Twill, Cotton; Type I, February 14, 1986. Woven andNonwoven, November 18, 1988 . (Supersedes Federal Specification CCC-C-438E)


Referenced current federal specification.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



2 of 5 1/8/2016 10:06 AM

Page 112 of 128


4.5 * Standard Type II Cover Fabric.

Standard Type II cover fabric shall be UFAC Type II, 100 percent bright, regular rayon, scoured, 20/2, ring-spun, basket-weave

construction, 125 g 271 g /m2 ± 12 g/m2, and white in and PFP/PFD 'scoured only' in color and shall not be treated with any flame-retardant finishes, whiteners, or back coating.


Editorial Change needed only: print errorTestfabrics, Inc. believes the description listed in current Section 4.5 of NFPA 260 was written in misprint. The UFAC Class II cover fabric is listed as 271 gsm +/- 12 in both the barrier and interior UFAC test methods-1990.

The correction will help correlate all fabrics involved within these test procedures and provide less confusion for the users of you NFPA 260 Test Method.Thanks,Shawn MeeksTestfabrics,Inc.570-603-0432


Submitter Full Name: Shawn Meeks

Organization: Testfabrics Inc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Oct 30 15:40:19 EDT 2015


3 of 5 1/8/2016 10:06 AM

Page 113 of 128


A.1.1.1

These test methods are were originally similar to those described in ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette IgnitionResistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture. However, the cigarette used as ignition source in this test method (NFPA 260)has an ignition potency (as assessed by ASTM E2187) similar to that of the ignition source used when the test method wasdeveloped initially, while the ignition source used in ASTM E1353 has a much lower ignition potency (see also A.4.3).

(Add also ASTM E2187, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Ignition Strength of Cigarettes, 2015, to the section on theannex on informational references.)


The revised text explains the difference between ASTM E1353 and NFPA 260.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4 of 5 1/8/2016 10:06 AM

Page 114 of 128

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 260-2015 [ New Section after A.1.2.3 ]

A.1.5 Precision

(the text recommended is added in an attachment)

(Also add a reference to ASTM E691, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precisionof a Test Method, 2014) into the section on Informational References)



Annex_on_precision_for_NFPA_260_Dec_15.docxFile contains the proposed text for Annex A.1.5 describing the study on repeatability and reproducibility.


The proposed information containing data for repeatability and reproducibility of NFPA 260, as obtained by a complete study, is included, in an attachment. A reference to ASTM E691 needs to be added into the section on informational referenced standards.

Add also a reference to ASTM E691 (Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method, 2014) into the section on Informational References.



Public Input No. 4-NFPA 260-2015 [New Section after 1.4.6]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



5 of 5 1/8/2016 10:06 AM

Page 115 of 128

E1353

A.1.5 An interlaboratory evaluation was performed to provide an estimate of the precision of the test

method, wherein 5 laboratories tested 5 systems, each with 8 different fabrics. The individual fabrics in

each class are identified as Sample 1 through 8 on Tables A.1.5.1 and A.1.5.2. The five systems tested, in

triplicate, are as shown below:

1 Fabric class urethane form

2. Barrier 1 in. PE/FR cotton

3. Barrier 1 in. PE/foam

4. Decking test FR cotton

5. Decking test foam.

The statistical analyses for repeatability and reproducibility were conducted in two ways: based on actual

measurements of char length (as stated in the standard test method) and based on pass/fail, since the test

method is, in practical use, a pass/fail test. The results of the statistical analysis for repeatability and

reproducibility of the individual systems in the interlaboratory study were determined in accordance with

ASTM E691, in spite of the fact that the number of laboratories (five) is lower than that recommended by

ASTM E691 (which recommends 6 laboratories).

The results shown in Table A.1.5.1 correspond to the analysis involving actual numerical results. Note

that results of char lengths of over 2 inches were not reported by the laboratories and that, therefore, any

result greater than 2 inches was considered, for the analysis, to be 2 inches, since testing was

discontinued at that point. The reason for this is that 2 inches is the maximum char length usually

permitted by users. The precision calculated by assuming that the maximum char length measurement is

2.0 in. does not address the precision of the measurement over the entire possible range, but includes all

values up to the point of failure, which are the measurements of concern.

The results of the statistical analysis for repeatability and reproducibility of the individual systems, for the

interlaboratory study, with the data analyzed as if they produced pass/fail results (with a fail taken to be a

char length value of over 2.0 inches, as used in practice) are shown in Table A.1.5.2. Test results greater

than 2.0 inches were assigned a “Fail” value of 0 and test results less than 2.0 inches were assigned a

“Pass” value of 1, for a binary analysis. This analysis was conducted assuming that there can be only two

possible outcomes: Pass or Fail.

Table A.1.5.3 contains the overall repeatability and reproducibility of the test, analyzed both ways. The

precision of the pass/fail data is significantly better than that of the numerical data. There is a lack of fit

between the repeatability and reproducibility analyses and it indicates that r and R are not correlated.

Bias. The true value of cigarette ignition resistance of upholstered furniture composites can only be

defined in terms of a test method. Within this limitation, this test method has no known bias and is

generally accepted as a referee method.

Page 116 of 128

E1353

TABLE A.1.5.1 Interlaboratory Study for NFPA 260 (Results in inches) Class of Test Material Average STD Repeat STD Repro r R

Fabric Class Urethane Foam

Sample 1 0.693 0.320 0.343 0.90 0.96

Sample 2 1.300 0.063 0.642 0.18 1.80 Sample 3 0.633 0.047 0.128 0.13 0.36 Sample 4 0.687 0.099 0.144 0.28 0.40 Sample 5 1.353 0.414 0.708 1.16 1.98 Sample 6 1.107 0.097 0.575 0.27 1.61 Sample 7 1.013 0.141 0.372 0.40 1.04 Sample 8 0.940 0.067 0.603 0.19 1.69 Barrier 1 in. PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.492 0.033 0.157 0.09 0.44


Barrier 1 in. PE/Foam

Sample 1 0.493 0.052 0.145 0.14 0.40

Sample 2 0.753 0.256 0.541 0.72 1.52 Sample 3 0.520 0.073 0.269 0.20 0.75 Sample 4 0.647 0.094 0.294 0.26 0.82 Sample 5 0.580 0.079 0.200 0.22 0.56 Sample 6 0.700 0.060 0.211 0.17 0.59 Sample 7 0.607 0.042 0.199 0.12 0.56 Sample 8 0.573 0.037 0.163 0.10 0.46 Decking Test FR Cotton

Sample 1 0.347 0.021 0.151 0.06 0.42

Sample 2 0.387 0.047 0.231 0.13 0.65 Sample 3 0.360 0.030 0.202 0.08 0.57 Sample 4 0.407 0.037 0.242 0.10 0.68 Sample 5 0.353 0.030 0.161 0.08 0.45 Sample 6 0.407 0.042 0.199 0.12 0.56 Sample 7 0.407 0.063 0.200 0.18 0.56 Sample 8 0.387 0.042 0.131 0.12 0.37 Decking Test Foam Sample 1 0.333 0.037 0.148 0.10 0.42 Sample 2 0.380 0.067 0.203 0.19 0.57 Sample 3 0.400 0.037 0.180 0.10 0.51 Sample 4 0.387 0.037 0.218 0.10 0.61 Sample 5 0.333 0.030 0.103 0.08 0.29 Sample 6 0.400 0.047 0.174 0.13 0.49 Sample 7 0.400 0.037 0.145 0.10 0.40 Sample 8 0.380 0.042 0.150 0.12 0.42



Page 117 of 128

E1353

TABLE A.1.5.2 Interlaboratory Study for NFPA 260 (Results as Pass/Fail) Class of Test Material Average STD Repeat STD Repro r R

Fabric Class Urethane Foam

Sample 1 0.93 0.14 0.15 0.40 0.42

Sample 2 0.60 0.28 0.55 0.79 1.53 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 0.47 0.29 0.45 0.81 1.25 Sample 6 0.80 0.23 0.45 0.65 1.25 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 0.80 0.23 0.45 0.65 1.25 Barrier 1 in. PE/FR Cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 0.92 0.16 0.17 0.45 0.47 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barrier 1 in. PE/Foam

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 0.87 0.20 0.30 0.55 0.83 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Decking Test FR Cotton

Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sample 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Decking Test Foam Sample 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 4 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 5 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 6 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sample 8 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Page 118 of 128

E1353

TABLE A.1.5.3 Repeatability and Reproducibility of Test Method

Numerical Data Pass/Fail

Avg 0.58 0.96

r 0.24 0.11

R 0.75 0.18

Coeff STD fit 1.99 1.68

Coeff Variance fit 2.39 3.09

RSQ STD fit 0.22 0.96

RSQ Variance fit 0.17 0.93

Abbreviations: Avg: average; r: overall repeatability; R: overall reproducibility; Coeff STD fit:

multiplicative coefficient of the linear regression analysis of reproducibility vs. repeatability;

Coeff Variance fit: multiplicative coefficient of the linear regression analysis of reproducibility

variance vs. repeatability variance; RSQ STD fit: linear least squares correlation coefficient of

the fit between reproducibility and repeatability; RSQ Variance fit: linear least squares

correlation coefficient of the fit between reproducibility variance and repeatability variance.

Page 119 of 128

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

5 RESEARCH PLACE ROCKVILLE, MD 20850

3/7/2016

Mr. Barry L. Badders, P.E.

NFPA Fire Tests Committee Chair

Intertek Testing Services

16015 Shady Falls

Elmendorf, TX 78112-5108 USA

RE: Proposed Changes to NFPA 260

Dear Mr. Badders:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) staff is proposing changes to

NFPA 260: Standard Methods of Tests and Classification System for Cigarette Ignition

Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture.1 A summary of the proposed changes is

provided with this letter. The changes are being proposed to improve the consistency and

repeatability of the standard NFPA 260. CPSC staff looks forward to presenting our position in

detail at the next technical committee meeting. I can be reached by telephone at 301-987-2099 or

by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Lock, Ph.D.

Project Manager for Upholstered Furniture Flammability

1 These comments are those of CPSC staff, and they have not been reviewed or approved by, and may

not necessarily reflect the views of, the Commission.

Page 120 of 128

mailto:[email protected]

Proposed Change to NFPA 260: Remove Draft Free Enclosure: 4.11, A 4.9

CPSC Rationale:

The draft free enclosure did not affect test results for test combinations with non-smolder-prone materials

because those materials do not smolder significantly, with or without the enclosure. When mockups made

with cotton velvet fabric and untreated foam were tested using the enclosure, the average foam mass

losses were 8.04% with a standard deviation of 1.99%. When these same mockups were tested without

the enclosure, their average foam mass losses increased to about 13%. The draft-free enclosure could

allow poor performing material combinations that smolder with greater intensity to perform better in

testing (less mass loss) than they would without the enclosure, reducing the distinction between smolder-

prone and non-smolder-prone materials.

See Memorandum to D. Ray, Project Manager, Upholstered Furniture, from W. Tao, “Upholstered

Furniture - Evaluation of the Draft-Limiting Enclosure Specified in the Smoldering Ignition Test Method”

October 23, 2006. (http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/87703/ufstatus.pdf)

Proposed Change:

4.11 Draft Enclosure. A draft-preventive enclosure constructed in accordance with Figure 4.11 shall be

provided to restrict airflow.

FIGURE 4.11 Draft Enclosure.

A.4.9 It is recommended that the properly loaded mini mock-up tester and/or the decking materials tester

be placed in

a draft enclosure (see Section 4.11), and then the draft enclosure should be placed into a fume hood

having air curtains or a door across the hood face and containing virtually zero air velocity. A fume hood

with air curtains drawn across the face and zero air velocity at the test locations is recommended.

Page 121 of 128

Proposed Change to NFPA 260: Improved Foam Specifications: 4.7

CPSC Rationale

CPSC Rationale 4: A number of the physical and chemical properties of foam affect its smoldering

combustion behavior. CPSC collaborated with NIST to understand the variability of the foam substrate.

NIST work has shown that only specifying these characteristics is not sufficient to fully characterize

consistently performing test foam. The Task Group should consider the information in NIST Technical

Note 1747, “Factors Influencing the Smoldering Performance of Polyurethane Foam” as a basis for

additional specifications for indentation load deflection and air permeability.

(http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1747.pdf)

Proposed Change:

4.7 Polyurethane Foam Substrate. The polyurethane foam substrate shall be an open-celled, polyether-

type, urethane UFAC foam having a density of 20 28 kg/m3 to 25 30 kg/m3, Indentation Load Deflection

(ILD):25 to 30, Air permeability: Greater than 4.0 ft3/min and containing no inorganic fillers and shall not

be treated with flame retardants.

Page 122 of 128

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1747.pdf

Proposed Change to NFPA 260: Foam Thickness: 6.1-6.6

CPSC Rationale

CPSC staff observed that charring of the wooden frame can occur during the cigarette ignition test using

the specified 2-inch foams and the 45-minute test duration for the mockups made from smolder prone

upholstery fabrics and foams. Using 3-inch thick foam geometry and a 30-minute test duration avoids

potential wooden frame involvement; however, subsequent testing showed 30 minutes was not adequate

to observe smoldering behavior of smoldering materials since a standard cigarette takes 25 minutes to

burn its full length. A 45-minute test duration was determined to be an optimal test time. Since the foam

thickness was increased from 2 to 3 inches, the cover fabrics and other test materials’ dimensions were

increased to fit around the foam.

See Memorandum to D. Ray, Project Manager, Upholstered Furniture, from W. Tao, “Evaluation of Test

Method and Performance Criteria for Cigarette Ignition (Smoldering) Resistance of Upholstered Furniture

Materials” May 12, 2005. (https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/103632/uff2.pdf)

Memorandum to D. Ray, Project Manager, Upholstered Furniture, from L. Scott, “Test Program for

Upholstery Fabrics and Fire Barriers” November 8, 2007.

(https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/88331/ufflamm.pdf)

Affected Sections

6.1.1 For horizontal panels, the 203 mm × 203mmcover 280 mm cover fabric specimen shall be placed on a 203 mm × 127 mm ×

51 76 mm polyurethane substrate, using pins in the ends of the fabric specimen to hold it in place, as shown in Figure 6.1.1.

6.1.2 For vertical panels, the 203 mm× 381mmfabric 432 mm fabric specimen shall be placed on a 203 mm × 203 mm × 51 76

mm polyurethane substrate as shown in Figure 6.1.1.

6.2.1 For horizontal panels, the 203 mm × 203 280 mm piece of interior fabric and the 203 mm × 203 280 mm standard Type I

cover fabric shall be placed with the interior fabric against the polyurethane foam substrate, using pins in the ends of the fabric

specimens to hold them in place, as shown in Figure 6.2.1.

6.2.2 For vertical panels, 203 mm × 381 432 mm standard Type I cover fabric shall be placed on a 203 mm × 203 mm × 51 76

mm polyurethane substrate as shown in Figure 6.2.1.

6.3.1.1 Three specimens of standard Type II cover fabric shall be cut for each of the following specified sizes:

(1) Horizontal panels measuring 203 mm × 203 280 mm

(2) Vertical panels measuring 203 mm × 381 432 mm

(3) Unsewn welts folded to measure 203 mm × 25 mm

6.3.1.3 For horizontal panels, the 203 mm × 203 280 mm Type II cover fabric shall be placed on a 203 mm × 127 mm × 51 76

mm polyurethane substrate, using pins in the ends of the fabric specimens to hold them in place, as shown in Figure 6.3.1.3.

6.3.1.4 For vertical panels, the 203 mm × 381 432 mm Type II cover fabric shall be placed on a 203 mm × 203 mm × 51 76 mm

polyurethane substrate as shown in Figure 6.3.1.3.

6.4.1 Three 203 mm × 203 280 mm specimens shall be cut from standard Type I cover fabric for the horizontal panels, and three

203 mm × 305 432 mm specimens shall be cut for the vertical panels.

Page 123 of 128

6.6.1 Three 203 mm × 203 280 mm specimens shall be cut from standard Type II cover fabric for horizontal panels, and three

203 mm × 381 432 mm specimens shall be cut for vertical panels.

6.6.1.1 For horizontal panels, a barrier specimen shall be placed on a 203 mm × 127 mm × 51 76 mm polyurethane substrate.

6.6.1.3 The 203 mm × 203 280 mm cover fabric shall be placed over each barrier and fastened in place with pins.

6.6.1.4 For vertical panels, a barrier specimen shall be placed on a 203 mm × 203 mm × 51 76 mm polyurethane foam substrate.

6.6.1.5 The 203 mm × 381 432 mm cover fabric specimen shall be placed over each vertical panel and fastened in place with pins

as shown in Figure 6.6.1.2.

Page 124 of 128

Proposed Change to NFPA 260: Use Mass Loss as Performance Measure: Multiple in 5, 6, and 7

CPSC Rationale Char length in the vertical upward direction does not adequately evaluate the smoldering resistance of the

mockup. Smoldering combustion can proceed in any direction. In many cases, the greatest extent of char

developed downward into the crevice between the horizontal and vertical panels. Tests show that the char

progresses down into the crevice and reaches the bottom edge of the horizontal foam. Mass loss accounts

for the 3-dimensional progression of smoldering in the mockup better than using a 1-dimensional char

measurement.

See Memorandum to D. Ray, Project Manager, Upholstered Furniture, from W. Tao, “Evaluation of Test

Method and Performance Criteria for Cigarette Ignition (Smoldering) Resistance of Upholstered Furniture

Materials” May 12, 2005. (https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/103632/uff2.pdf)

Changes 5.1.1 All test upholstery fabrics and test materials, including cigarettes and sheeting material, shall be conditioned at a

temperature of 21°C ± 2.8°C and a relative humidity of less than 65 percent for at least 4 hours prior to testing. The mass of

filling and padding test materials should be measured and reported after conditioning and prior to mock-up construction.

6.1.10 If no obvious ignition occurs, the char on the vertical panel measured from the original crevice position to the highest

part of the destroyed or degraded cover fabric shall be recorded to the nearest 2.5 mm. at the end of 45 minutes, carefully remove

the polyurethane substrate pieces and clean all carbonaceous char from the panels with a brush.

6.1.10.1 The original crevice position shall be determined by laying a straightedge or ruler between the two marks required by

6.1.4 on the edges of the vertical panel.

6.1.10.2 The highest point of destroyed or degraded fabric shall be defined as the highest point at which any of the fabric is

charred from front to back.

6.1.10.1 If the application of an extinguishing agent was not necessary or a gaseous extinguishing agent (e.g., carbon dioxide or

nitrogen) was applied to the polyurethane substrate, record the mass of the un-charred portions of the polyurethane substrate

pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams within 15 minutes of end of test. _

6.1.10.2 Calculate the percent mass loss of the polyurethane substrates to the nearest 0.1%. (Mass Loss = (Initial Mass - Final

Mass)/Initial Mass) x100.


part of the destroyed or degraded interior fabric shall be recorded to the nearest 2.5 mm. at the end of 45 minutes, carefully

remove the polyurethane substrate pieces and clean all carbonaceous char from the panels with a brush.

6.2.10.1 The original crevice position shall be determined by laying a straightedge or ruler between the two marks required

by 6.2.4 on the vertical panel.



6.2.10.1 If the application of an extinguishing agent was not necessary or a gaseous extinguishing agent (e.g., carbon

dioxide or nitrogen) was applied to the polyurethane substrate, record the mass of the un-charred portions of the polyurethane

substrate pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams within 15 minutes of end of test. _

Page 125 of 128



6.3.10 If no obvious ignition occurs, the char on the vertical panel measured from the top of the original welt position to

the highest part of the destroyed or degraded fabric shall be recorded. at the end of 45 minutes, carefully remove the polyurethane

substrate pieces and clean all carbonaceous char from the panels with a brush.

6.3.10.1 The top of the original welt position shall be determined by laying a straightedge or ruler between the two marks

required by 6.3.4 on the edges of the vertical panel.









part of the destroyed or degraded fabric shall be recorded. at the end of 45 minutes, carefully remove the polyurethane substrate

pieces and clean all carbonaceous char from the panels with a brush.








6.6.9 If no obvious ignition occurs, the char on the vertical panel measured from the original crevice position to the highest part

of the destroyed or degraded fabric shall be recorded to the nearest 2.5 mm. at the end of 45 minutes, carefully remove the

polyurethane substrate pieces and clean all carbonaceous char from the panels with a brush.








6.6.9.2 Calculate the percent mass loss of the polyurethane substrates to the nearest 0.1%.

(Mass Loss = (Initial Mass - Final Mass)/Initial Mass) x100.

7.2.1.2 The vertical char on any of the three specimens shall not exceed 45 mm.mass loss of the foam shall not exceed 10%

7.3.1.2 The vertical char on the cover fabric of any of the three specimens shall not exceed 38 mm. mass loss of the foam shall

not exceed 10%

7.4.1.2 When measured from the top of the original welt position, the vertical char on the cover fabric shall not exceed

38 mm for any of three replicated tests.The mass loss of the foam shall not exceed 10%.

Page 126 of 128

7.5.1.2 When measured from the original crevice position, the vertical char length on the cover fabric shall not exceed 38 mm for

any of three replicated tests. The mass loss of the foam shall not exceed 10%.

7.6.1.2 When measured from the original cigarette position, the char length on the cover fabric shall not exceed 38 mm at any of

three cigarette locations. The mass loss of the foam shall not exceed 10%.

7.7.2.2 When measured from the original crevice position, the vertical char length on the cover fabric shall not exceed 51 mm for

any of three replicated tests. The mass loss of the foam shall not exceed 10%.

Page 127 of 128

Document TitleCurrent

Edition

Current

Cycle

Next

Edition

Next

Cycle

Yrs btw

cycle

Next

Next

Cycle

Next3

CycleNotes (Rev Cycle)

285 Evaluation of Flammability Characteristics of Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Assemblies

containing Combustible Components Using the Intermediate-Scale, Multistory Test

Apparatus

2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031Last cycle F2011 (5)

Cycle changed from A2010 August 2008 - Request to withdraw from F2010 and submit ROC

next available cycle 4/10. Cycle changed to F2011 7/10

252 Fire Tests of Door Assemblies2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031

Last cycle A2007 ( 5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09. Changed from 4 to 5 year

rev cycle 10/11

257 Window and Glass Block Assemblies 2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031 Last cycle A2006 (5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09

268 Determining Ignitability of Exterior Wall Assemblies using a Radiant heat Energy Source

(Exterior Walls – Radiant Heat Test)2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031

Last cycle A2006 (5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09

269 Toxic Potency Data for Modeling 2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031 Last cycle A2006. (5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09

287 Measurement of Flammability of Materials in Cleanrooms Using a Fire Propagation

Apparatus (FPA)2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031

Last cycle A06 (5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09

288 Floor Fire Door Assemblies Installed Horizontally in Fire Resistance-Rated Floor Systems2012 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031

Last cycle A06 (5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09. Changed from 4 to 5 year rev

cycle in 10/11.

275 Evaluation of Thermal Barriers Used Over Foam Plastic

2013 F2016 2017 F2021 5 F2026 F2031Last cycle A2008 (5) - Cycle changed from A2011 to F2011 8/09. Cycle changed from 4 to 5 year and

from F2014 in 10/11. Recv NITMAM 10/11- moved from F11 to A12. TC requested to move to F16

(8/2012)

259 Potential Heat of Building Materials 2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032 Last cycle A2007 (5) -Changed from A2012 to F2012

270 Smoke Obscuration Using a conical Radiant Source in a Singe Closed Chamber2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032

Last cycle A2007 (5) - Changed from A2012 to F2012

289 Room Fire Growth Contribution of Individual Fuel Packages2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032

Last cycle A2008 (5) - Changed from A2012 to F2012. Changed from 4 to 5 year rev cycle in

10/11.

261 Determining Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture material Assemblies to Ignition

by Smoldering Cigarettes2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032


274 Method to Evaluate Fire Performance Characteristics of Pipe Insulation 2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032 Last cycle A2008 (5) - Changed from A2013 to F2012

290 Passive Protection Materials for Use on LP-Gas Containers 2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032 Last cycle A2008 (5) - Changed from A2013 to F2012

705 Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films 2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032 Last cycle A2008 (5) - Changed from A2013 to F2012

260 Tests and Classification System for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of

Upholstered Furniture2013 F2017 2018 F2022 5 F2027 F2032


276 Fire Test for Determining the Heat Release Rate of Combustible Building Assemblies or

Above-Deck Roofing Components 2015 F2018 2019 F2022 4 F2026 F2030SC soliciting public input (Decision # 07-3-26) March 2007 - (4)

SC approved request to develop standard July 2007

Entered F2009 cycle - NITMAM 11/09

701 Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films 2015 F2018 2019 F2022 4 F2026 F2030 Last cycle F2009 (4). Changed from 5 to 4 year rev cycle in 10/11.

262 Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for use in Air-Handling Spaces2015 F2018 2019 F2022 4 F2026 F2030

Last cycle A06 (4)

Cycle changed from A2010 August 2008

265 Evaluating room fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on full Height Panels and

Walls (Textile Room-Corner)2015 F2018 2019 F2022 4 F2026 F2030

Last cycle A2006 (4)

Cycle changed from A2010 August 2008

253 Critical Radiant Flux of floor covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source2015 F2018 2019 F2022 4 F2026 F2030

Last cycle A2005 (4) Cycle changed from A2010 August 2008. Changed from 5 to 4 year rev

cycle and F2015 in 10/11.

286 Evaluating contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth2015 F2018 2019 F2022 4 F2026 F2030

Last cycle A2005 (4) Cycle changed from A2010 August 2008. Changed from 5 to 4 year rev

cycle and from F2015 in 10/11.

277Standard Methods of Tests for Evaluating Fire and Ignition Resistance of Upholstered

Furniture Using a Flaming Ignition Source NEW NEW NEW NEW NEWno cycle assigned yet

251 W Fire Endurance of Building Construction and Materials W N/A N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn F2010

271 W Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen

Consumption CalorimeterW N/A N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn F2011

255 W Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials (Tunnel Test) W N/A N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn F2009

256 W Roof Coverings W N/A N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn A2008

258 W Smoke Generation of Solid Materials W N/A N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn A2006

272 W Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Upholstered Furniture Components or Composites and

Mattresses Using an Oxygen Consumption CalorimeterW N/A N/A N/A N/A Withdrawn A2007

NFPA Fire Test Documents – Revision Cycles (updated Dec2015)

Page 128 of 128

Date post:	07-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times