Fire Performance Assessment of a Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wall Panel Used in a Single Family...

1 23

Fire Technology ISSN 0015-2684 Fire TechnolDOI 10.1007/s10694-014-0403-8

Fire Performance Assessment of a FiberReinforced Polymer Wall Panel Used in aSingle Family Dwelling

Umberto Berardi, Brian J. Meacham,Nicholas A. Dembsey & Young-GuenYou

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Short Communication

Fire Performance Assessment of a FiberReinforced Polymer Wall Panel Usedin a Single Family Dwelling

Umberto Berardi*, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, WorcesterPolytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester 01609 MA, USA

Brian J. Meacham, Nicholas A. Dembsey and Young-Guen You, Fire ProtectionEngineering Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 InstituteRoad, Worcester 01609 MA, USA

Received: 29 December 2013/Accepted: 1 April 2014

Abstract. This paper describes a fire performance assessment of a sandwich panel

selected as the primary material in a high-performance house developed for the 2013China Solar Decathlon competition. The sandwich panel has fiber reinforced polymerskins and a foam plastic core. Evaluation of fire performance showed that the selected

panel would not comply with U.S. building code requirements for a single-family dwell-ing without additional protection. However, the use of an intumescent fire protectivecoating, coupled with the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system, is shown to

be effective in meeting the intent of the fire and life safety requirements of the Interna-tional Residential Code. Fire testing shows that the application of an intumescent fireprotective coating to the panels significantly decreases the heat release rate, the smokeproduction characteristics, and the extent of flame spread on the panels.

Keywords: Fire performance assessment, NFPA 286, Fiber reinforced polymer, Fire safety,

High performance house, Intumescent coating

1. Introduction

This paper describes the fire performance assessment of a polyester resin fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) sandwich panel with a polyisocyanurate foam core,which was selected as the primary building material used in a high-performancehouse—named Solatrium—which was designed, fabricated and constructed for the2013 China Solar Decathlon competition in Datong, China.

Solatrium was a project undertaken by an interdisciplinary student and facultyteam from three universities, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (USA), New YorkUniversity Poly (USA), and Ghent University (Belgium). Solatrium is a single-fam-ily house, whose dimensions are 11.25 m 9 11.25 m 9 2.3 m (36.9 ft 9 36.9 ft 9

* Correspondence should be addressed to: Umberto Berardi, E-mail: [email protected]

Fire Technology

� 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York. Manufactured in The United States

DOI: 10.1007/s10694-014-0403-8

12

Author's personal copy

7.5 ft), which features an atrium in the center. The total finished compliance area is92 m2, which includes two bedrooms, one ‘‘L-shape’’ living room, a kitchen and atechnical room. Figure 1 shows a photo of the building.

The Solar Decathlon competition is comprised of ten sub-contests with evalua-tion criteria related to architecture, engineering, and market appeal [1]. One of thecompetition requirements is to have a highly performance envelope to guaranteethat the house could be powered by solar energy alone. This requirement, com-mon to any high performance house, is generally solved by increasing the thermalinsulation of the house [2, 3].

The Solatrium team chose to take an innovative approach, deciding to use a rangeof new materials specifically developed for this house and/or never applied to a singlefamily dwelling before. The main material is Transonite�, an FRP sandwich panel,where the FRP outer skins of polyester resin and glass fibers are connected to eachother via glass fiber strands which cross through the polyisocyanurate foam core.One of the unique features of these sandwich panels is the use of glass fiber strandsthat connect both the skins, making the panels stronger than traditional sandwichpanels. The panels used in Solatrium are 9 cm thick and are particularly light. In thehouse, they serve as the structural shell, insulation layer and finishing surface in thefloor, the ceiling, and the walls. As these panels have never been used in residentialbuildings, mechanical, thermal, and fire performance assessments were necessary.

Since the intent was that the Solatrium would come back to Massachusetts afterthe competition, the team decided to follow the International Residential Code(IRC) [4] and Massachusetts Residential Code (MRC) [5], in addition to the SolarDecathlon competition rules [2].

While the Transonite� offers many benefits in terms of thermal insulation anda structural system for the Solatrium design, it was recognized that FRP sandwichpanels are sometimes considered unsuitable for building applications because oftheir poor fire resistance and potential for high toxic emissions during combustion[6, 7]. However, several recent applications have shown that such shortcomingsmay be overcome by applying fire retardant coatings [8, 9].

Figure 1. Photo of Solatrium during the competition in Datong,China.

Fire Technology 2014


Since the Transonite� panels had not previously been used as a building mate-rial, they had not been subjected to standard fire tests such as ASTM E84 [10].However, both the IRC and the MRC permit the use of alternative testing toevaluate equivalent performance, specifically NFPA 286 [11], or the room cornertest as it is known. In addition both the IRC and the MRC permit the use of‘alternate methods and materials’ where approved by the authority having juris-diction.

It was decided to undertake an ‘alternate methods and materials’ approach withthe aim to demonstrate that the intent of the fire and life safety requirements ofthe IRC and MRC associated with interior finish materials could be achievedthrough a combination of providing an intumescent paint layer on exposed sur-faces of the Transonite� panels and installation of a domestic sprinkler systemthroughout the Solatrium. This approach was deemed appropriate since it is con-sistent with the concept of reduction in material fire performance requirementswhen automatic sprinklers are installed, as permitted for larger residential build-ings (and other building uses) by the International Building Code.

2. Summary of Alternate Approach to Code Requirements

The IRC and the MRC [4, 5] require that wall and ceiling finishes shall have aflame spread index of no more than 200, and a smoke index of no more than 450,when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 [10]. They also require that foamplastics, such those used in wall insulation, be separated from the interior of thebuilding by an ‘‘approved’’ thermal barrier. However, the IRC and the MRC alsoallow for the use of alternative materials and methods if it can be demonstratedthat the alternative is equivalent in terms of fire and life safety.

As noted above, NFPA 286 is cited as an approved alternate approach toASTM E84. In brief, the procedures outlined in NFPA 286 involve covering inte-rior wall and ceiling surfaces of a standard fire test room (2.44 m 9 3.66 m 9

2.44 m; 8 ft 9 12 ft 9 8 ft) with the interior assembly of interest to be tested,placing a propane gas burner in a corner, and subjecting the wall and ceiling to afire exposure of 40 kW for 5 min, followed by a fire exposure of 160 kW for10 min.

Given reference in the IRC and MRC to NFPA 286, plus the fact that adomestic sprinkler system would be installed as per NFPA 13 D [12], it was deci-ded to apply the concept of NFPA 286, using less interior finish material thanwould be required under NFPA 286, to demonstrate adequate control of flamesspread and smoke production. The reduced fire hazard, coupled with the sprinklersystem, would then meet the intent of the code. With this approach, instead ofcompletely lining the interior of the fire test room with the Transonite� panels, aswould be required under NFPA 286, ‘‘screening’’ samples were used (panels were0.60 m 9 1.83 m or 0.60 m 9 2.29 m; 2 ft 9 6 ft or 2 ft 9 7 ft). The rationale foruse screening samples, smaller in surface area than complete interior surface areaof the test room is that if the screening samples perform well, then the entireroom lining could be expected to perform equally as well. To observe the extent

Fire Performance Assessment


of panel flame spread the test room standard doorway of 0.7 m width by 2.0 mheight was modified to have a width of 2.4 m.

Materials tested in accordance with NFPA 286 are expected to meet a specificset of criteria for heat release rate (HRR), total smoke released, extent of flamespread, and flashover. HRR is measured via oxygen consumption calorimetry [13]or based on propane gas flow rate [14, 15]. The uncertainty for each measurementis approximately ±10%. Total smoke release is measured using a laser smokephotometer. The extent of flame spread was assessed by observing and measuringthe flame spread over the FRP sandwich panels on the walls and ceiling. Flash-over was assessed based on the maximum HRR measured and observation offlame extension out the doorway in any test.

3. Experimental Tests

In order to collect data and assess the fire performance of the Transonite� panels,several experiments were conducted, including panels protected with either four oreight coats of Flamestop IM intumescing paint cover, which are summarized below.

3.1. Panels with Four Intumescent Coats

3.1.1. Heat Release Rate, Panel Surface Flame Spread and Flashover. HRR mea-surements as contributed by the propane as well as the total measured HRR areshown in Figure 2. As illustrated, the HRR peak was 420 kW—well below the800 kW threshold and flashover criteria listed in NFPA 286. It should be notedthat during the first 300 s of the test when the propane set point equals 40 kW;the propane flow overshot its set point due to equipment limitations as shown bythe initial 80 kW peak; the set point for the propane was 25 kW due to operatorerror and the oxygen consumption HRR curve dropped over time to 10 kW dueto drift of the oxygen analyzer. For the next 600 s, the propane flow was 140 kWas opposed to the given set point of 160 kW due to operator error.

As for panel surface flame spread, there was no flame attachment and very littlesmoke at the initiation fire size (40 kW nominal), indicating very good perfor-mance. When the fire size was increased, there was some vertical flame attachmentafter the 900 s exposure, but very little horizontal flame attachment, and somedirectly under the ceiling. This indicates a good performance of the four coatspanels, although there was still some burning (Figure 3). Some of this is likely dueto outgassing behind the panels, which provides fuel for continued burning. Thisresult suggested that a fully lined and sealed arrangement was encouraged toreduce openings behind the panels and reduce outgassing.

Given the limited flame spread from the corner and the low measured HRR inthe test, the noted anomalies were not considered to have a significant effect onobserved performance. For these same reasons the compartment effect of theenlarged doorway vent width as also considered not to be significant.

3.1.2. Total Smoke Released. Figure 4 shows the cumulative smoke productionover time during the test and after the propane burner was extinguished. During



the first 300 s of the test, minimal smoke was produced, consistent with the mini-mal HRR. During the next 600 s, when the panels began to burn significantly, thesmoke production increased rapidly over time. At the end of the test, the totalsmoke production was 2,800 m2. This value exceeds the criteria in NFPA 286 andin the MRC or IRC. The code required value of 1,000 m2 was reached after 660 s.

3.1.3. Compartment Doorway Flame Extension and Flashover. While panel surfaceflame spread had reached the edge of the screening specimen by the end of thetest, there was no flame extension outside of the compartment, as it can be seen inFigure 3 indicating flashover did not occur.

3.1.4. Discussion. The results of this fire performance assessment test indicate thatwith four coats of intumescent paint cover, the panel assemblies come close tomeeting all requirements for interior finish and thermal barrier performancerequired by the IRC and MRC, without consideration of automatic sprinklers.

Importantly, with four coats of intumescent paint cover, the HRR is kept below800 kW and flames do not extend outside of the room. These indicate that thecoated panels do not, on their own, lead to flashover when subjected to initiationfires that are equivalent to those specified in the NFPA 286 test protocol. Theonly NFPA 286 criterion that the panel assemblies with four coats of intumescingpaint cover did not meet was the total smoke released criterion of 1,000 m2 after15 min. The total smoke released limit was exceeded after 660 s. This provides sig-nificant time for occupant escape. The presence of working smoke detectors, asrequired by the MRC [5], would speed this escape. As such, given the combina-tion of four coats of intumescent paint cover on the panel assemblies along withan automatic sprinkler system, this system was considered to meet the fire and lifesafety performance as reflected in the IRC and MRC.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

HR

R (

kW)

Time(s)

TEST END

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000H

RR

(kW

)Time (s)

TEST END

HRR (flow)

HRR (O2)

Figure 2. Heat release rate for the panel assemblies with four (left)and eight (right) coats of intumescent paint cove: blue line from pro-pane, red line combined propane and Transonite panels (Color figureonline).



3.2. Panels with Eight Intumescent Coats

3.2.1. Heat Release Rate, Panel Surface Flame Spread and Flashover. HRR mea-surements as contributed by the propane as well as the total measured HRR areshown in Figure 2. For the first 300 s, the panels show minimal to no burning.The difference between the HRR curve and the propane curve was within the

Figure 3. Photos of the test with panel assemblies with four coats ofintumescent paint cover: 300 s burner at 40 kW, just before transi-tion to 160 kW (above); 930 s, just before burner shut off (middle);990 s, 60 s after burner shut off (below).



uncertainty of the calorimeter. Then, the HRR curve shows that the panels do notshow any significant burning until after 700 s. At the end of the test, the HRRpeaks at approximately 250 kW. At this point, the test flame spread had reachedthe edge of the screening specimen in some locations. This peak value of 250 kWis well below the criteria of 800 kW and that for flashover given in NFPA 286.

In this test, there is no flame attachment and very little smoke released at theend of the 40 kW initiation fire exposure, which indicates very good performanceof the treated panel assemblies at this initiation fire size. Moreover, there is somevertical flame attachment after a 900 s exposure, but very little horizontal flameattachment. Unlike the test with four coats, there is also little flame attachmentunder the ceiling, indicating a very good performance of the assemblies. Given thelimited flame spread from the corner and the low measured HRR in the test, thecompartment effect of the enlarged doorway vent width was not considered tohave a significant effect on observed performance.

3.2.2. Total Smoke Released. Figure 4 shows the cumulative smoke productionover time during the test and after the propane burner was extinguished. Duringthe first 300 s of the test, minimal smoke was produced, consistently with the min-imal HRR. Then, during the next 600 s, when the Transonite begins to burn, thesmoke production increased rapidly over time after 700 s. At the end of the test,the total smoke production was 1,440 m2, a value above the threshold of 1,000 m2

as listed in NFPA 286. The 1,000 m2 value was reached at 850 s.

3.2.3. Compartment Doorway Flame Extension and Flashover. There was no flameextension during this test as can be seen in Figure 5.

3.2.4. Discussion. The results of the test indicate that with eight coats of intumes-cent paint cover, the panel assemblies meet almost all requirements for interiorfinish and thermal barrier performance required by the IRC and MRC, without

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Tot

al s

mok

e re

leas

ed (m

2 )

Time (s)

Panel w 4 coats

Panel w 8 coats

TEST END

Figure 4. Total smoke released during the test by panel assemblieswith four and eight intumescing coats.



consideration of automatic sprinklers. Importantly, with eight coats of intumesc-ing paint cover, the HRR was kept well below 800 kW and flame did not extendoutside of the room. These results indicate that the panels will not, on their own,

Figure 5. Photos of the test with panel assemblies with eight coats ofintumescent paint cove: 285 s, burner at 40 kW, just before transi-tion to 160 kW (above); 915 s, just before burner shut off (middle),990 s, 85 s after burner shut off (below).



lead to flashover when subjected to initiation fires that are equivalent to thosespecified in the NFPA 286 test protocol. The only NFPA 286 criterion that thepanel did not meet was the total smoke released criterion of 1,000 m2 after 900 s.The total smoke released limit was exceeded at 850 s. This provides a significanttime for occupant escape, especially assuming the presence of working smokedetectors, as required by the MRC [5]. As such, given the combination of eightcoats of intumescent paint cover on the panel assemblies, along with an automaticsprinkler system, which is likely to control any initiation fire, this assembly meetsthe fire and life safety performance as reflected in the codes.

4. Conclusions

An alternative approach for demonstrating compliance with the fire and life safetyrequirements of the MRC and IRC, specific to fire performance of interior finishand thermal barrier performance of Transonite� sandwich panels for use in singlefamily dwellings, was proposed. This approach involved reducing the flame spreadand smoke production contribution of Transonite� sandwich panels through useof an intumescent paint cover along with installation of an NFPA 13D compliantsprinkler system in the Solatrium [12]. To demonstrate efficacy of the intumescentpaint cover on reducing flame spread and smoke production, fire performancetests following the basic protocol and criteria of NFPA 286 were conducted. Akey feature of the approach was utilizing both intumescent paint cover, along withan automatic sprinkler system, to meet the fire and life safety intent. Thisapproach was accepted by the organizers of the 2013 China Solar Decathlon com-petition.

To benchmark an appropriate level of fire performance, an incrementalapproach was followed wherein panels were tested with zero, two, four or eightcoats of intumescent paint. As presented here, experimental results with four coatsand eight coats indicated a high degree of compliance with code requirements. Inparticular, the testing has shown that:

� the Transonite� FRP sandwich panels, when treated with at least four coats ofFlamestop IM intumescing paint, limit the total HRR to a level significantlylower than the 800 kW and flashover threshold established by NFPA 286;

� the Transonite� FRP sandwich panels, when treated with at least four coats ofFlamestop IM intumescing paint, significantly limit the total smoke production,although above the threshold level established by NFPA 286 (the total smokeproduction limit was exceeded at about 11 min with four coats and at about14 min with eight coats); and,

� the Transonite� FRP sandwich panels, when treated with at least four coats ofFlamestop IM intumescing paint, do not result in flame extension outside ofroom or flashover, a threshold requirement established by NFPA 286;

Outcomes indicate that panels treated with four or eight coats of Flamestop IMintumescing paint only fall short of code requirements in terms of overall smoke



production, when considering the NFPA 286 test criteria on its own, and then bythe slimmest of margins. As such, when combined with the installation of anautomatic sprinkler system throughout, the fire protection strategy readily meetsthe fire and life safety intents of the MRC and IRC for this high performancehouse.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Randall Harris for having helped in performing thetest. They also thank prof. Tahar El-Korchi and prof. Steven van Dessel for hav-ing coordinated the Solar Decathlon project.

References

1. Solar Decathlon China Rules—SD (2012). http://www.sdchina.org/download/Revised_

SDC2013_Rules_V2.0.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 20142. Berardi U (2012) Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems

and rated buildings. Sustain Dev 20(6):411–424

3. GhaffarianHoseini A, Dahlan N, Berardi U, GhaffarianHoseini A, Makaremi N (2013)Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review of current theories, imple-mentations and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 25:1–17

4. ICC, International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (2012), 2nd

edn5. MRC, Massachusetts Residential Code (2011), 8th edn6. Blais M, Carpenter K (2013) Flexible polyurethane foams: a comparative measurement

of toxic vapors and other toxic emissions in controlled combustion environments offoams with and without fire retardants. Fire Technol. doi:10.1007/s10694-013-0354-5

7. Kodur VKR, Bisby LA, Green MF (2006) Experimental evaluation of the fire behav-

iour of insulated fibre-reinforced-polymer-strengthened reinforced concrete columns.Fire Saf J 41(7):547–557

8. Kandare E, Kandola BK, Myler P (2013) Evaluating the influence of varied fire-retar-dant surface coatings on post-heat flexural properties of glass/epoxy composites. Fire

Saf J 58:112–1209. Kandola BK, Myler P, Horrocks AR, El-Hadidi M, Blair D (2008) Empirical and

numerical approach for optimisation of fire and mechanical performance in fire-retar-

dant glass-reinforced epoxy composites. Fire Saf J 43(1):11–2310. ASTM E 84 (2013) Standard test method for surface burning characteristics of building

materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

11. NFPA 286 (2011) Standard methods of fire tests for evaluating contribution of walland ceiling interior finish to room fire growth. National Fire Protection Association,Quincy, MA

12. NFPA 13D (2013) Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one- and two-

family dwellings and manufactured homes. National Fire Protection Association,Quincy, MA

13. Janssens ML (2008) Calorimetry. In: Di Nenno PJ et al. (eds) SFPE handbook of fire

protection engineering, 2nd edn. NFP Society, Quincy, MA



http://www.sdchina.org/download/Revised_SDC2013_Rules_V2.0.pdf

http://www.sdchina.org/download/Revised_SDC2013_Rules_V2.0.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10694-013-0354-5

14. ASTM E 119 (2012) Standard test methods for fire tests of building construction andmaterials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

15. Mulholland GW (2008) Smoke production and properties. In: Di Nenno PJ et al. (eds)

SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 2nd edn. NFP Society, Quincy, MA



Fire Performance Assessment of a Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wall Panel Used in a Single Family...

Documents

Transcript of Fire Performance Assessment of a Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wall Panel Used in a Single Family...