To: Vincent Coppock[[email protected]]; lvor Meredith[[email protected]]; Philip Heath[[email protected]] Cc: Gwyn Davies[[email protected]]; Diane Markey[[email protected]]; Graham Edgerley[[email protected]] From: Malcolm Rochefort Sent: Thur 17/07/2008 2:03:50 PM Subject: RE: OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video ATH to replace CaC03 would be of interest as a one off lab test. This would be less effective for pH , of course. Regards , Mal col m From: Vincent Coppock Sent: 17 July 2008 14:30 To: Ivor Meredith; Philip Heath; Malcolm Rochefort Cc: Gwyn Davies; Diane Markey; Graham Edgerley Subject: RE: OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video Hi lvor Richard made availability enquiries with the supplier of OP920 but received no response . Hexion have an agreement with this supplier and they are now trying to source OP920 for us to enable a foam trial to occur. I have made 3 x 50 mm thick lab boards containing OP920 and plan to burn these in the lab on Tuesday next week. 2 of these samples have black Lamtec facing. We shall see how these perform in the blow torch test. As you know 2 of the 3 recent BS4 76 Part 6 tests failed at WFRC following 2 good passes on earlier occasions. We are attributing this recent failure to specimen shape not being a perfect square in the test fixture. In the Part 6 fire test, the flame impinges on the facing- foam interface of a thin 15mm specimen. The black Lamtec facing plus the presence of OP920 in the foam seems to enable sufficient interfacial char to form which delays flame ignition and restricts heat release. This mechanism enables a pass to be achieved ...... sometimes ! In the Part 6 fire test with OP920 present, you still hear popping as the foam begins to fragment in the fire test. This fragmentation exposes previously un-burnt foam which can then itself start to release heat energy. However, the improved charring with "Black Lamtec plus OP920" seems to restrict heat transfer in this small scale fire test. In a very large fire test like BS 8414 Part 2 at BRE, the benefits of "Black Lamtec + OP920" may not be sufficient to achieve a pass. The Pembridge lab fire testing on Tuesday may give us an indication if the "OP920 I Black Lamtec" facing approach will be helpful or not in the very severe BS8414 test. Another issue is the protection that Kingspan Offsite can give the K15 foam boards in this fire test. In the 9th April fire test at BRE, I saw that rendering peeled off and aluminium flashings melted . What can Offsite do to help shield the phenolic foam better? In the April 9th BS 8414 test at BRE, I started hearing popping at 8.5 mins. Any additional protection that delays popping would be helpful in this test. Our Pembridge lab burn tests indicated that the time for the flame to burn though the foam completely is actually longer when the board has been post-cured. lt might have been expected that the higher water content un-postcured board would be superior, but we did not see that in reality. We can consider possible benefits that lower density boards might give us, (lower energy release) and also the inclusion of neutral fillers in the foam like CaC03. I will work on these aspects in the lab. Regards Vince From: Ivor 1 Sent: 17 July 2008 To: Philip Heath; Malcolm Rochefort; Vincent Coppock KIN00008844_0001 KIN00008844/1
ATH to replace CaC03 would be of interest as a one off lab test. This would be less effective for pH , of course. Regards ,
Mal col m
From: Vincent Coppock Sent: 17 July 2008 14:30 To: Ivor Meredith; Philip Heath; Malcolm Rochefort Cc: Gwyn Davies; Diane Markey; Graham Edgerley Subject: RE: OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video
Hi lvor
Richard made availability enquiries with the supplier of OP920 but received no response . Hexion have an agreement with this supplier and they are now trying to source OP920 for us to enable a foam trial to occur.
I have made 3 x 50 mm thick lab boards containing OP920 and plan to burn these in the lab on Tuesday next week. 2 of these samples have black Lamtec facing. We shall see how these perform in the blow torch test.
As you know 2 of the 3 recent BS4 76 Part 6 tests failed at WFRC following 2 good passes on earlier occasions. We are attributing this recent failure to specimen shape not being a perfect square in the test fixture. In the Part 6 fire test, the flame impinges on the facing- foam interface of a thin 15mm specimen. The black Lamtec facing plus the presence of OP920 in the foam seems to enable sufficient interfacial char to form which delays flame ignition and restricts heat release . This mechanism enables a pass to be achieved ...... sometimes ! In the Part 6 fire test with OP920 present, you still hear popping as the foam begins to fragment in the fire test. This fragmentation exposes previously un-burnt foam which can then itself start to release heat energy. However, the improved charring with "Black Lamtec plus OP920" seems to restrict heat transfer in this small scale fire test.
In a very large fire test like BS 8414 Part 2 at BRE, the benefits of "Black Lamtec + OP920" may not be sufficient to achieve a pass. The Pembridge lab fire testing on Tuesday may give us an indication if the "OP920 I Black Lamtec" facing approach will be helpful or not in the very severe BS8414 test.
Another issue is the protection that Kingspan Offsite can give the K15 foam boards in this fire test. In the 9th April fire test at BRE, I saw that rendering peeled off and aluminium flashings melted . What can Offsite do to help shield the phenolic foam better? In the April 9th BS 8414 test at BRE, I started hearing popping at 8.5 mins. Any additional protection that delays popping would be helpful in this test.
Our Pembridge lab burn tests indicated that the time for the flame to burn though the foam completely is actually longer when the board has been post-cured. lt might have been expected that the higher water content un-postcured board would be superior, but we did not see that in reality.
We can consider possible benefits that lower density boards might give us, (lower energy release) and also the inclusion of neutral fillers in the foam like CaC03. I will work on these aspects in the lab.
Regards Vince
From: Ivor Mer~~&lb 1
Sent: 17 July 2008 'i'f:~J To: Philip Heath; Malcolm Rochefort; Vincent Coppock
KIN00008844_0001 KIN00008844/1
Cc: Gwyn Davies Subject: RE: OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video
Aidan is pushing me for a meeting so we can work together on getting a pass for Offsite. This collective work could be of great benefit but first we need to agree what can be disclosed
I have inserted some answers below, however believe we should tread very carefully here. By Offsite going all out for LPCB approval with their first tests (i.e. fully witnessed) has not been wise and this move could be responsible for a lot of the questions we are now getting from industry.
I think we should at least discount the product previously supplied as a especially bad batch however ...
Having reviewed the video the problems seemed to occur after the collapse of the half at 22minutes and the extinguishing of the initial fire source. lt is at this point I would expect the BRE to put the extraction up to full. As there was still a good 4 metres of cavity intact with a minimal amount of burning at the bottom the pressure differential and extraction would inevitably cause the burning to continue thus the fire slowly moved up the facade ( a bit like when you temporarily mask off three quarters of your fire place to get the fire to draw). Looking at the early stages of the video it looks like the system could have passed , I have requested the temperature data to confirm this . However this shouldn't prevent us from answering Aidans questions ..
The problem is having spoke to Mark and Aidan is that they need K15 to pass in all scenarios which is a little impractical.. due to the approval route they have adopted a simple pass to show the ability of the product will not suffice.
I can make some extra copies of the DVD if anyone wants one??
VC is their any word from Hexion on the availability of OP90 yet? I'm holding off on another go at this test until I get the 'better' product so
anything you could find out would be good. also Can you confirm (based on your observations) that post cure and no post cure has no I little effect on the products fire propagation properties.
Regards
lvor
From: Philip Heath Sent: 16 July 2008 18:16 To: Ivor Meredith; Malcolm Rochefort; Vincent Coppock Cc: Gwyn Davies Subject: FW: OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video
Good evening , We need to be careful how we answer the concerns of Off-Site , any suggestions ? Regards Phi I
From: Aidan Wilkinson Sent: 16 July 2008 09:58 To: Ivor Meredith Cc: Philip Heath; Mark Stevens Subject: RE:OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video
Hello lvor, Following the recent fire tests at the BRE we have the following concerns:-After the heat source was extinguished the K15 continued to burn on for considerable time in fact it was in excess of 30 minutes. lt
was only extinguished when the BRE applied water to it at the end of the one hour duration. (the heat source had been extinguished at 22 minutes)
Is this what is expected of this material , is it normal for K15 to continue to burn for in excess of 30 minutes after the removal of the ignition source? NO
Is the reason for the failure specific to a batch of K15 , to the current formulation of K15 (bearing in mind that this batch was specifically manufactured for these test samples) or to the details that we used? mmmmmm ?? I the details you adopted i.e. very large cavity can not have helped the fire growth .
We are corMPr~ith the lack of t esponse with regard to the performance of the K15 product on the BS 8414 tests that we have completed. We have a further four tests booked as you are aware, and at this time we are unsure of the way forward in terms of
KIN00008844_0002 KIN00008844/2
detailing the samples to pass the test. We have the samples built here at Sherburn , insulated with material from the same batch as the previous failed tests: is the
material appropriate to use on the future tests? You have now had the official video so can see first hand the issue with performance. Having performed this test yourselves in the past and achieved a pass is this what you would have expected.
Please contact us by return so that we can formulate a plan for working this forward to a successful conclusion.
Best regards Aid an
Aidan J Wilkinson Project and Development Engineer Kingspan Off-Site Ltd Sherburn Malton N.Yorks Y017 8PQ Tel
This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of King span Off-Site. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
From: Ivor Meredith Sent: 14 July 2008 12:19 To: Mark Stevens; Aidan Wilkinson Subject: OffsiteHardie Panel fire test video
Gents,
I have received the DVD footage from the disaster fire test today. lt would help me a lot if you put your specific concerns in writing so I can pass on the message.
For more information on our high performance insulation products check out the new website:- www.insulation.kingspan.com
J:j before printing, consider the trees.
Kingspan Insulation is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered Number: 01882722. Registered Office: Pembridge, Leominster, Herefordshire, England. HR6 9LA.
This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your system and destroy all hard copies. Any unauthorised dissemination, distribution or copying is prohibited.
Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail (and any attached files) are free from virus, it is your responsibility to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. We cannot accept any liability for loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
E-mails and communications sent by or to persons in our firm may by viewed and monitored by persons other than the named addressee.
