1

FIRE AND MATERIALS
Fire Mater. 2003; 27:253–266 (DOI: 10.1002/fam.830)
Comparison of flammability measurements in vertical and

horizontal exhaust duct in the ASTM E-2058 fire
propagation apparatus
Mohammed M. Khann,y and Robert G. Bill Jr

FM Global Research, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
The ASTM E-2058 fire propagation apparatus (FPA) is capable of measuring time to ignition, chemical
and convective heat release rates, mass loss rate, smoke generation rate, generation rates of CO, CO2 and
O2 consumption rate, effective (chemical) heat of combustion and vertical fire propagation of materials.
The original design of the FPA incorporated a vertical exhaust system with the measurement section
finishing about 3:5 m from the floor. The exhaust measuring duct of the new FPA is horizontally oriented
to enable its use in a wider range of laboratory environments. In this paper, the functionality of the new
FPA was compared with the original FPA. The measurements and results indicate that the performance of
the new FPA is equivalent to the original FPA. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: fire propagation apparatus; exhaust system; flammability measurements
1. INTRODUCTION
The fire propagation apparatus (FPA) has been used as ASTM test method for measurement
of synthetic polymer material flammability (E 2058-2a) [1]. The original FPA, as shown in
Figure 1, uses a vertical exhaust duct configuration, which requires laboratories to have
available a sufficient ceiling height to accommodate all the system components. Also, the
original FPA has gas sampling and analysis system completely separated from the main
apparatus. To reduce this ceiling height requirement and allow for a more compact
arrangement, an alternative, horizontal exhaust configuration has been developed. In addition,
gas sampling and gas analysers are integrated into the main apparatus housing [2]. The new
FPA with horizontal exhaust duct is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 presents a photograph of the
new FPA. The smoke meter in the original FPA consisted of a collimated white light source
from an incandescent lamp and a 3-wavelength (0:4579 mm; 0:6328 mm and 1:06 mm) detector.
The new FPA employs a helium–neon laser with a wavelength of 0:6328 mm for smoke
measurement. All other major design features of the original FPA have been incorporated in the
design of the new FPA [2].
n
Correspondence to: M. M. Khan, FM Global Research, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062,
U.S.A.
y
E-mail: mohammed.khan@fmglobal.com
Received 13 May 2003

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 11 July 2003
254 M. M. KHAN AND R. G. BILL JR
To
Blower
Blast Gate & Linear

Actuator Control
Upper Section
2.07 m
Particulate Concentration/
Pressure/Corrosion
Optical Transmission
Gas Temperature &
Concentration
152mm ID Teflon Coated Orifice Plate

(89mm diameter)
Stainless Steel Duct
162mm ID x 260mm
Long Extension
Lower Section
162mm IDx 432mm Long
Quartz Tube Pilot Flame 1.46 m
Four Infra-Red
Heaters
Sample
Air/Oxygen/Nitrogen
Load Cell Extinguishing Agent
Figure 1. Original fire propagation apparatus with vertical exhaust duct (formerly known as the
flammability apparatus).
The FPA is used for evaluating the fire behavior of a material or product exposed to different
levels of: (a) radiant heat flux, (b) ventilation and (c) oxygen concentration in both horizontal
(pool-like) and vertical (wall-like) configurations. The unique features of the FPA include (1) the
use of tungsten–quartz external (isolated) heaters that provide constant radiant heat flux to the
samples, such that the flux remains approximately uniform above and below the sample surface
as the sample either regresses or expands; (2) the ease of utilizing natural air flow conditions,
forced flows of air or flows of other gas mixtures such as oxygen vitiated or oxygen enriched
mixtures; (3) a design that generally uses 0.1 m by 0.1 m horizontal samples and 0.1 m by 0.305
m vertical samples; (4) measurements of chemical and convective heat release rates, and
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Fire Mater. 2003; 27:253–266
ASTM E-2058 FIRE PROPAGATION APPARATUS 255
EXHAUST SYSTEM
AIR VELOCITY PORT

VERTICAL ACROSS DUCT
1.575 mm WALL,
S.S.TUBING,
152 mm O.D.
TEST
MIXING DUCT SECTION BLOWER
DUCT
ORIFICE PLATE (1.6mmTHK, GAS SAMPLE PORT

91.5mm ORIFICE DIA.) HORIZONTAL ACROSS
AT THIS POSITION DUCT
THERMOCOUPLE PORT
INTAKE FUNNEL
40
INSTRUMENTATION
CART
IR HEATING
SYSTEM & 1451
SPECIMEN
AREA OF
FPA
MAIN VIEW
ALLDIMENSIONS IN MM UNLESS NOTED
Figure 2. New fire propagation apparatus with horizontal exhaust duct.
assessment of radiative heat release rate determined by the difference of chemical and convective
heat release rates. The detailed description of the FPA is provided in ASTM E-2058 and NFPA
287 [3].
This paper describes the results of an extensive test program that was initiated to verify the
functionality of the new FPA with a horizontal exhaust duct compared with the two original
FPAs with a vertical exhaust duct in terms of ignition, combustion, fire propagation and smoke
measurements. In order to cover the various range of material properties, 9:5 mm thick PMMA
(polymethylmethacrylate), PVC (polyvinylchloride), CPVC (chlorinated polyvinylchloride),
PVDF (polyvinylidenefluoride), polyisocyanurate foams (50 mm thick) and acetone were tested
in the original as well as in the new FPA. PMMA is a well behaved material having well
established ignition and combustion properties. PVC, CPVC, PVDF and polyisocyanurate
foams are highly fire retarded materials and their fire properties are inherently widely variable.
Acetone has a well characterized combustion behavior and is used routinely to calibrate the heat
release rate in the measuring duct of the FPA [1].
2. FLOW COEFFICIENT
The uniformity of the flow in the measuring section of the horizontal exhaust duct of the new
FPA was checked using probe traverses. It was determined that uniformity (in terms of velocity,
temperature and concentration profiles) could be achieved with a 1:6 mm thick orifice plate
having a mixing diameter of 91:5 mm at an exhaust flow rate of 0:1520:015 m3 =s: In order to
determine a flow coefficient for calculating mass flow rates of fire product–air mixture through
the measuring duct of the FPA, the following measurements were made.
At the highest exhaust blower setting, methane gas was introduced into the exhaust hood (fire
products collection hood) at several flow rates at ambient temperature, which were calibrated
using Brookes Instruments Vol-u-Meter, Model 1057A6A (accuracy within 0:2% of indicated
volume). A Beckman 400 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer was used to measure the gas
concentrations in the FPA measuring duct using a 14 hole averaging gas sampling probe
(normally horizontal across the duct). An averaging pitot probe (Flo-Bar) (normally vertical
across the duct) was used to measure the differential pressure by an electronic pressure
transducer. Additional measurements were taken by rotating the measuring duct so that the
sampling probe and Flo-Bar were changed to vertical and horizontal positions, respectively. In
both cases, from the measurement of methane concentrations and the rates of flow of methane
and as well as from the flow velocity in the duct, the flow coefficient and the volumetric flow rate
were 0:65 ð0:025Þ (non-dimensional) and 0:152 0:015 m3 =s; respectively. The corresponding
flow coefficient of the original FPA was 0:647 ð0:020Þ.
The velocity ðvÞ profiles in the measuring duct of the new FPA, normalized with the centerline
velocity (vo ) are shown in Figures 4 and 5, for horizontal and vertical distances across the duct,
respectively. While the horizontal profiles were reasonably flat, the vertical profiles were not as
uniform. However, placing the averaging pitot probe vertically in the duct allowed the
volumetric flow to be measured to an accuracy of 10% as indicated by the methane gas
concentration measurements. Since this study, it has been proposed to increase (about 10%) the
capacity of the exhaust blower so that more uniform velocity profiles could be obtained.
Measurements of gas concentration were made for methane in the measuring duct of the new
FPA. The concentration ðcÞ profiles, normalized with the centerline gas concentration (co ) are
presented in Figures 6 and 7 for horizontal and vertical distances across the measuring duct,
respectively. The concentration profiles in both horizontal and vertical distances across the
measuring duct were reasonably flat.
3. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
3.1. Thermal response parameter and critical heat flux

Piloted ignition experiments were conducted in ambient air and natural convection. Sample size,
sample preparation and test set up, and tests were conducted following the test method as
specified in ASTM E-2058. Time to visual ignition is determined as the first moment that a flame
Figure 3. The photograph of the new fire propagation apparatus.
remains attached for at least 4 s as a function of external radiant heat flux value. The thermal
response parameter (TRP, kW-s1=2 m2 ) is the inverse of the slope of the line for the square root
of time-to-ignition versus the external radiant heat flux curve (for heat flux equal to or greater
than 30 kW=m2 ). The critical heat flux (CHF, kW=m2 ) for ignition is determined by plotting the
inverse time-to-ignition versus the lower radiant heat flux values (less than 30 kW=m2 ), where
the ignition times are very large, and noting the intercept of the linear fit with the axis
corresponding to infinite ignition time.
3.2. Combustion
The combustion experiments were conducted to measure the chemical and convective heat
release rates (CHRR, kW=m2 and Conv.HRR, kW=m2 ), mass loss ðgÞ; smoke yield (Ysmoke ; g/g)
and to determine the chemical heat of combustion (CHC, kJ/g) in normal air and forced flow
conditions (3:3 103 m3 =s flow). Sample size, sample preparation and test set up, as well as
the tests themselves, were conducted following the test procedure as specified in ASTM E-2058.
The average CHF is determined by time integrating (from ignition to flame out time) the
chemical heat release rate divided by the mass loss during the same time interval.
The smoke yield (Ysmoke ) is the average resulting from the ratio of the time integration (from
ignition to flame out time) of the mass flow rate of smoke (g/s) in the measuring duct to the
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
v/vo
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (mm)
Figure 4. Gas velocity profiles for horizontal distances across the duct of new FPA.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
v/vo
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Vertical Distance (mm)
Figure 5. Gas velocity profiles for vertical distances across the duct of new FPA.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
c/co
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (mm)
Figure 6. Gas concentration profiles for horizontal distances across the duct of new FPA.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
c/co
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Vertical Distance (mm)
Figure 7. Gas concentration profiles for vertical distances across the duct of new FPA.
sample mass loss (g) from the load cell measurement during the same time interval. The mass
flow rate of smoke is calculated from the extinction coefficient obtained from 0:6328 mm
wavelength using the technique described in NFPA 287 [3].
3.3. Fire propagation

Experiments were conducted with vertical samples (0.1 m by 0.305 m) with 40% oxygen
concentration in co-flowing air–oxygen mixture ð3:3 103 m3 =sÞ: In the tests, the chemical
heat release rates were determined for the samples as a function of time. The fire propagation
index (FPI) was determined from the following equation [4]:
!
ð0:42Q’ 0ch Þ1=3
FPI ¼ 1000 ¼ 750ðQ’ 0ch Þ1=3 =TRP ð1Þ
TRP
Here, FPI is in ðm s1=2 Þ=ðkWm1 Þ2=3 and TRP is in kW-s1=2 m2 ; Q’ 0ch is the chemical heat
release rate per unit width of the material (kW/m). The vertical fire propagation test and the use
of FPI as a correlation parameter for vertical fire propagation have been described in detailed in
Reference [4]. Other details are given in ASTM E-2058 document.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Calibration
Table I presents the chemical heat of combustion (CHC) data for acetone, which is routinely
used for calibrating the heat release rate in the FPA measuring duct. Acetone (100 ml) in a
Pyrex dish (95 mm diameter and 13 mm deep) was burned in the FPA in normal air with a flow
rate of 3:3 103 m3 =s; without any external heat flux. Data from the new FPA show
excellent reproducibility and agreement with the accepted value (5% of the reference value of
27:9 kJ=gÞ½1 obtained with the original FPA-1:
4.2. Comparison of performance using PMMA sample

The performance of the new and the original FPAs can reasonably be compared with the fire
properties of PMMA material tested. PMMA is a widely tested material having well established
combustion properties and ignites readily in a reproducible and easily observable manner.
Table I. Chemical heat of combustion (CHC) for acetone.

New FPA Original FPA-1
CHC (kJ/g) CHC (kJ/g)
26.8 27.1
25.1 27.4
27.4 26.9
26.7 27.8
26.9 Avg. 27.3
27.4
Avg. 26.7
Table II presents ignition (CHF and TRP) and combustion (CHC, CHRR and convective
HRR) data for PMMA. The chemical heat release rate as a function of time for PMMA samples
is shown in Figure 8, where the profiles are very similar for the two exhaust duct orientations.
The excellent agreement between the two apparatuses is shown in terms of ignition and
combustion properties of the PMMA sample indicate that the performance of the new FPA with
horizontal exhaust duct is equivalent to the original FPA. The comparison of PMMA smoke
yield (Ysmoke ) data between the two apparatuses is discussed in a later section.
Table II. Ignition and combustion properties of PMMA.

Property New FPA Original FPA-1
CHF (kW=m2 ) 10 11
TRP (kW-s1/2/m2) 214 214
CHC (kJ/g) 24.6 24.9
25.0 24.8
25.0 25.2
avg. 24.9 avg. 25.0
CHRR (kW) 10.2 9.8

9.8
avg. 10.0
Conv.HRR (kW) 5.7 5.4

5.3
avg. 5.5
12
Original FPA
Chemical Heat Release Rate (kW)
10
New FPA
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (seconds)
Figure 8. The Chemical heat release rate profiles of PMMA sample.
The comparison of the new and the original FPAs using the ignition, combustion and fire
propagation data of materials with more complex burning behavior, PVC, CPVC, PVDF and
polyisocyanurate foams materials, are presented in the following sections. As previously
mentioned, the fire properties of these materials are highly variable because of their inherent fire
retardancy. Figure 9 shows the example of the variability of PVC sample in terms of chemical
heat release rate in the new as well as in the original FPAs. The comparison provides insight into
the variability in results that can be expected for such materials.
4.3. Thermal response parameter and critical heat flux

Table III provides ignition data in terms of CHF and TRP. The CHF values for the materials
tested show good agreement between the two apparatuses. The maximum variation between the
average TRP for any sample measured by the original FPA-1 and that measured by the new
FPA was 14%.
4.4. Combustion
Combustion data in terms of CHC and the 15 s average of the peak values of CHRR and
convective HRR as measured in both apparatuses are presented in Table IV. For PMMA an
excellent agreement between the two apparatuses is noted in terms of the average values of
CHC. The maximum variation (21%) between the average values of CHC occurs for PVDF.
Whereas the variations for CPVC, PVC, Foam1 and Foam2 samples were from 7% to 17%.
In terms of the average values of CHRR, 8% to 26% variations can be noted for CPVC,
PVDF, PVC and Foam1 samples. An unusually large variation (50%) can be observed for
Foam2 sample. However, there were not sufficient remaining samples to repeat the test. Given
the reasonable agreement of the other foam material, this is thought to be an anomaly.
0.9
Original FPA
0.8
Chemical Heat Release Rate (kW)
New FPA
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (seconds)
Figure 9. The chemical heat release rate profiles of PVC sample.
Table III. Thermal response parameter (TRP) and critical heat flux (CHF) values for samples.
CHF ðkW=m2 Þ TRP (kW-s1/2/m2)
Material New FPA Original FPA-1 New FPA Original FPA-1
CPVC 20 20 348 324
20 311b 362
avg. 348 338
362y
avg. 341
PVDF 36 36 533 475
PVC (gray) 16 15 312 361
374 352
avg. 343 avg. 356
Foam2* 13 15 121 106
*Another material, Foam1 was not included since insufficient material was available to conduct confirming tests.
y
Not used in the averaging because the samples were prepared differently.
Table IV. Chemical heat of combustion (CHC), chemical and convective heat release rates for samples.
CHC (kJ/g) CHRR (kW) Convective HRR (kW)
Material New FPA Original FPA-1 New FPA Original FPA-1 New FPA Original FPA-1
CPVC 5.4 4.0 0.95 0.63 ND ND
3.9 4.5 0.82 0.68
2.5 5.5 0.85 0.77
avg. 3.9 avg. 4.7 avg. 0.87 avg. 0.69
PVDF 3.5 5.0 1.36 1.90 ND ND
3.9 4.8 1.52 1.75
avg. 3.7 4.4 avg. 1.44 1.56
avg. 4.7 avg. 1.74
PVC 6.0 6.62 0.91 0.88 ND ND
(gray) 5.74 6.07 0.91 0.79
avg. 5.87 6.19 avg. 0.91 0.84
avg. 6.29 avg. 0.84
Foam1 14.7 13.1 4.92 4.49 2.0 1.56
15.7 13.4 4.88 4.07 2.1 1.93
avg. 15.2 avg. 13.3 avg. 4.90 avg. 4.28 avg. 2.1 avg. 1.75
Foam2 13.1 11.9 8.98 6.03 2.13 2.26
ND, not determined.
The variations in the measurement of convective HRR between the two apparatuses for
Foam1 and Foam2 samples were 6% to 18%.
4.5. Fire propagation

Table V presents peak CHRR (during fire propagation) and FPI data, as determined in both
apparatuses using the vertical propagation test method. Both CHRR and FPI values are the
15 s average of the peak values. If more than one TRP was measured, the average value from
Table V. Chemical heat release rate (CHRR) during fire propagation and FPI values for samples.
CHRR (kW) FPI (m/s1/2)/(kW/m) 2/3
Material New FPA Original FPA-1 New FPA Original FPA-1

CPVC 3.84 3.37 7.21 6.94
3.70 3.38 7.13 6.94
3.92 3.61 7.26 7.10
avg. 3.82 3.31 avg. 7.20 6.89
3.34 6.92
3.58 7.07
avg. 3.43 avg. 6.98
PVDF 4.76 4.26 5.68 4.80
3.81 4.62
avg. 4.04 avg. 4.71
PVC (gray) 4.92 4.60 7.95 7.27
4.76 7.35
avg. 4.68 avg. 7.31
Table Va. Chemical heat release rate (CHRR) during fire propagation.
CHRR (kW)
Material New FPA Original FPA-2
CPVC 3.84 3.84
3.70 3.53
3.92 3.60
avg. 3.82
avg. 3.66
Table II was used in the calculation of FPI. Based on the average values of CHRR and FPI in
Table V, the agreement between the two apparatuses is within 11% for CPVC and PVC
samples. However, for the PVDF sample, the variation is 18% and 20% for CHRR and FPI,
respectively.
The average values of CHRR for CPVC presented in Table Va show that the agreement
between the original FPA-2 (data observed in another FPA at FM Global with the original
vertical duct design) and the new FPAs is within 4%.
4.6. Smoke yield

Data for the smoke yield (Ysmoke ) and the smoke development index ðSDIÞ [4], which is the
product of FPI and Ysmoke were obtained from both the new and original FPAs. Some signal
drift occurred in the output of the smoke meter of the new FPA. In contrast, no signal drift was
observed in the original FPA-2; hence these results were selected for comparison in this study.
To evaluate the relative error caused by the signal drift, Ysmoke for PMMA and PVC (gray) are
compared in Table VI for the two FPAs.
Table VI. Smoke yield from two FPAs (corrected values are in parentheses).
Ysmoke (g/g) Ysmoke (g/g)
Material Original FPA-2 New FPA
PMMA 0.022* 0.019 (0.0216)
PVC (gray) 0.1167 0.1027 (0.1058)
0.1179 0.1032 (0.1059)
avg. 0.1173 0.0932 (0.1008)
0.0860 (0.1112)
avg. 0.0963 (0.1059)
*Data taken from reference [2].
Comparison of smoke yields uncorrected for drift (corrected values are in parentheses)
indicated that the new FPA differs from the original FPA-2 by 14% and 18%, respectively for
PMMA and PVC. Note that the reproducibility of Ysmoke for the original FPA-2 and new FPA
were well within the range found acceptable for smoke measurement in the cone calorimeter
(ASTM E-1354) [5].
The drift in the smoke meter output signal of the new FPA was indicated by a no-smoke
voltage at the end of the test, which was not equal to the voltage at the beginning. A reasonable
simple correction is to assume that the final voltage represented the no-smoke condition
throughout the test. The correction is shown in parentheses in Table VI. As a result of the
correction, the differences between the new and original FPA-1 for PMMA and PVC were
reduced to 2% and 10%, excellent agreement. Based upon these results, and the performance
indicated in reference [5], the new and original apparatuses were equivalent in smoke
measurement. Since this study, the smoke measurement in the new FPA has been improved by
incorporating a stabilized laser system.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The excellent agreement between the two apparatuses for acetone and PMMA, demonstrates
that the original FPA-1 and the new FPA are equivalent designs of basically the same testing
apparatus. The difference observed in the results for other materials is taken as an indicator of
the variation that can be expected due to the inherent variability of the combustion process with
materials that do not readily burn.
The evaluated new FPA is considered comparable to the original FPA for ignition, fire
propagation and combustion measurements for all materials. For measurement of smoke yield,
the following results uncorrected for signal drift, were obtained for PMMA and PVC (gray),
respectively. The new FPA results were lower than the original FPA-2 results by 14% and 18%.
After correcting for signal drift, the new FPA results for smoke yield were lower than that of the
original FPA-2 for PMMA and PVC (gray) by, respectively, 2% and 10%.
REFERENCES
1. ASTM E 2058-2a. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Synthetic Polymer Material Flammability Using a Fire
Propagation Apparatus (FPA). American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.
2. Khan MM, Gregory S. The Performance of the Commercial Version of Fire Propagation Apparatus. Fire and Materials
2001—7th International Conference and Exhibition, January 22-24, 2001, San Francisco, U.S.A.
3. NFPA 287. Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Flammability of Materials in Cleanrooms Using a Fire
Propagation Apparatus (FPA). NFPA International. Quincy, MA, 2001.
4. Tewarson A, Khan M, Wu PK, Bill RG. Flammability evaluation of clean room polymeric materials for the
semiconductor industry. Fire and Materials 2001; 25:31–42.
5. ASTM E 1354-02. Standard Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an
Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.

1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRE AND MATERIALS

Fire Mater. 2003; 27:253–266 (DOI: 10.1002/fam.830)

Comparison of ﬂammability measurements in vertical and

Mohammed M. Khann,y and Robert G. Bill Jr

KEY WORDS: ﬁre propagation apparatus; exhaust system; ﬂammability measurements

Received 13 May 2003

Blast Gate & Linear

152mm ID Teflon Coated Orifice Plate

AIR VELOCITY PORT

ORIFICE PLATE (1.6mmTHK, GAS SAMPLE PORT

Figure 2. New ﬁre propagation apparatus with horizontal exhaust duct.

3.1. Thermal response parameter and critical heat ﬂux

Figure 3. The photograph of the new ﬁre propagation apparatus.

3.3. Fire propagation

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.2. Comparison of performance using PMMA sample

Table I. Chemical heat of combustion (CHC) for acetone.

Table II. Ignition and combustion properties of PMMA.

CHRR (kW) 10.2 9.8

Conv.HRR (kW) 5.7 5.4

Figure 8. The Chemical heat release rate proﬁles of PMMA sample.

4.3. Thermal response parameter and critical heat ﬂux

Figure 9. The chemical heat release rate proﬁles of PVC sample.

4.5. Fire propagation

Material New FPA Original FPA-1 New FPA Original FPA-1

4.6. Smoke yield

You might also like