Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of a Standard Fire-Resistance Test of a Combustible Wall Assembly with Experiments Employing Pre-defined Heat Release Curves

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To improve the perceived equivalency of fire testing of combustible and non-combustible members we have proposed a simple modification in the fire resistance test procedure by introducing a lower limit of the heat release rate of the furnace. With this approach the combustion of the sample adds to the heat of the furnace, which is in contrary to current approach and does increase the severity of the test. To quantify the consequences, three wall assemblies were tested with pre-defined heat release curves and modified furnace conditions. The assemblies were timber walls built from two layers of Oriented Strain Boards (OSB, 25 mm thick) on a timber frame with an air cavity (100 mm). A reference experiment with a well-insulated wall was performed to determine the furnace’s minimum heat release rate (HRR) required to maintain the standard (ISO 834) temperature/time curve. The first wall was tested with a standard fire resistance test, and in the 2nd and 3rd wall experiment, the furnace followed the minimum HRR value determined in a reference experiment. In experiment 2, the furnace ventilation matched the air requirements of the burners, and in experiment 3, the furnace was over ventilated. Peak temperatures measured in experiments 2 and 3 exceeded the standard temperature/time relation by 420°C and 600°C, respectively. The assembly’s failure (integrity criterion) was observed after 27 min, 23 min and 14 min of experiments 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The limitations of the approach used related to reproducibility and validity are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Babrauskas V, Williamson R (1978) The historical basis of fire resistance testing — Part I. Fire Technol 14:304–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Babrauskas V, Williamson RB (1978) The historical basis of fire resistance testing — Part II. Fire Technol 14:304–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bisby L, Gales J, Maluk C (2013) A contemporary review of large-scale non-standard structural fire testing. Fire Sci Rev 2:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gales J, Chorlton B, Jeanneret C (2021) The historical narrative of the standard temperature-time heating curve for structures. Fire Technol 57:529–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. CEN (2012) EN 1363–1:2012 Fire resistance tests. General requirements

  6. Wickström U (2011) The adiabatic surface temperature and the plate thermometer. Fire Saf Sci. https://doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.10-1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lange D, Boström L (2017) A round robin study on modelling the fire resistance of a loaded steel beam. Fire Saf J 92:64–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Węgrzyński W, Turkowski P, Roszkowski P (2020) The discrepancies in energy balance in furnace testing, a bug or a feature? Fire Mater 44:311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Internationaltimber.com (2015) How does timber handle fire compared to steel and concrete? https://internationaltimber.com/resources/how-does-timber-handle-fire-compared-to-steel-and-concrete/

  10. Ambrahamsen R Get used to wooden skyscrapers. They’re stronger, cleaner and fire resistant. https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/04/get-used-to-wooden-skyscrapers-they-are-stronger-cleaner-and-fire-resistant-view

  11. Economist Mass Timber: Wood is prominent in construction’s future, value for carbon removal to be determined. https://carbonremoval.economist.com/mass-timber/

  12. Law A, Hadden RM (2020) We need to talk about timber: fire safety design in tall buildings. Struct Eng. https://www.istructe.org/journal/volumes/volume-98-(2020)/issue-3/we-need-to-talk-about-timber-fire-safety-design-in/. Accessed 11 Mar 2022

  13. Law A, Hadden RM (2017) Burnout Means Burnout. SFPE Eur Q1. https://www.sfpe.org/page/Issue5Feature1. Accessed 11 Mar 2022

  14. Kawagoe K, Sekine T (1963) Estimation of fire temperature-time curve in rooms, Second Report. Occasional Report No. 11, Building Research Institute, Japan

  15. Babrauskas V, Williamson RB (1978) Post-flashover compartment fires: basis of a theoretical model. Fire Mater 2:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. CEN (2002) EN 1991–1–2 Eurocode 1: actions on the structures - Part 1–2: general actions - Actions on the structures exposed to fire

  17. Brandon D, Sjöström J, Hallber E, Temple A, Kahl F (2020) RISE Report 2020:94 Fire Safe implementation of visible mass timber in tall buildings – compartment fire testing

  18. Jonsdottir AM, Rein G (2009) Out of range. Fire Risk Management, Dec., 14–17

  19. Wickström U (2020) Comments on - On some issues with the fire resistance testing. SFPE Eur Q1. https://www.sfpe.org/publications/sfpeeuropedigital/sfpeeurope17/issue17feature4. Accessed 11 Mar 2022

  20. Maluk C, Linnan B, Wong A, Hidalgo JP, Torero JL, Abecassis-Empis C, Cowlard A (2017) Energy distribution analysis in full-scale open floor plan enclosure fires. Fire Saf J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmid J, Brandon D, Werther N, Klippel M (2018) Technical note - Thermal exposure of wood in standard fire resistance tests. Fire Saf J. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FIRESAF.2018.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bartlett AI, McNamee R, Robert F, Bisby LA (2019) Comparative energy analysis from fire resistance tests on combustible versus noncombustible slabs. Fire Mater fam. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lange D, Sjöström J, Schmid J, Brandon D, Hidalgo J (2020) A comparison of the conditions in a fire resistance furnace when testing combustible and non-combustible construction. Fire Technol 56:1621–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Richter F, Kotsovinos P, Rackauskaite E, Rein G (2021) Thermal response of timber slabs exposed to travelling fires and traditional design fires. Fire Technol 57:393–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bartlett AI, Hadden RM, Bisby LA (2019) A review of factors affecting the burning behaviour of wood for application to tall timber construction. Fire Technol 55:1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frangi A, Fontana M (2003) Charring rates and temperature profiles of wood sections. Fire Mater 27:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wiesner F, Bartlett A, Mohaine S, Robert F, McNamee R, Mindeguia J-C, Bisby L (2021) Structural capacity of one-way spanning large-scale cross-laminated timber slabs in standard and natural fires. Fire Technol 57:291–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. CEN (2020) EN 1363–1:2020. Fire resistance tests. General requirements

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Building Research Institute statutory grant financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, grant number NZP-128/2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wojciech Węgrzyński.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turkowski, P., Węgrzyński, W. Comparison of a Standard Fire-Resistance Test of a Combustible Wall Assembly with Experiments Employing Pre-defined Heat Release Curves. Fire Technol 58, 1767–1787 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-022-01226-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-022-01226-1

Keywords

Navigation