Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 979–987 | Cite as

Treated and untreated foam core particleboards with intumescent veneer

Comparative analysis using a cone calorimeter
  • Mark A. Dietenberger
  • Ali Shalbafan
  • Johannes Welling
  • Charles Boardman


The effectiveness of treatments for the surface layer of novel foam core particleboards was evaluated by means of Cone calorimeter tests. Foam core particleboards with variations of surface layer treatment, adhesives, and surface layer thicknesses under similar processing conditions were used to produce the test specimen for the Cone calorimeter tests. Ignitability, heat release rate profile, peak of heat release rate, total heat released, effective heat of combustion, mass loss rate, gaseous emissions, and specific extinction area were measured using the cone irradiance of 50 kW m−2. Additional analysis of this data provided fuel composition information that could reveal the pyrolysis events of the composite boards. Thermocouples at various depths were used to provide further verification of pyrolysis events. The unprotected foam core panels generally had much higher heat release rates, somewhat higher heat of combustion and much higher smoke production due to the polymeric foam component of tested panels, whereas time to ignition and total heat release were not pronounced from the veneer treated boards. Adding the commercial fire retardant veneer to the face particleboard provided a dramatic improvement to the measured flammability properties. It worked sufficiently well with a 3 mm thick surface layer to improve the predicted flame spread rating of the foam core particleboards.


Foam core particleboard Cone calorimeter Sandwich FRT veneer Polystyrene foam 



The authors wish to thank Dr. Robert White and Carol Clausen of the Forest Products Laboratory for their support of this research, and to technician Ms. Anne Fuller for collecting the data. We also thank Hamburg University and Ministry of Science, Research & Technology of Iran for financial support of this work, and of Dr. Luedtke for support of this research. The work was performed by the United States employees on official time and is not subject to copyright.


  1. 1.
    Shalbafan A, Luedtke J, Welling J, Thoemen H. Comparison of foam core materials in innovative lightweight wood-based panels. Holz Roh Werkst. 2012;70:287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    White RH, Dietenberger MA. Cone calorimeter evaluation of wood products. In: Proc. 15th Annual BCC Conference Flame Retardancy. USA: Stamford, Connecticut; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schartel B, Bartholmai M, Knoll U. Some comments on the use of cone calorimeter data. Polym Degrad Stabil. 2005;88:540–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM E 1354-11a. Standard test method for heat and visible smoke release rates for materials and products using an oxygen consumption calorimeter. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2011.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shalbafan A, Dietenberger MA, Welling J. Fire performances of foam core sandwich panels continuously produced in different pressing schemes. Holz Roh Werkst. 2012;. doi: 10.1007/s00107-012-0653-4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gurman JL, Baier L, Levin BC. Polystyrenes: a review of the literature on the products of thermal decomposition and toxicity. Fire Mater. 1987;11:109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM E84-03. Standard test method for surface burning characteristics of building materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Babrauskas V, Parker WJ. Ignitability measurements with the cone calorimeter. Fire Mater. 1987;11:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietenberger MA. Pyrolysis kinetics and combustion of thin wood by an advanced cone calorimetry test method. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;. doi: 10.1007/s10973-012-2474-4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barrefors G, Petersson G. Volatile hydrocarbons from domestic wood burning. Chemosphere. 1995;30:1551–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietenberger MA. Update for combustion properties of wood components. Fire Mater. 2002;26:255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    White RH, Dietenberger MA. Chapter 18: Fire safety of wood construction. In: Ross RJ (ed) Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material. Madison: Forest Products Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Forest Service; 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dietenberger MA, White RH. Reaction-to-fire testing and modeling for wood products. In: Proc. 12th Annual BCC Conference on Flame Retardancy. USA: Stamford, Connecticut; 2001. p. 54–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Dietenberger
    • 1
  • Ali Shalbafan
    • 2
  • Johannes Welling
    • 3
  • Charles Boardman
    • 1
  1. 1.Forest Products LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wood ScienceUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Wood Technology and Wood BiologyThuenen-Institute (TI)HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations