Figure - uploaded by Anne Steen-Hansen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that it is composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible materials. The fire properties are usually improved by adding chemical flame retardants to the upholstery materials. The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient...
Similar publications
It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that it is composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible materials. The fire properties are usually improved by adding chemical flame retardants to the upholstery materials. The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient...
It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that it is composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible materials. The fire properties are usually improved by adding chemical flame retardants to the upholstery materials. The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient...
It is well known that upholstered furniture represents a fire risk due to the fact that it is composed of relatively large amounts of easily ignited and very combustible materials. The fire properties are usually improved by adding chemical flame retardants to the upholstery materials. The goal of this investigation is to demonstrate how sufficient...
The use of flexible polyurethane foam (FPUF) is severely limited due to its flammability and dripping, which can easily cause major fire hazards. Therefore, choosing an appropriate flame retardant to solve this problem is an urgent need. A coating was prepared on the FPUF surface by dipping with phytic acid (PA), Fe2(SO4)3·xH2O, and laponite (LAP)....
In this work, silica aerogel was modified by 9,10-dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenanthrene-1-oxide (DOPO). Then DOPO-immobilized silica aerogel nanoparticles were used as a flame retardant to prepare flame-retardant polyurethane foams. Microscale combustion calorimeter and cone calorimeter tests were employed to evaluate the flame retardancy of polyure...
Citations
... 141 A brief report for improving the fire safety of upholstered furniture by employing a protective fabric layer between the cover and the upholstery foam has been demonstrated. 142 Additionally, performance and failure mechanisms of different protective fire barriers in a residential upholstered furniture in the presence of commonly used FRs have also been investigated. 143 Similar study has also been performed to assessing the fire-blocking effectiveness of barrier fabrics in the cone calorimeter. ...
... Fire barriers (referred to as "barriers" in the remainder of this work) are usually fabrics placed between the padding materials, like flexible polyurethane foam (FPUF) or polyester fiber fill, and the cover fabric. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Barriers can prevent/delay ignition of the padding material and reduce the fire growth rate after a smoldering-to-flaming transition or flaming ignition by (a) limiting heat transfer (eg, from a flame or an external heat source) to a flammable substrate, thus limiting the rate at which combustible volatiles are generated, and by (b) controlling the rate and location at which these volatiles are released and able to burn. These two mechanisms of action are physically based (no chemical FRs needed) and can be referred to as heat and mass transfer effects, respectively. ...
... Previous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of barriers in RUF. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Ohlemiller and Shields found that the failure mechanism of barriers was related to the so-called "basal melt fire," that is, the percolation of liquid products (pyrolyzates produced by the thermal degradation of the FPUF, often referred to as regenerated polyols) through the pores of the barrier on the bottom of a vertically oriented cushion, whose barrier is completely intact. 22,34 Such a failure mechanism is related to mass transfer phenomena through the bottom of the chair and clearly indicates the necessity of developing a reducedscale test capable of capturing such a phenomenon. ...
The effectiveness and the failure mechanism of fire barriers ina residential upholstered furniture (RUF) were investigated by full-scale flaming tests on upholstered chair mock-ups. Six commercial fire barriers were tested in this study. Fire barriers were screened for the presence of elements that are typically used in fire retardants and the presence of commonly used fire retardants. For each fire barrier, triplicate flammability tests were run on chair mock-ups, where polyurethane foam and polyester fiber fill were used as the padding materials, and each chair component was fully wrapped with the fire barrier of choice and a polypropylene cover fabric. The ignition source was an 18 kW square propane burner, impinging on the top surface of the seat cushion for 80 seconds. Results showed all six fire barriers reduced the peak heat release rate (as much as ≈64%) and delayed its occurrence (up to ≈19 minutes) as compared to the control chair mock-ups. The heat release rate remained at a relatively low plateau level until liquid products (generated by either melting or pyrolysis of the padding material) percolated through the fire barrier at the bottom of the seat cushion and ignited, while the fire barrier was presumably intact. The flaming liquid products dripped and quickly formed a pool fire under the chair, and the peak heat release rate occurred shortly thereafter. Ultimately, the ignition of the percolating liquid products at the bottom of the seat cushion was identified as the mechanism triggering the failure of the fire barrier.
At present, upholstery plays a specific role in the production of furniture and is an integral part of it. In the industrial sector, upholstered material must meet safety standards such as strength, sanitariness, and fire resistance. The upholstered product includes upholstery fabrics, which are flammable substances, so it is justified to examine the product’s fire safety, and important to design preventive measures to increase the fire safety of these textiles [4, 6–8, 12–14].
Some fire safety measures will benefit all types of homes and occupants, while other measures may not be helpful for people who are considered as especially vulnerable in a fire situation. Fire safety should therefore be planned and designed with a holistic perspective, taking both the specific building and individual into account.One important factor in residential fire safety is the furnishing. The furnishing may be easily ignited and may represent large amounts of fuel that can lead to a rapid fire development with high heat release and large amounts of toxic smoke.Fire statistics has shown that the most typical ignition sources in dwelling fires are open flames, smoking materials and electrical apparatuses and installations. Upholstered furniture and mattresses are often involved in residential fires, both as the first items ignited and as objects responsible for fire development. This chapter describes the problem connected to soft furnishing and proposes ways of solving it. Other types of furnishing, their role in fire development and possible solutions to the problem are also described.
Herein, we describe a reduced‐scale test (“Cube” test), measuring the fire performance of specimens including a fire barrier (FB) and a flammable core material, which acts as the main fuel load. The specimen is intended to reproduce a cross‐section of a composite product where heat/mass transfer occurs primarily in a direction perpendicular to the FB. The Cube test procedure and benefits are discussed in this work by adopting residential upholstery furniture as an exemplary study. One flexible polyurethane foam, one polypropylene cover fabric, and 10 commercially available FBs were selected. They were used to compare the fire performance of FBs, measured in terms of peak of heat release rate, in the ASTM E1474‐14 standard test and the newly developed Cube test. Edge effects severely affected the performance of FBs in the ASTM E1474‐14 standard test but not in the Cube test. Furthermore, appropriate test conditions were determined in the Cube test to measure the so‐called “wetting point,” that is, the time and value of heat release rate measured when flammable liquid products were first observed on the bottom of the specimen. The relevance of the “wetting point” in terms of full‐scale fire performance and failure mechanism of FBs is discussed.
The aim of this exploratory study has been to investigate the fire properties and environmental aspects of different upholstery material combinations, mainly for domestic applications. An analysis of the sustainability and circularity of selected textiles, along with lifecycle assessment, is used to qualitatively evaluate materials from an environmental perspective. The cone calorimeter was the primary tool used to screen 20 different material combinations from a fire performance perspective. It was found that textile covers of conventional fibres such as wool, cotton and polyester, can be improved by blending them with fire resistant speciality fibres. A new three‐dimensional web structure has been examined as an alternative padding material, showing preliminary promising fire properties with regard to ignition time, heat release rates and smoke production.
The flammability of flexible polyurethane foam has been well studied to date, via smoldering and flaming ignition. Its contribution to fire loss in the United States has also been well documented, as the flammability of this material will contribute to large fire events when not protected from ignition and heat sources. Despite this known fire risk, fire protection approaches for polyurethane foam are being questioned in regards to fire protection performance, as well as proven and hypothesized concerns over health impacts before and after fire events. The flammability of flexible polyurethane foam in furniture and bedding is a clear and present danger that must be addressed, and this article discusses the current available technologies for fire protection, with pros and cons of these approaches. Known physical and chemical behavior of these foams in fires is discussed, as well as how this behavior contributes to large fire events. Finally, issues that still need further research and information to definitively address the polyurethane foam flammability in the United States is discussed.
Cone calorimetry experiments of on flexible polyurethane foam and flexible polyurethane foam covered with a variety of fire-blocking barrier fabrics were used to characterize and rank the effectiveness of barrier fabrics with the ultimate goal being an ability to predict the effectiveness of barrier fabrics for reducing the flammability of residential upholstered furniture. The primary measure used to characterize the burning behavior was heat release rate. The effect of the underlying sample substrate was shown to have a large effect on the burning behavior of flexible polyurethane foam samples, and a thermally insulating substrate was used during composite experiments. At times, rapid heat release rate fluctuations were observed, and in such cases approximate corrections were applied to correct for finite cone calorimeter time response. Measurements using thermocouples placed within the flexible polyurethane foam provided insights on flexible polyurethane foam pyrolysis behavior, the collapse rate of flexible polyurethane foam, and the thermal protective properties of barrier materials. Heat release rate temporal profiles for flexible polyurethane foam showed two distinct burning stages with peak values which have been attributed to sequential burning of species (primarily) derived from the diamine ( PHRR 1 ) and polyol components ( PHRR 2 ) used to manufacture the flexible polyurethane foam. When a barrier fabric was added, many of the composites displayed a three-stage burning behavior which was attributed to an initial short, intense burning (termed flash burning) stage associated with the barrier fabric covering followed by the two flexible polyurethane foam stages. Seven out of 16 flexible polyurethane foam/barrier fabric composites exhibited flame extinction prior to fuel burn out. Five out of the seven composites reignited when the spark ignition source was reapplied. Reignition allowed barrier fabric effectiveness to be assessed even for cases with flame extinction. Barrier fabric performance was shown to be consistent with four properties that were previously identified as important barrier fabric properties: barrier fabric flammability, gas permeability, thermal protection, and physical integrity. In addition, the current experiments indicate the presence and effectiveness of gas-phase active flame retardants in the barrier fabric can also play an important role. A limited number of tests were conducted to de-couple the effects of flame-retardant chemicals and physical effects of barrier fabrics on flexible polyurethane foam burning behavior. These tests showed that while flame-retardant chemicals can be effective in quenching and extinguishing the flames, the presence of effective barrier fabric shells is also very important in lowering the heat release rate of burning flexible polyurethane foam. In general, the presence of a barrier fabric was shown to reduce the heat release rate peak values during both flexible polyurethane foam burning stages. The magnitude of the peak associated with second-stage flexible polyurethane foam burning was deemed the most appropriate for characterizing the thermal protection provided by a barrier fabric. Since the times for PHRR 2 also varied between composites, a measurement referred to as the peak fire growth rate (PFIGRA) parameter was calculated by dividing the heat release rate by time since time to ignition and PFIGRA 2 was also considered for characterizing the barrier fabrics. Three possible classification schemes, each consisting of three classes, were introduced based on composite flame extinction and reignition behavior, PHRR 2 values, and PFIGRA 2 values. Each scheme provided differentiation between barrier fabric effectiveness. While the schemes were able to assess whether the barrier fabrics were particularly effective or ineffective, there were variations among classes of barrier fabrics having intermediate levels of effectiveness. Further work will be required to assess which, if any, of the classification schemes are most appropriate for predicting barrier fabric performance in residential upholstered furniture.
