FP7 Contract Number: 233786 - Transfeu€¦ · Vertically oriented FRP specimens are typically 1,0...

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P

16 November 2012 v5 P Security: Confidential /70

Medium scale Collaborative project

TRANSFEU

Transport Fire Safety Engineering in the European Union

FP7 Contract Number: 233786

WP5 – Development of numerical simulation tools for fire performance, evacuation of people and decision

tool for the train design

Deliverable report 5.5 – Development of a numerical tool for the simulation of the fire effect on structural integrity

Document Information

Document Name: TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P Document ID: TRANSFEU WP5.5N2_D5.5 P Version: V5 Version Date: 16/11/12 Authors: Clare Barker, Peter Briggs, Esko Mikkola, Antti Paajanen, Aitor

Barrio Ulanga, Raquel Blanco, Steve Hankey, Ian Crewe, Stacey Deeming

Security: Confidential

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Approvals

Name Organization Date Visa

Coordinator Alain Sainrat LNE 16/11/12

Scientific panel Scientific Panel TRANSFEU 16/11/12

Document history

Revision Date Modification reviewer

5 Final 5/11/2012 Minor text changes Scientific Panel

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Content

Section I - Executive summary ...................................................................................... 5

I.1 Description of the deliverable content and purpose ............................................................... 5

I.2 Brief description of the state of the art and the innovation brought ....................................... 5 Standards and Procedures ............................................................................................. 5 Test principles ................................................................................................................ 5 Applications where medium scale fire resistance tests are justified ................................ 6 Simulation of Integrity ..................................................................................................... 6

I.3 Deviation from objectives ....................................................................................................... 7

Section II - Introduction .................................................................................................. 8

II.1. Development of Description of Work for Task 5.5 ................................................................. 8 Part 1: Fire barriers and partitions .................................................................................10 Part 2: Active protection measures ................................................................................10

II.3 Updated Description of Work For Task 5.5 .......................................................................... 10

Section III - Structural Integrity Of Fire Barriers ...........................................................12

III.1. Integrity ................................................................................................................................. 12 III.1.1 Definition .......................................................................................................12 III.1.2 Modelling – characteristics and possibilities ..................................................12 III.1.3 Damage modelling of composites in fire ........................................................13 III.1.4 Mechanical modelling of composites in fire ...................................................14

III.2 Insulation .................................................................................................................................... 14 III.2.1 Definitions .....................................................................................................14 III.2.2 Modelling – characteristics and possibilities ..................................................14

III.3 Radiation Transfer ................................................................................................................ 16 III.3.1 Definitions .....................................................................................................16 III.3.2 Modelling – characteristics and possibilities ..................................................16

Section IV - Experimental Work – Samples and Methods .............................................17

IV.1 Fire Barrier Samples ............................................................................................................ 17 WP5.5A .........................................................................................................................17 WP5.5B .........................................................................................................................17 WP5.5C and WP5.5D ....................................................................................................18

IV.2 Cone Calorimeter Tests ....................................................................................................... 18

IV.3 Fire Resistance Tests .......................................................................................................... 18

Section V - Fire Exposure Levels in the Experiment ....................................................20

Section VI - Experimental Results ..................................................................................23

VI.1 Cone Calorimeter Tests ....................................................................................................... 23 a) Exova Warringtonfire Results ................................................................................23 b) Tecnalia Results ...................................................................................................23

VI.2 Fire Resistance Tests .......................................................................................................... 24 Comparison of Exova Warringtonfire and Tecnalia Results ...........................................24

Section VII - Modelling of fire barrier performance ....................................................25

VII.1 Sub-models and principles ................................................................................................... 25

VII.2 Input data used in modelling insulation performance .......................................................... 26

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


VII.3 Comparisons with experiments ............................................................................................ 29

VII.4 Conclusions on modelling fire separating performance ....................................................... 38

References ..........................................................................................................................40

Appendix A – FDS input file for cone calorimeter test ....................................................42

Appendix B – FDS input file for furnace tests ..................................................................44

Appendix C – Medium scale furnace tests .......................................................................46

WP5.5A - birch plywood core with a high pressure laminate coating, 18-20mm thick. .................... 46

WP5.5B - waterproof panel consisting of aluminium and 100% birch plywood sandwich around a cork rubber core, 14-15mm thick. ..................................................................................................... 54

WP5.5C – glass fibre reinforced phenolic composite, 7-9mm thick. ................................................. 59

WP5.5D – glass fibre reinforced phenolic composite, 19-21mm thick. ............................................. 64

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P

2 July 2012 – Version 4 Security: Confidential /70

Section I - Executive summary

I.1 Description of the deliverable content and purpose

This report details the development of a numerical tool for the simulation of the integrity of fire barriers on trains in the event of a fire on board. The starting point of the work was to model the fire growth scenarios defined in WP4 and WP5, after which appropriate temperature/time curves can be selected in order for fire resistance tests to be conducted on commercially available vertical fire barriers using standard test methods. Following the tests a numerical tool has been developed for the simulation of integrity of the fire barrier materials. The numerical tool has been validated by small scale cone calorimeter tests and intermediate scale furnace tests.

I.2 Brief description of the state of the art and the innovation brought

Standards and Procedures With regard to medium scale furnace tests ISO 834 ‘Fire resistance tests – Elements of building construction – Part 12 Specific requirements for separating elements evaluated on less than full scale furnaces‟ [1] is being developed by ISO/TC92/SC2 „Fire containment‟ in close cooperation with ISO/TC61/SC4 „Burning behaviour of plastics‟. This standard has achieved 100% support at FDIS stage and will be published in 2013. ISO 834 Part 1 [2] is a normative reference for this standard. ISO 834 Part 12 specifies the procedures to be followed for determining the fire resistance of non-load-bearing separating elements when exposed to heating on one face when the specimen size is such that a less than full scale fire resistance furnace is justified. This condition is particularly found in the testing of separating elements in transport applications since the end-use dimensions of the barrier products are often smaller than those specified in other parts of ISO 834. Specimen sizes requiring less than full scale fire resistance furnaces are also found when testing elements to be fitted into a separating element, such as pipe penetration systems, ducts and dampers and cable transits. ISO 30021 „Plastics – Intermediate scale fire resistance tests – Tests for fibre-reinforced polymer composites‟ [3] is being developed by ISO/TC61/SC4 in cooperation with ISO/TC/SC2. This standard is at FDIS stage and is expected to be published in 2013. ISO 834 Part 12 is a normative reference for this standard.

ISO 30021 specifies the procedures to be followed for determining the fire resistance of non-load-bearing separating elements made of fibre reinforced plastics (FRP) when exposed to heating on one face when the sample size is such that a less than full scale fire resistance furnace test is justified. This condition is particularly found in the testing of fire barriers in transportation applications since the end-use dimensions of the barrier products are often smaller than those specified in ISO 834-1. This test, in general, is applicable to FRP products which have a flat surface and may have stiffening members.

Test principles In ISO 834-12 and ISO 30021, the fire resistance of a vertically or horizontally oriented intermediate scale specimen is determined by exposing one of its surfaces to the conditions specified in ISO 834-1. The time-temperature curve according to EN 1363-2 [4] can be used when such conditions are justified. Vertically oriented FRP specimens are typically 1,0 to 1,5 m high and 1,0 to 1,5 m wide. Horizontally oriented FRP specimens are typically 1,0 to 1,5 m long and 1,0 to 1,5 m wide. Test specimens should be mounted in a manner to realize the end use condition, including stiffening members and/or insulation system (if used).

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Applications where medium scale fire resistance tests are justified Smaller size ships, which are normally made of fibre reinforced plastics (FRP), are required to have fire resistance under international regulations such as Torremolinos International Convention of Safety of Fishing Vessels and its 1988 protocol [5] and other national regulations. Development of a test method to prove the fire resistance of FRP construction of such ships was required. Fishing vessels, high-speed ferries and yachts are usually relatively small, and the size of the construction panel of FRP would not have a height more than 2m. Sometimes, it would be in a dimension of approximately 1 to 2m. On the other hand, it is difficult and may be dangerous to conduct a fire resistance test of a larger specimen of FRP (2.5m or 3m height and width) according to international standards such as ISO 834-1 Fire resistance tests - Element of building construction - Part 1: General requirements or IMO A.754 (18) Recommendation on Fire Resistance Tests for “A”, “B” and “F” class divisions [6]. The severity of heat exposure in medium scale tests is equal to large scale tests. Structures of railway passenger vehicles and other mass-transport media are, in many cases, made of FRP and should have fire resistance performance to prevent fire propagation between coaches. Fire resistance tests will be required for such structural fire barrier members and the dimensions of structure are, in many cases, smaller than the size of the full scale fire resistance test of ISO 834-1. In these circumstances, it is anticipated that this test method will also be useful for the determination of the fire resistance of fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP) in other applications, such as barriers and partitions in railway vehicles and road transport. For category B fire safety, the TSI HS specification relating to the „rolling stock‟ sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (2008-232-EC TSI HS SRT [7]) clause 4.2.7.2.3.3 states „fire resistance requirements for fire barriers shall be minimum of 15 minutes for both integrity and heat insulation‟. CEN/TS 45545-3 [8] specifies the fire resistance requirements of fire barriers in specific locations. Table 1 in this standard refers to ten different fire barrier locations. and in the majority of scenarios the requirement is 15 minutes integrity. The most onerous requirement is for a fire barrier between luggage compartments and all areas in an Operation Category 4 train for which the integrity requirement is 30 minutes. Other scenarios which are relevant to passenger escape include barriers between adjacent passenger areas, and barriers between technical cabinets and passenger areas, for which the integrity requirements are 15 minutes. For all of the scenarios in Table 1 the testing is carried out in accordance with EN 1364-1 (walls) [9]. Annex A.5 of this standard gives recommendations on the specimen sizes and for indicative tests a furnace with minimum opening dimensions of 1m by 1m may be used.

Simulation of Integrity Modelling of thermal insulation was found to be the most predictable of the different factors contributing to fire separating function of fire barriers. Comparison with the experiments carried out both in small scale (cone calorimeter) and in intermediate scale (furnace tests) showed that FDS predictions for the performance level of thermal insulation were either the same or conservative (when detailed product parameters were not available). Insulation performance measured with the cone calorimeter serves as a first step in the damage or structural analysis. Products which do not essentially deform under fire conditions may be assumed to keep their integrity at least for the same time as insulation. In a more detailed analysis it is possible to estimate whether deformations are possible by observation of melting, charring and delamination. It is also possible to measure temperatures inside a test specimen to define critical temperatures of different layers and consequences (e.g. melting, delamination). Additionally changes in temperature rise curves may indicate delamination or other phenomena. The numerical tool uses as input data thickness and density (each layer), emissivity, thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity of the product of concern. Cone Calorimeter results can provide a check for the input parameters when all parameters are not available in detail. For further development of simulation tools also observations from the medium scale furnace tests (which are a smaller scale test than the 3m by 3m tests) provide valuable knowledge on critical temperature ranges, structural deformations, etc.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


I.3 Deviation from objectives

In the original DOW task 5.5 was concerned with the development of a numerical tool for the simulation of the thermo-mechanical behaviour of fire barriers during a fire in order to evaluate the fire effect on the structural integrity and hence the running capability of the train. The DOW was then amended so that the objective of task 5.5 was to simulate the fire response of a number of fire barrier materials and compare the results to medium scale furnace tests then establish correlations between the simulated and measured response of the fire barrier materials and the predicted Available Safe Escape Time.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Section II - Introduction

II.1. Development of Description of Work for Task 5.5

The original description of this task, as outlined in the Description of Work is as follows: EW, VTT, Tecnalia, Alstom, Siemens and Bombardier Transportation will work together to develop numerical simulation tools of the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the structures/protective structural elements during a fire adapted to organic materials, like composites. In order to evaluate the running capability of vehicle it is necessary to evaluate the fire effect on the structural integrity. It is possible by using numerical tools for the simulation of the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the structures during a fire. A new tool will be developed by adapting existing tools to the surface transportation. This study will be organized according to the following steps:

The state of the art about the thermo-mechanical models and their applications to fire reacting products like composites

The selection of the most appropriate fire designs for the trains according to the information of the task 4.3

To model the effect of these fires on the structural integrity by thermo-mechanical models. These models will be validated by taking into account some fire resistance results according to the prescriptive approach detailed in CEN/TS 45545 Part 3 [8] and tested with the fire design selected. Fire resistance tests on 3 types of fire barriers (including lightweight composite structures) will be conducted during this task according to EN 1364-1 (walls) [9]. The effects will be criteria for fire barriers (EW = Integrity and Radiation transfer or EI = Integrity and Insulation requirement). During months 12 to 14 of the project the objectives of the task were discussed at length. The FSE objective of the fire barriers is “To restrict the flow of smoke and toxic gases through a surface transport (especially a train or ship) and hence, to provide additional time for passengers and crew to escape from a smoke and toxic gas zone when there is a fire on board”. A number of actions were proposed at a meeting held during month 12 (27

th October 2010 in

Warrington and WP5.5N1). It was noted that for category B fire safety, the TSI HS specification relating to the „rolling stock‟ sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system (2008-232-EC TSI HS SRT [7]) clause 4.2.7.2.3.3 states „fire resistance requirements for fire barriers shall be minimum of 15 minutes for both integrity and heat insulation‟. It was proposed to: 1. Assess the fire barriers against the fire scenarios identified in WP4; for example, the influence

of Type 2 fires on critical equipment for running capability. CEN TS 45545: Part 1[10] describes ignition model 5, which is supported by previous research in the EC FIRESTARR project. This initial design fire, which may be assumed to represent a burning item of luggage, is described as:

Flaming source generating a radiant flux 20-25kWm

-2 applied to an area of 0.7m

2 with an

average heat of 75kW for a period of 2 min followed immediately by a flux of nominal value in the range 40-50kWm

-2 applied to the same area with an average heat of 150kW for a period of

8 minutes.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


2. Establish the locations of the fire barriers on the trains which go through long tunnels or underground. Table 1 of CEN TS 45545 Part 3 gives locations of fire barriers, and according to the HS TSI, the barriers which should be considered for running capability are numbers 6, 9 and 10.

The requirements of the above fire barriers concerning the running capability of the train would be checked against the guidance given in document EN 50553 „Running capability with fire on board‟ [11], which was then currently out for enquiry from CENELEC TC9X.WG13 and CEN/TC256. The TSI HS also requires rolling stock to be equipped with full cross section partitions within passenger/staff areas of each vehicle, with a maximum separation of 28m which shall satisfy requirements for integrity for a minimum of 15 minutes (assuming the fire can start from either side of the partition). This requirement implies that the integrity of communication doors between coaches should be compliant. In addition, penetrations through fire barriers caused by cables should also be assessed. a) Clause 4.2.7.2.3.3 of HS TSI „Fire resistance‟ also applies to conventional rail (CR) rolling

stock. Clause 4.2.10.5 supplements SRT TSI clause 4.2.5.4 „Fire barriers for passenger rolling stock‟ for conventional rolling stock.

b) In addition to the provisions in the SRT TSI, for Category B fire safety rolling stock, the requirement for full “cross section partitions within passenger/staff areas” is permitted to be met by Fire Spreading Prevention Measures (FSPM): -

If FSPM are used instead of full cross section partitions, it shall be demonstrated that:

They ensure that fire and smoke will not extend in dangerous concentrations over a length of more than 28m within the passenger/staff areas inside a unit, for at least 15 minutes after the start of a fire;

They are installed in each vehicle of the unit, which is intended to carry passengers and/or staff;

They provide at least the same level of safety to persons on board as full cross section partitions, with integrity of 15 minutes, which are tested in accordance with the requirements of EN 1363-1:1999 [12] partition test and assuming the fire can start from either side of the partition. [Note: This standard gives the principles of the fire resistance tests. The test itself is specified in EN 1364-1 for wall barriers.]

If the FSPM rely on reliability and availability of systems, components, or functions, their safety level shall be taken into account in the demonstration; in that case the global safety level to be met is an open point, which means that it shall be covered by an assessment standard supported by the ARGE pre-normative research results [11, 13]. If the above FSPM approach is to be applied in TRANSFEU to fire resistance of fire barriers, then the influence of active fire restricting measures will also need to be considered in WP4 concerning the spread of fire, smoke and toxic gases through open coaches (single and double deck).

The proposals also involved carrying out fire resistance tests. However, the most appropriate fire /time curve would have to be determined. A further proposal was put forward by Exova Warringtonfire during month 15. This approach involved a wider scope for Task 5.5, which involved looking at two ways to control fires in passenger rolling stock. The link would be to utilise, where appropriate on the train, fire spread prevention measures (FSPM). These FSPM may be passive (i.e. fire barriers) and active (i.e. detectors, sprinklers, etc.).

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Part 1: Fire barriers and partitions These passive protection measures shall operate for Type 2 and Type 3 fires and shall be governed by the appropriate TSI requirements. For example, HS-TSI Category B: a) Rolling stock shall be equipped with full cross section partitions within passenger/staff areas of

each vehicle with a maximum separation of 28m and these partitions shall satisfy requirements for integrity for at least 15 minutes (ref. EN 1363-1 and EN 1364-1);

b) The rolling stock shall be equipped with fire barriers that satisfy requirements for integrity and heat insulation for at least 15 minutes. The fire barriers which need special attention in view of their high fire risks to running capability of a train are:

Driver‟s cab to Compartment at rear of cab

Diesel engine to Adjacent Passenger/staff areas

Technical compartment (containing electrical supply line and/or traction circuit equipment) to Adjacent Passenger/staff areas.

Part 2: Active protection measures These active protection measures shall operate for Type 2 fires throughout the train. They shall be governed by the appropriate TSI requirements and by CEN/TS 45545-6 „Fire control and management systems‟ [14]. They shall be essential measures to complement the passive protection provided by fire barriers in the vicinity of high risk locations exemplified in Part 1. Particular attention shall be directed towards: a) Fire detection systems - the verification of performance of these systems shall be

demonstrated according to:

Location of initial fire

Size of fire

Materials burning in the fire

Characteristics of the detector

Air flow in the vicinity of the detector b) Fixed fire fighting equipment - the verification of performance of these systems shall be

demonstrated according to:

Areas requiring fixed fire fighting equipment

Hazards of extinguishing media

The type of discharge mechanism

Efficiency of extinguishment

II.3 Updated Description of Work For Task 5.5

The following decisions were made during a special Core Group meeting in Zurich on the 25

th August

2010 (Month 17): 1) There shall be no effort devoted to research on active fire protection measures. 2) The integrity of fire barriers shall be measured by techniques that are well established in the fire

testing sector. These procedures (including the cotton pad test) are specified in ISO 834 [2] and EN 1363.

3) There shall be no effort devoted to determination of smoke and noxious gases on the unexposed cold side of fire barriers.

The revised scope of Task 5.5 was discussed further in Brussels on the 8

th September 2010. The

scope for this subtask was still to develop a numerical tool for the simulation of the integrity of fire barriers on trains in the event of a fire on board. This would be done initially by modelling the fire growth in scenarios already defined in WP4 and WP5. This work would allow the selection of appropriate temperature/time curves so that relevant fire resistance tests could be conducted on vertical fire barriers using standard test methods (such as EN 1364-1[9] and EN 1363-2 [4]). The

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


validation of the proposed numerical tool may also require tests to be done on different scales (small, intermediate and large). In order to achieve these objectives discussions were held (27th October 2010) with the UK organisation NewRail, who are part of the University of Newcastle. It was proposed that NewRail should contribute to the task by developing a methodology and tool for predicting the integrity performance of fire barriers on trains. This knowledge could then be applied to estimate the ASET for passengers from a railway carriage in which there is a fire in an adjacent carriage and an intermediate fire barrier. NewRail proposed to collaborate with the TRANSFEU partners to: 1. Simulate the fire-response of the TRANSFEU WP5.5 candidate fire barrier materials using a

modified version of NewRail‟s in-house numerical tool, COM_FIRE. 2. Compare the results of NewRail‟s simulations against experimental furnace tests performed by

Exova Warringtonfire (UK) and Tecnalia (Spain). 3. Establish, in partnership with the WP5.5 partners, correlations between the simulated and

measured response of the fire barrier materials and the predicted available safe escape time for passengers.

The above collaboration was not pursued since it was too late in the project to accommodate an additional partner (or contractor) and NewRail were also heavily involved with another EC project FIRE-RESIST, which was essentially targeted to the development of new composite materials. The TRANSFEU Scientific Panel decided that the fire resistance and cone calorimeter testing would be carried out by Exova Warringtonfire and Tecnalia, and the modelling work would be carried out by VTT. When considering thermal radiation the transparent areas of fire barriers are most important however for this task it was not possible to test a fire barrier assembly with a door therefore a decision was made not to consider the radiation criteria in the testing or simulation work.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Section III - Structural Integrity Of Fire Barriers

III.1. Integrity

III.1.1 Definition According to EN 13501-2 [15] standard for building structures: Integrity E is the ability of the element of construction that has a separating function, to withstand fire exposure on one side only, without the transmission of fire to the unexposed side as a result of the passage of flames or hot gases. They may cause ignition either of the unexposed surface or of any material adjacent to that surface. The assessment of integrity shall generally be made on the basis of the following three aspects:

cracks or openings in excess of given dimensions;

ignition of a cotton pad;

sustained flaming on the unexposed side. Failure of the load bearing capacity criterion shall also be considered as failure of integrity. Where an element is classified E but without an I classification, the integrity value is defined as the time to failure of only the cracks/openings or sustained flaming criteria, whichever fails first. III.1.2 Modelling – characteristics and possibilities The integrity of a fire-exposed element of construction is lost when fire-induced damage to the barrier material along with thermal and mechanical strains cause the formation of cracks or openings that allow the passage of flames or hot gases to the element‟s unexposed side. Integrity is also considered lost when the load bearing capacity of the element decreases below a critical level. Computational assessment of integrity requires modelling of the element‟s fire-structural response. In the case of fibre-reinforced polymer composites suitable models have only recently become available. The following chapters give an overview of the present-day possibilities in fire-structural modelling of fibre-reinforced polymer composites. The discussion is based on a recent review article by Mouritz et al. [16]. The structural behaviour of fire-exposed composites is a result of the interaction of various thermal, chemical, physical and failure processes. These are summarised in Table 1 and Figure 1. From a modelling point of view, it should be noted that many of the processes are interdependent, and considering them in isolation from each other might lead to erroneous model predictions.

Category Processes

Thermal Heat conduction; heat generated from decomposition of the polymer matrix, organic fibres and organic core material; convective heat loss (egress of hot reaction gases and moisture vapours); heat generated through char or fibre oxidation; and heat generated by the ignition of flammable reaction gases.

Chemical Viscous softening, melting, decomposition and volatilisation of the polymer matrix, organic fibres and core material; formation, growth and oxidation of char; oxidation of carbon fibres; and char-fibre reactions.

Physical Thermal expansion and contraction; thermally-induced strains; internal pressure build-up (formation of volatile gases and vaporisation of moisture); formation of gas-filled pores; matrix-cracking; fibre-matrix interfacial debonding; delamination damage; surface ablation; and softening, slumping, melting and fusion of fibres.

Failure Various failure modes.

Table 1: Summary of fire-induced processes in fibre-reinforced polymer composites

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


The modelling effort can be divided into four steps, which include: (1) Modelling of the local fire environment, (2) Thermal response of the material, (3) Fire-induced damage to the material (4) Mechanical response of the structure under study. The first two steps will be discussed in Section III.2 in connection with modelling of the thermal insulation properties of polymer composites. The other two steps are discussed below. It should be borne in mind that the aforementioned steps are interdependent.

Figure 1: Schematic of the reaction processes in the through-thickness direction of a hot, decomposing polymer composite during fire exposure (from Reference [16])

III.1.3 Damage modelling of composites in fire Fire-induced damage has a significant influence on the structural properties of polymer composites. It has recently been shown that it can also affect the material‟s reaction to fire behaviour (time-to-ignition, heat release rate, etc.)[17]. Fire-induced damage includes matrix decomposition, pore formation, delamination cracking, matrix cracking, fibre-matrix debonding and char formation, among others. Delamination damage, matrix decomposition and char formation are especially important from the viewpoint of the composite‟s structural response. The role of pore formation, in contrast, is unclear. The temperature and duration of the fire; the volumetric dilations and toughness properties of the material at high temperature; and the type and magnitude of external loading are the main factors affecting the type and extent of fire-induced damage to composite structures. Damage models exist for the decomposition of the polymer matrix; and initiation and growth of voids, delaminations and char in polymer laminates (e.g. [18, 19]). However, each of these models considers only one type of damage to the barrier material, and a unified approach is lacking. For sandwich composites, a validated char model has not yet been developed.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


III.1.4 Mechanical modelling of composites in fire Various mechanical models exist for laminate and sandwich composites under combined compression loading and one-sided heating by fire (e.g. [20, 21]). These include average strength, Euler buckling and viscoelastic softening models for laminates and skin failure, buckling and skin wrinkling models for sandwich composites. The decay of mechanical properties with increasing temperature is described using analytical curve-fit equations with experimentally determined parameters. The current models do not take into consideration all the damage processes that control the mechanical properties of the composite, but concentrate solely on the weakening caused by matrix softening. Nevertheless, reasonable estimates of the failure times of compression-loaded composites in fire can be acquired [22. Fire-structural modelling of composites under tension loading is more demanding than in the case of compression. A recently developed modelling approach allows the analysis of softening and failure of fire-exposed fibreglass laminates under tension [23]. The model does not take into consideration the effects of thermal strain, pore formation, delamination and fibre-matrix debonding. Fire-structural models of composites for loading conditions other than tension and compression have not been developed.

III.2 Insulation

III.2.1 Definitions EN 13501-2 [15]: Thermal insulation I is the ability of the element of construction to withstand fire exposure on one side only, without the transmission of fire as a result of significant transfer of heat from the exposed side to the unexposed side. Transmission shall be limited so that neither the unexposed surface nor any material in close proximity to that surface is ignited. The element shall also provide a barrier to heat, which is sufficient to protect people near to it. For all separating elements except doors and shutters the performance level used to define thermal insulation shall be the mean temperature rise on the unexposed face limited to 140°C above the initial mean temperature, with the maximum temperature rise at any point limited to 180°C above the initial mean temperature.

III.2.2 Modelling – characteristics and possibilities Predicting thermal insulation properties of an element of construction equates to calculating the temperature distribution through the element when subjected to one-sided heating by fire. This requires modelling of the fire-induced heat exposure and the various processes that control heat transfer in the material. Once the temperature distribution is determined, the performance level of the element is readily obtained from the time-temperature curve of its unexposed surface. The temperature distribution also serves as a critical first step in the analysis of damage to the barrier material in fire, which in turn is needed for a complete structural fire analysis and predicting the element‟s structural integrity.

III.2.2.1 Local fire environment

Fire-thermal analysis begins with modelling of the local fire environment. The simplest approach is to use a predefined time-temperature curve to represent the mean temperature in the fire compartment. The bounding gas temperature at all fire-exposed surfaces is then assumed to follow this curve. While straightforward to implement, this and other analytical approaches to fire modelling have obvious limitations. More advanced methods include zone models and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models that are capable of describing the local variations and dynamics of the fire event. The various approaches to fire modelling are discussed in [24, 25, 26].

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


III.2.2.2 Heat transfer

A thermal model is needed to predict the spatial-temporal temperature distribution of the fire-exposed element of construction. The main thermal, chemical and physical processes that have an effect on the temperature distribution of a fibre-reinforced polymer composite include (according to [16]) heat conduction through virgin material and char; decomposition of polymer matrix and organic fibres; flow of gases from the reaction zone through the char zone; thermal expansion and contraction; pressure rise; formation of delamination, matrix cracks and voids; reactions between char and fibre reinforcement; and ablation. It should be noted that the above-mentioned processes are temperature-dependent. Several thermal models for composites have been developed in the past few decades (e.g. [19, 27-30]). Each of them has a characteristic set of heat transfer related processes that are considered in the analysis, while the fundamental processes of heat conduction, polymer decomposition and volatile gas flow are taken into consideration in all of the models. A summary of the model features is given in Table 2. Most of the thermal models are based on iteratively solving a modified version of the equation by Henderson et al. [19]. While a two- or three-dimensional generalization is possible, they typically assume heat transfer to occur in the through-thickness direction only. Validation studies of the models based on Henderson equation have shown that they can predict the temperature distribution in polymer laminate and sandwich composites with good accuracy (e.g. [19, 30]).

[15] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Heat conduction through virgin material and char

Decomposition of polymer matrix and organic fibres

Flow of gases from the reaction zone through the char zone

Thermal expansion/contraction

Pressure rise

Formation of delamination, matrix cracks and voids

Reactions between char and fibre reinforcement

Ablation

Table 2. Heat transfer related processes considered in various thermal models. The symbols mean that the model considers () or does not () consider the process. Taken from [16].

The thermal models require a large amount of empirical data as user input. This includes thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity and decomposition reaction rate constants. These properties change with temperature and thus need to be determined over the temperature range of interest. Some properties may be difficult to measure and need to be assumed or estimated. The amount of required user input can be reduced by a simplified description of polymer decomposition where the decomposition state at any temperature is calculated directly from the TGA curve of the polymer matrix [16]. Validation studies of a model utilizing this simplification are as of yet unfinished. Fire-induced damage may significantly influence the thermal properties of composites. Delamination damage, for example, slows down heat transport by creating air gaps between the plies of a laminate. Most of the current thermal models do not consider the effect of delamination. Luo and Desjardin [31] recently developed a model capable of predicting the effects of cracking to the thermal conductivity of laminates.

III.2.2.3 Combined fire-thermal analysis

Fire-thermal analysis requires coupling, interoperability or integration of a fire model and a thermal model. In the simplest case this means transferring a single time-temperature or time-heat flux curve from the fire model and applying it as a boundary condition in the thermal model. This kind of decoupling of the fire from the composite is a common feature among the thermal models introduced in the previous chapter. A more advanced approach would take into consideration the thermal feedback from the composite surface into the fire.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


III.3 Radiation Transfer

III.3.1 Definitions EN 13501-2 [15]: Radiation W is the ability of the element of construction to withstand fire exposure on one side only, so as to reduce the probability of the transmission of fire as a result of significant radiated heat either through the element or from its unexposed surface to adjacent materials. The element may also need to protect people in the vicinity. An element which satisfies the thermal insulation criterion I, I1 or I2 is also deemed to satisfy the W requirement for the same period. Failure of integrity under the „cracks or openings in excess of given dimensions‟ or the „sustained flaming at unexposed side‟ criteria means automatically failure of the radiation criterion. Transport products or elements for which the radiation criterion is evaluated shall be identified by the addition of a W to the classification (e.g. EW, REW). For such elements, the classification shall be given by the time for which the maximum value of radiation, measured as specified in the test standard, does not exceed a designated value. In an Operation Category 3 train where the fire originates in a passenger area the radiation in the adjacent protected passenger area should not exceed 15kW/m

2.

In an Operation Category 3 train where the fire originates in a passenger area the radiation in the adjacent protected Driver‟s cab should not exceed 2.5kW/m

2 at a distance of 1m from the vicinity of

the driver. In both cases the requirement is W15. III.3.2 Modelling – characteristics and possibilities Any modelling approach capable of predicting the thermal insulation properties of an element of construction can also be used to predict the intensity of thermal radiation from the unexposed surface of an opaque element or barrier product. However, transparent areas of fire barriers are the main concern when thermal radiation is considered. For these the key factor is the absorption of radiation in the material. If the absorption coefficient is known (from experiments at relevant conditions), then the transmitted radiation can be calculated. Note: Within Task 5.5 the requirement for radiation performance has not been included at this stage.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Section IV - Experimental Work – Samples and Methods

The programme of fire resistance and Cone Calorimeter testing was carried out by Tecnalia and Exova Warringtonfire on four different fire barrier samples. Two of the samples were obtained from Spain and two samples were obtained from the United Kingdom. IV.1 Fire Barrier Samples

The samples provided by the Spanish manufacturer were as follows:

WP5.5A This product consisted of a birch plywood core with a high pressure laminate coating, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Spanish product WP5.5A

WP5.5B This product was a waterproof panel consisting of a sandwich of aluminium and 100% birch plywood sandwich around a cork rubber core, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Spanish product WP5.5B

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


WP5.5C and WP5.5D The samples provided by the UK manufacturer were made of the same glass fibre - reinforced phenolic composite with two different thicknesses: one with a thickness of 7-9 mm and one with a thickness of 19-21 mm. IV.2 Cone Calorimeter Tests

Cone calorimeter tests were carried out by both laboratories on all four samples in order to determine the heat release rate and the mass loss. The samples were prepared in accordance with the proposal submitted by VTT, whereby each test specimen was mounted in the following configuration:

Metal frame

Test specimen (with 12mm diameter copper disc, type K thermocouple mounted on the reverse face in the centre of the specimen)

Calcium silicate blocks (to provide an air space behind the reverse face)

Ceramic fibre blanket (A1) insulation

Specimen holder This configuration is outlined in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. Cone calorimeter sample configuration

In the case of each specimen tested, the spark ignitor was used. A scan rate of 1 second was used to record the temperature readings from the thermocouple situated on the reverse face of the specimen, and a scan rate of 2 seconds was used to record the heat release rate and mass loss data. Test data was collected for a period of 1800 seconds. Each specimen was exposed to a heat flux of 50kW/m

2 at

a distance of 25mm. IV.3 Fire Resistance Tests

Fire resistance tests were carried out by both laboratories on all four samples utilising the heating and pressure conditions given in BS EN 1363-1: 1999 [12] and BS EN 1363-2 [4], and the principles of medium-scale furnace tests that are currently being standardised in ISO 834-12 [1]. The purpose of the test was to provide an indication of the performance of the fire barrier materials when exposed to the heating conditions specified in EN 1363 -1 and EN 1363-2.

Sample

Calcium Silicate 20mm

Type K Thermocouple

A1 insulation 10mm

Air

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


At Exova each test specimen measured 1000mm by 900mm and was installed into an aerated blockwork wall, which was then mounted onto the front of a 1.5m by 2m deep gas fired furnace chamber. At Tecnalia each test specimen measured 1000mm by 1000mm and was installed into an aerated blockwork wall, which was then mounted onto the front of a 1.0 m by 1.0m deep fuel fired furnace chamber.

Figure 6. Assembly of fire resistance specimens and location of thermocouples

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Section V - Fire Exposure Levels in the Experiment

Initially the train builder partners in TRANSFEU were asked to carry out modelling to determine the most appropriate heating curve to use for the tests. Each train builder was to consider two simulations in order to define a new temperature curve and the simulations would consider real rolling stock. Alstom was the only partner to deliver a proposal, which considered a single deck TGV train. Two scenarios were examined, where the first one was a heat source under a passenger seat and the second was a fire in an electric box (as in ISO 834 [2]). In the numerical simulations it was assumed that the doors were always open, that there were no passengers and also that there was no extract ventilation. The assumed material properties in the simulations were as follows:

Seats: Polyurethane foam Wall: Stainless steel Table: Wood Windows: Glass Rack: Stainless steel and glass Ceiling: Stainless steel

The numerical simulations did not take into account layers of paint or glue which may have been present in the real train, and fabric was not included in the material properties of the seats, which is analogous to a vandalised seat. The two curves produced by Alstom of temperature versus time gave the temperatures over the first 10 minutes. For the first temperature curve the temperatures were taken at the bottom of the wall behind the seat and the temperature reached approximately 420°C after 10 minutes. For the second temperature curve the temperatures were taken on the ceiling the temperature reached approximately 570°C after 10 minutes. These two curves fell between the ISO 834 and slow heating curves therefore it was decided to use the ISO 834 standard heating curve and the slow heating curve in the fire test experiments. Two specimens were provided for each material, one was exposed to the ISO 834 standard heating curve, as described in Clause 5.1 of BS EN 1363-1: 1999, and the other was exposed to a slow heating curve as described in Clause 6.2 of BS EN 1363-2: 1999. The time-temperature curves, heat fluxes and total energies of different exposures are illustrated in Figures 7, 8 and 9. Figures 8 and 9 also include heat fluxes and total energies used in the Cone Calorimeter experiments. The exposed total energy in 30 min ISO 834 is equivalent to 30min 50kW/m

2 heat flux in cone calorimeter

Figure 7. Time-temperature curves for different exposures in the furnace test

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 8. Heat fluxes for different exposures

Figure 9. Total energy for different exposures

As the furnace tests were performed on specimens of reduced dimensions the test could not be carried out fully in accordance with BS EN 1363-1. The performance criteria of the standard were applied; however, any modes of failure within 100mm of the perimeter of the test specimen were disregarded for the purposes of the results. Any such failures were included in the observations but for the purposes of the final result summary failures at the edges were ignored. This was because Annex A.4 of CEN/TS 45545-3 states that the test specimen should be mounted in a supporting construction designed to reproduce the required conditions or the design boundary and support conditions. If the test specimen is smaller than 3m by 3m, the edges of the test specimen shall be restrained as in practice. In these tests the specimens are not restrained as in practice: therefore failures at the edges were ignored. During the test the performance was assessed using 5 unexposed surface thermocouples in the usual standard 5 locations. Cotton pads and gap gauges, plus observations of burn through/sustained flaming were made in-line with EN 1363 ignoring the perimeter of the test specimen. Visual observations were made with particular reference to smoke release quantities and locations. Photographs were taken at least every 5 minutes and at both laboratories a video of the test was made viewing the entire unexposed surface for the test duration.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Small variations in joint construction can affect the integrity of test specimens. If a construction is tested with sealing materials in the joints then the test results are only valid for joints with the same type of sealing materials. Any barriers with doors in them should be tested with the door in place and any door seals provided.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Section VI - Experimental Results

VI.1 Cone Calorimeter Tests

a) Exova Warringtonfire Results

The results of the cone calorimeter tests are summarised in Tables 3 and 4.

Spanish material (WP5.5A) Spanish material (WP5.5B)

Radiant heat flux level (kW/m2) 50 50

Peak RHR (kW/m2) 167 216

Time to reach 140°C (s) 1041 900

Mass loss rate (g/m2s) 7 9

Mass loss (g) 90 80

Time to ignition (s) 36 790

Table 3. Cone calorimeter results for Spanish products tested at Exova

UK material (WP5.5C) UK material (WP5.5D)





Mass loss (g) 46 79


Table 4 Cone calorimeter results for UK products tested at Exova

The above results are an average of two specimens for each material. The thermocouple on WP5.5B specimen 1 failed (to open circuit) at a time of approximately 1170 seconds; hence temperature data was only recorded up to this point. In the case of specimen 2, the specimen was observed to deform and rise up slightly. The spark arm was subsequently observed to make contact with the test specimen at a time of approximately 1110 seconds. It is believed that this „electrical interference‟ affected the thermocouple reading. This contact with the spark arm also affected the mass loss data recorded. The mass loss data (g) in the table is taken from weighings of the actual specimen before and after the test. b) Tecnalia Results The results of the cone calorimeter tests are summarised in Tables 5 and 6.

Spanish material (WP5.5A) Spanish material (WP5.5B)



Time to reach 140°C (s) 1560 1680


Mass loss (g) 91 16

Time to ignition (s) 90 Not recorded

Table 5. Cone calorimeter results for Spanish products tested at Tecnalia

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


UK material (WP5.5C) UK material (WP5.5D)





Mass loss (g) 36 68


Table 6. Cone calorimeter results for UK products tested at Tecnalia

The above results are an average of two specimens for each material. VI.2 Fire Resistance Tests

Comparison of Exova Warringtonfire and Tecnalia Results The results of the fire resistance tests are summarised in Table 7 and in Appendix C.

Test No. Heating Curve Material Thickness (mm) Exova Time to integrity

failure (min)

Tecnalia Time to integrity

failure (min)

1 Standard Spanish WP 5.5A 18-20 27 24

2 Slow rate Spanish WP 5.5A 18-20 43 43

3 Standard Spanish WP 5.5B 14-15 21 21

4 Slow rate Spanish WP 5.5B 14-15 38 38

5 Standard UK WP5.5C 7-9 64 22

6 Slow rate UK WP5.5C 7-9 81 43

7 Standard UK WP5.5D 19-21 166 54

8 Slow rate UK WP5.5D 19-21 151 98

Table 7. Comparison of fire resistance test results for UK and Spanish products

It can be seen from Table 7 that the time to integrity failure of the UK material samples is considerably lower in the test results from Tecnalia than in the results from Exova. This can be explained by examining the observations from each test to determine when the flaming was first observed in the sample, as outlined in Table 8.

Test No. Heating Curve Material Thickness (mm) Exova Time to first

flaming (min)

Tecnalia Time to first

flaming (min)

5 Standard UK WP5.5C 6 24 22

6 Slow rate UK WP5.5C 6 43 43

7 Standard UK WP5.5D 20 54 54

8 Slow rate UK WP5.5D 20 94 98

Table 8. Comparison of time taken to first flames occurring

From Table 8 it can be seen that very similar results are observed by both testing laboratories for the samples. However the test was continued at Exova, ignoring any flaming that occurred within 100mm of the perimeter of the test specimen, and failure was deemed to have occurred when flames were clearly visible or the cotton pad ignited in areas inside of this boundary zone The running capability as defined in D3.2 (TSI-SRT) could be up to 15 minutes depending on the Operation Category of the train. For all fire barrier materials tested the time to integrity failure was greater than 15 minutes.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Section VII - Modelling of fire barrier performance

VII.1 Sub-models and principles

Modelling of thermal insulation is the most predictable of the different factors contributing to fire separating function of fire barriers. The temperature distribution calculated in insulation modelling also serves as a critical first step in the analysis of damage to the material in fire, which in turn is needed for a structural analysis and predicting the element‟s structural integrity. The modelling activities are based on prediction of insulation (temperature profiles) using simplified robust assumptions and methods. Use of FDS simulation tool Fire exposure can be the defined by standard temperature-time curves, defined heat fluxes or predicted temperature-time curves in a coach (FDS simulation results). In this work heat transfer in a fire barrier is calculated using FDS [32]. The geometry of an FDS model is described using rectangular solid obstructions. Solid surfaces can consist of multiple layers of materials, and each homogenous layer can in turn consist of multiple material components. Materials can undergo several thermal degradation reactions that produce solid residue, water vapour and gaseous fuels. Temperature distribution inside a solid obstruction is obtained by solving a one-dimensional heat conduction equation in the through-thickness direction of the solid [33].

, (1)

where , and are the component-averaged density, volumetric heat capacity and thermal

conductivity respectively. The source term describes the effects of chemical reactions and absorption of thermal radiation. The user needs to specify the thickness of each layer of the solid and the mass fractions of the corresponding material components. The heat transfer calculation requires thermal properties of the materials to be specified. These include thermal conductivity, density, specific heat capacity, emissivity and absorption coefficient. A temperature-dependency can be given for both thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity. Finally, in detailed analysis each chemical reaction requires kinetic parameters of the reaction rate to be given (or a substitutive set of parameters obtained from a TGA experiment [32]). A special type of delamination damage where the outermost layer of a laminate is lost is possible to be modelled as a chemical reaction that causes rapid thermal degradation after a critical temperature is reached. Estimation of structural damage and guidance on coupling of fire dynamics and structural response modelling Based on calculated (by FDS) temperature profiles and data on critical temperatures (melting, ignition, delamination, etc.) structural damage estimations and effects on fire separating function may be further analysed. Literature data together with TGA data and observations from the TRANSFEU fire resistance tests can be used to estimate critical temperatures. The main principles to couple heat exposure (standard curve or FDS simulation) and structural FEM analysis are described in the following (practical tools for the communication between these codes are being developed outside the TRANSFEU project).

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


One-way sequential coupling is the simplest form of interoperability that can be established between FDS and a finite element code for fire-structural analysis (Figure 10). In this approach the simulation of fire dynamics is performed independently of the simulation of thermal and structural response.

Figure 10. Schematic diagram of one-way sequential FDS-FEA coupling

After the fire simulation is completed, heat exposure data from FDS is transferred to the FEA to be used as a boundary condition for thermal-structural analysis. The heat exposure data can be given in many forms. Possible exchange quantities include surface temperature; net heat flux; radiative heat flux and local gas temperature; and adiabatic surface temperature [34]. The choice of the exchange quantity and its effect on the accuracy of the thermal analysis are discussed in [34, 35]. It should be noted that there is no feedback from the thermal-structural analysis to the fire model. Differences in spatial and temporal discretisations of the two simulation codes are the main challenge in establishing interoperability. Automated mapping and interpolation of thermal data between two non-conforming computational meshes is challenging to implement. In addition, the rectilinear and relatively coarse mesh used in FDS provides a non-typical starting point for the mesh association problem. Computer codes developed for solving this kind of problems exist (e.g. [36, 37]). However, most of them are not directly applicable to FDS-FEA coupling. The mesh association problem can be simplified by importing heat exposure data from only a few points in the fire simulation domain. In this case mapping of data between the two codes can be performed manually. This kind of coupling can be realized with ABAQUS [38] and other widely used FEA codes.

VII.2 Input data used in modelling insulation performance

To predict the performance of the tested fire barrier products, the following input data was used in this simplified approach:

Thickness (total and each different layer/substance)

Density (total and each different layer/substance)

Emissivity

Thermal conductivity (temperature-dependent, or range of validity of constant (average) value)

Specific heat capacity (temperature-dependent, or range of validity of constant (average) value). Solid phase decomposition reactions and gas phase combustion reactions were not included in the FDS model. In other words, the tests were approximated as one-dimensional heat conduction problems without damage modelling. In simulating the cone calorimeter tests the limited air space under the specimen was approximated as stone wool insulation because an open air assumption would not reflect the testing conditions correctly. In the furnace test simulations the unexposed surface was open to air.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Material parameters used in the FDS simulations are given in Tables 9-17. Parameters for aluminium, rubber and HPL are taken from [39-42], while the properties of plywood and stone wool are based on information found in manufacturer data sheets. Some of the parameters (e.g. emissivity) were fine-tuned to take into account effects like charring. Due to lack of information from the manufacturer, material parameters for glass-reinforced phenolic (GRP) were mostly estimates based on general literature values. In most cases, temperature-independent values were considered adequate.

Density (kg/m³) 2701

Conductivity (W/m·K) cf. Table 10

Specific heat capacity (kJ/kg·K) cf. Table 11

Emissivity 0.30

Table 9. Material properties of aluminium

Temperature (°C) Conductivity (W/m·K)

-73 237

-23 235

27 237

127 240

227 236

327 231

527 218

Table 10. Conductivity of aluminium

Temperature (°C) Specific Heat Capacity (kJ/kg·K)

-73 0.797

-23 0.859

27 0.902

127 0.949

227 0.997

327 1.042

527 1.134

727 0.921

927 0.921

Table 11. Specific heat capacity of aluminium


Conductivity (W/m·K) 0.15

Specific heat capacity (kJ/kg·K) 2.4

Emissivity 0.9

Table 12. Material properties of plywood




Emissivity 0.9

Table 13. Material properties of rubber

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P





Emissivity 0.9

Table 14. Material properties of HPL

Density (kg/m³) 75.0

Conductivity (W/m·K) cf. Table 16


Emissivity 0.4

Table 15. Material properties of stone wool

Temperature (°C) Conductivity (W/m·K)

10 0.034

50 0.038

100 0.046

150 0.054

200 0.065

300 0.090

400 0.123

500 0.162

Table 16. Conductivity of stone wool

Density (kg/m³) 7.4 mm thick 20.1 mm thick

1300 1340



Emissivity 0.9

Table 17. Material properties of GRP

Examples of FDS input files are given in Appendix A (Cone Calorimeter test) and Appendix B (furnace test).

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


VII.3 Comparisons with experiments

Cone calorimeter tests Simulation results and comparison with experiments for the cone calorimeter tests are shown in Figures 11-14. Temperature measurements are from the opposite side of the exposed surface. No measurements were conducted for temperatures between the laminate layers.

Figure 11. Cone calorimeter results for HPL-Plywood-HPL laminate

In the case of HPL-Plywood-HPL and Al-Plywood-Rubber-Plywood-Al laminates, simulations are in a good agreement with the experiments (compared with Exova results which show shorter insulation times than Tecnalia results). On the other hand, for the GRP samples there is a clear overshoot in the FDS predictions for temperature. It is to be noted that there was not available detailed product data for the GRP products and thus general literature was used in the simulations. No solid phase reactions were included in the FDS model and therefore comparisons of calculated and measured mass losses are not available. In all of the cases, FDS predictions for the performance level of thermal insulation are conservative.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 12. Cone calorimeter results for Al-Plywood-Rubber-Plywood-Al laminate

Figure 13. Cone calorimeter results for GRP 7.4 mm thick (WP5.5C)

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 14. Cone calorimeter results for GRP 20 mm thick (WP5.5D)

Medium scale furnace tests Simulation results and comparison with experiments for the medium scale furnace tests are shown in Figures 15-22. Temperature scales are identical and time scales are adjusted to display the most important features of the time-temperature curves – especially the crossing of the 140°C increase in temperature on the unexposed surface. As in the case of cone calorimeter tests, temperature measurements are from the opposite side of the exposed surface and no measurements were conducted for temperature between the laminate layers. No solid-phase reactions were included in the FDS model and therefore comparisons of predicted and recorded damage effects have to be based solely on the crossing of critical temperatures. In all of the cases, FDS predictions for the performance level of thermal insulation are either similar or conservative.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 15. Furnace results for HPL-Plywood-HPL laminate, ISO 834-1 heating curve

Figure 16. Furnace results for HPL-Plywood-HPL laminate, EN 1363-2 slow heating curve

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 17. Furnace results for Al-Plywood-Rubber-Plywood-Al laminate,

ISO 834-1 heating curve

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 18. Furnace results for Al-Plywood-Rubber-Plywood-Al laminate,

EN 1363-2 slow heating curve

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 19. Furnace results for GRP 7.4 mm,

ISO 834-1 heating curve

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 20. Furnace results for GRP 7.4 mm, EN 1363-2 slow heating curve

Figure 21. Furnace results for GRP 20 mm, ISO 834-1 heating curve

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Figure 22. Furnace results for GRP 20 mm, EN 1363-2 slow heating curve

Insulation time test results in the furnace and in the Cone Calorimeter are compared with the FDS simulations for the four products in Tables 18-21. Note that in these tables the worst case data refer to single temperature measurements which give some indication of the uncertainty range of the measured values. FDS predictions are either quite similar or conservative (when detailed product parameters were not available) compared to the furnace test results. Cone Calorimeter results at 50 kW/m

2 are quite close to the FDS predictions for ISO 834-1 heating curve.

Insulation time (min)

Furnace exposure Cone Calorimeter test at 50 kW/m

2

Heating curve Test result FDS simulation

ISO 834-1 24 – 27 (24*) 25 19 - 25

EN 1363-2 Slow heating

43 (40*) 40 -

*Worst case data

Table 18. Insulation time results for HPL-Plywood-HPL

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P




2


ISO 834-1 21 (20*) 19 17 - 28


38 (37*) 35 -

*Worst case data

Table 19. Insulation time results for Al-Plywood-Rubber-Plywood-Al



2


ISO 834-1 8 - 13 (6*) 4 5 - 6


29 (10*) 9 -

*Worst case data

Table 20. Insulation time results for GRP 7.4 mm (WP5.5C)



2


ISO 834-1 40 (21*) 14 16 - 19


56 - 64 (41*) 29 -

*Worst case data

Table 21. Insulation time results for GRP 20 mm (WP5.5D)

VII.4 Conclusions on modelling fire separating performance

Modelling of thermal insulation is the most predictable of the different factors contributing to fire separating function of fire barriers. Comparison with the experiments carried out both in small scale (cone calorimeter) and in intermediate scale (furnace tests according to ISO 834-1 and EN 1363-2 slow heating curves) showed that FDS predictions for the performance level of thermal insulation were either the same or conservative (when detailed product parameters were not available). The temperature distribution calculated in insulation modelling also serves as a first step in the damage or structural analysis. Thus the prediction of insulation (=temperature profiles) using simplified robust assumptions can be used as the first estimate also for integrity in case of barrier products which do not essentially deform under fire conditions. Reasonably thin products (like those tested in this work; i.e. not more than about 20 mm thick) do not have very high temperatures for half of the thickness because the limiting temperature rise in opposite side of exposure is only 140°C.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Furthermore, in a more detailed analysis it is possible to estimate whether deformations are possible if detailed product information (chemical substances used, structural layer or matrix structure, etc.) is available. Based on calculated (by FDS) temperature profiles and data on critical temperatures (melting, ignition, delamination, etc.) structural damage estimations and effects on fire separating function can be evaluated. Critical temperature estimates can be based on literature data or TGA measurements. Coupling of heat exposures (furnace testing curves or FDS simulation curves of coaches) and structural FEM analysis may be possible in the near future when new software tools become available. However, the benefits of sophisticated calculations may be only minor if the product parameters are not known in high accuracy. Cone Calorimeter scale experiments can used to estimate real scale fire separating performance as described below: Insulation performance: Estimates using 50 kW/m

2 heat flux level are close to furnace test results

according to ISO 834-1 exposure when the exposure time is not more than 30 min. The 50 kW/m2

heat flux exposure is more severe than the ISO 834-1 exposure for times not exceeding 20 minutes. Integrity performance: Insulation performance measured with the cone calorimeter serves as a first step in the damage or structural analysis. Products which do not essentially deform under fire conditions may be assumed to keep their integrity at least the same time as insulation. In a more detailed analysis it is possible to estimate whether deformations are possible by observation of melting, charring and delamination. It is also possible to measure temperatures inside the test specimen to define critical temperatures of different layers and consequences (e.g. melting, delamination). Additionally changes in temperature rise curves may indicate delamination or other phenomena. Furthermore, cone calorimeter experiments together with FDS simulations can be used to define real scale fire separating performance for assumed fire exposures. In this case the Cone Calorimeter results provide a check for the input parameters (which are not often available in detail) used in the FDS calculations.

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


References

1. ISO 834. Fire resistance tests – Elements of building construction – Part 12 Specific requirements for separating elements evaluated on less than full scale furnaces

2. ISO 834. Fire resistance tests - Element of building construction - Part 1: General requirements

3. ISO 30021 Plastics – Intermediate scale fire resistance tests – Tests for fibre-reinforced polymer composites

4. EN 1363-2: 1999. Fire resistance tests. Alternative and additional procedures. 5. The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, adopted on 2

April 1977 and superceded by the 1993 Torremolinos protocol, International Maritime Organization (IMO)

6. IMO A.754 (18) Recommendation on Fire Resistance Tests for “A”, “B” and “F” class divisions, adopted on 4 November 1993.

7. 2008-232-EC TSI HS SRT 8. CEN/TS 45545-3. Railway applications. Fire protection on railway vehicles. Fire resistance

requirements for fire barriers, 2009. 9. EN 1364-1. Fire resistance tests for non-loadbearing elements. Walls. 1999. 10. CEN/TS 45545-1. Railway applications. Fire protection on railway vehicles. General, 2009. 11. EN 50553: 2012. Railway applications. Requirements for running capability in case of fire on

board of rolling stock. 12. EN 1363-1: 1999. Fire resistance tests. General requirements. 13. ARGE – Richlinien Brandbekämpfung in Schienenfahrzeugen – V1.1. 14. CEN/TS 45545-6. Railway applications. Fire protection on railway vehicles. Fire control and

management systems, 2009. 15. EN 13501-2: 2007 + A1: 2009. Fire classification of construction products and building

elements. Classification using data from fire resistance tests, excluding ventilation services. 16. A.P. Mouritz et al., “Review of fire structural modelling of polymer composites”, Composites:

Part A, 40, 2009, pp.1800-1814 17. A.E. Elmughrabi, M. Robinson and A.G. Gibson, “Effect of stress on the fire reaction

properties of polymer composite laminates”, Polym. Degrad. Stabil., 93, 2008, pp. 1877-1883 18. A.G. Gibson et al., ”The integrity of polymer composites during and after fire”, J. Compos.

Mater., 38, 2004, pp.1283-1308 19. J.B. Henderson, J.A. Wiebelt and M.R. Tant, “A model for the thermal response of polymer

composite materials with experimental verification”, J. Compos. Mater., 19, 1985, pp. 579-595 20. P. Krysl, W.T. Ramroth, L.K. Steward, R.J. Asaro, “Finite element modelling of fibre reinforced

polymer sandwich composites exposed to heat”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 61, 2004, pp49-68

21. P. Gu, R.J. Asaro, “Distortion of polymer matrix composite panels under transverse thermal gradients”, Compos. Struct., 82, 2008, pp. 413-421

22. S. Feih et al., “Modelling the compression strength of polymer laminates in fire”, J. Compos. Mater., 40, 2006, pp. 639-658

23. S. Feih et al., “Tensile strength modelling of glass fiber-polymer composites in fire”, J. Compos. Mater., 41, 2007, pp. 2387-2410

24. B. Karlsson and J.G. Quintiere, “Enclosure fire dynamics”, CRC Press LLC, 2000 25. W.D. Walton, D.J. Carpenter and C.B. Wood, “Zone computer fire models for enclosures”, The

SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th edition, National Fire Protection

Association, 2008 26. K. McGrattan and S. Miles, “Modeling enclosure fires using computational fluid dynamics

(CFD)”, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th edition, National Fire

Protection Association, 2008 27. R.M. Sullivan and N.J. Salamon, “A finite element method for the thermochemical

decomposition of polymeric materials – I. Theory”, Int. J. Eng. Sci., 30, 1992, pp. 431-441 28. H.L. McManus and G.S. Springer, “High temperature thermomechanical behaviour of carbon-

phenolic and carbon-carbon composites, I. Analysis”, J. Compos. Mater., 26, 1992, pp. 206-229

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


29. Y.I. Dimitrienko, “Thermomechanical behaviour of composite materials and structures under high temperatures: 1. Materials”, Composites, 28A, 1997, pp. 453-461

30. A.G. Gibson et al., ”A model for the thermal performance of thick composite laminates in hydrocarbon fires”, Rev. L‟Inst. Franc. Petrol., 50, 1995, pp. 69-74

31. C. Luo and P.E. DesJardin, “Evaluation of thermal transport properties using a micro-cracking model for woven composite laminates”, In: Proceedings of the 17

th international conference on

composite materials, 27-31 July 2009, Edinburgh, UK, 2009 32. K.B. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, and J.E. Floyd, “Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5), User‟s

Guide”, NIST Special Publication 1019-5, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, October 2007.

33. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland. Fire Dynamics Simulator, Technical Reference Guide, 5th edition, October 2007. NIST Special Publication 1018-5 (Four volume set).

34. U. Wickstrom, D. Duthinh, K.B. McGrattan, ”Adiabatic Surface Temperature for Calculating Heat Transfer to Fire Exposed Structures”, Interflam 2007. (Interflam '07). International Interflam Conference, 11th Proceedings. Volume 2. September 3-5, 2007, London, England, 943-953 pp., 2007.

35. D. Duthinh, K. McGrattan, A. Khaskia, “Recent advances in fire-structural analysis”, Fire Safety Journal, 43, 2008, pp. 161-167

36. A. Jowsey, “Fire imposed heat fluxes for structural analysis”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2006

37. W. Joppich et al., “MpCCI - a tool for the simulation of coupled applications”, Concurrency Computat.: Pract. Exper. 18, 2006, pp. 183–192

38. Abaqus 6.10 User Documentation, Dessault Systems, 2007. 39. Rohsenov, Hartnett and Ganic, "Handbook of heat transfer fundamentals", McGraw-Hill, 1985 40. Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants (16th edition 1995). 2.3.7 Thermal conductivities.

Kaye & Laby Online. Version 1.0 (2005) 41. Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants (16th edition 1995). 2.3.6 Specific heat capacities.

Kaye & Laby Online. Version 1.0 (2005) 42. E. Mikkola, “Puupinnan syttyminen”, VTT Research Notes 1057, Espoo, 1989

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Appendix A – FDS input file for cone calorimeter test

&HEAD CHID='ex2',TITLE='Cone calorimeter, Al-Plywood-Rubber-Plywood-Al' / ! Simulation of a cone calorimeter experiment &MESH IJK=3,3,4,XB=-0.15,0.15,-0.15,0.15,0.0,0.4 / &TIME T_END=1800.0,DT=0.001,WALL_INCREMENT=1 / &DUMP SMOKE3D=.FALSE.,DT_DEVC=1.0,DT_BNDF=1.0,DT_PROF=10.0 / &MISC TMPA=20.2 / ! Geometry &VENT MB='XMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='XMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='YMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='YMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='ZMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN' / ! Specimen &VENT XB=-0.05,0.05,-0.05,0.05,0.00,0.00, SURF_ID='SPECIMEN' / &SURF ID='SPECIMEN' EXTERNAL_FLUX=50.0 CELL_SIZE_FACTOR=0.001 STRETCH_FACTOR=1.0 COLOR='LIGHT STEEL BLUE' BACKING='EXPOSED' MATL_ID(1,1)='ALUMINUM' MATL_ID(2,1)='PLYWOOD' MATL_ID(3,1)='RUBBER' MATL_ID(4,1)='PLYWOOD' MATL_ID(5,1)='ALUMINUM' MATL_ID(6,1)='STONE WOOL' THICKNESS=0.5E-3,6.5E-3,1.8E-3,6.5E-3,0.5E-3,20.0E-3 / &MATL ID='ALUMINUM' EMISSIVITY=0.30 ! 0.14 DENSITY=2701.0 CONDUCTIVITY_RAMP='CR_AL' SPECIFIC_HEAT_RAMP='SHR_AL' / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T=-73.0, F=237.0 / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T=-23.0, F=235.0 / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T= 27.0, F=237.0 / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T=127.0, F=240.0 / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T=227.0, F=236.0 / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T=327.0, F=231.0 / &RAMP ID='CR_AL', T=527.0, F=218.0 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=-73.0, F=0.797 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=-23.0, F=0.859 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T= 27.0, F=0.902 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=127.0, F=0.949 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=227.0, F=0.997 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=327.0, F=1.042 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=527.0, F=1.134 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=727.0, F=0.921 / &RAMP ID='SHR_AL', T=927.0, F=0.921 / &MATL ID='PLYWOOD' EMISSIVITY=0.9 DENSITY=700.0 CONDUCTIVITY=0.15 ! 0.12 SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.4 / &MATL ID='RUBBER' EMISSIVITY=0.9 DENSITY=1200.0 CONDUCTIVITY=0.13 SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.0 /

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


&MATL ID='STONE WOOL' ! PAROC Fire Slab 80 AluCoat EMISSIVITY=0.4 DENSITY=75.0 CONDUCTIVITY_RAMP='SW_CRAMP' SPECIFIC_HEAT=0.8 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=10.0, F=0.034 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=50.0 , F=0.038 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=100.0, F=0.046 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=150.0, F=0.054 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=200.0, F=0.065 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=300.0, F=0.090 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=400.0, F=0.123 / &RAMP ID='SW_CRAMP', T=500.0, F=0.162 / ! Measurements &DEVC XYZ=0.0,0.0,0.0 ID='T-1' QUANTITY='INSIDE WALL TEMPERATURE' IOR=3 DEPTH=15.8E-3 / &TAIL /

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Appendix B – FDS input file for furnace tests

&HEAD CHID='furnace',TITLE='Furnace test, HPL-Plywood-HPL' / &MESH IJK=10,10,10,XB=0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,1.0 &TIME T_END=1620.0,DT=0.01,WALL_INCREMENT=1 / &DUMP SMOKE3D=.FALSE.,DT_DEVC=1.0,DT_BNDF=1.0,DT_PROF=10.0 / &MISC TMPA=20.0 / &VENT MB='XMIN',SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='XMAX',SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='YMIN',SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='YMAX',SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='ZMIN',SURF_ID='OPEN' / &VENT MB='ZMAX',SURF_ID='OPEN' / &OBST XB=0.00,1.00,0.00,1.00,0.80,0.90 SURF_IDS='SPECIMEN_FRONT','SPECIMEN_OTHER','SPECIMEN_OTHER' / &SURF ID='SPECIMEN_FRONT' CELL_SIZE_FACTOR=0.01 ! Default value 1.0 STRETCH_FACTOR=1.0 ! Default value 2.0 COLOR='BISQUE 3' BACKING='EXPOSED' MATL_ID(1,1)='HPL' MATL_ID(2,1)='PLYWOOD' MATL_ID(3,1)='HPL' THICKNESS=1.0E-3,18.0E-3,1.0E-3 EXTERNAL_FLUX=131.2 EXTERNAL_FLUX_RAMP='ISO 834' / &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 0.0,F=0.000000000 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 15.0,F=0.038018938 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 30.0,F=0.063782103 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 60.0,F=0.102916823 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 120.0,F=0.162222815 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 180.0,F=0.203834307 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 240.0,F=0.240148704 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 300.0,F=0.272682957 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 360.0,F=0.302346028 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 420.0,F=0.329732974 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 480.0,F=0.355258527 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 540.0,F=0.379225457 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 600.0,F=0.401862831 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 720.0,F=0.443825726 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T= 900.0,F=0.500256627 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1080.0,F=0.550759107 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1260.0,F=0.596713947 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1266.0,F=0.598179118 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1320.0,F=0.611189911 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1380.0,F=0.625291568 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1440.0,F=0.639042635 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1500.0,F=0.652464474 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1560.0,F=0.665576404 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1620.0,F=0.678395959 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1680.0,F=0.690939115 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1740.0,F=0.703220475 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1800.0,F=0.715253424 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=1920.0,F=0.738622360 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=2100.0,F=0.772091162 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=2400.0,F=0.824221467 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=2700.0,F=0.872514236 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=3000.0,F=0.917605375 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=3300.0,F=0.959975951 &RAMP ID='ISO 834',T=3600.0,F=1.000000000

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


&SURF ID='SPECIMEN_OTHER' CELL_SIZE_FACTOR=1.0 STRETCH_FACTOR=2.0 COLOR='BISQUE 3' BACKING='EXPOSED' MATL_ID(1,1)='HPL' MATL_ID(2,1)='PLYWOOD' MATL_ID(3,1)='HPL' THICKNESS=1.0E-3,18.0E-3,1.0E-3 / &MATL ID='HPL' EMISSIVITY=0.9 ! 0.8 DENSITY=1485.0 CONDUCTIVITY=0.17 SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.0 / &MATL ID='PLYWOOD' EMISSIVITY=0.9 DENSITY=700.0 CONDUCTIVITY=0.15 ! 0.12 SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.4 / &DEVC XYZ=0.5,0.5,0.9 ID='TI-1' QUANTITY='INSIDE WALL TEMPERATURE' IOR=3 DEPTH=20.0E-3 / &DEVC XYZ=0.5,0.5,0.9 ID='TW-1' QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE' IOR=3 / &DEVC XYZ=0.5,0.5,0.9 ID='Q-1' QUANTITY='GAUGE HEAT FLUX' IOR=3 / &BNDF QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE' / &BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE HEAT FLUX' / &TAIL /

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Appendix C – Medium scale furnace tests

WP5.5A - birch plywood core with a high pressure laminate coating, 18-20mm thick.

ISO 834-1 Standard Heating Curve

Tecnalia test – appearance at 1 minute Exova test – appearance at start

Tecnalia test – appearance at 6 minutes Exova test – no photo available at 6 minutes

Tecnalia test – appearance 10 minutes Exova test – no photo available at 10 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia test – appearance at 15 minutes Exova test – appearance at 15 minutes

Tecnalia test – coating swelling in central section

at 17 minutes Exova test – no photo available at 17 minutes

Tecnalia test – coating discolouration in central

section at 20 minutes Exova test – no photo available at 20 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia test – coating discolouration in central

section at 20 minutes Exova test – no photo available at 20 minutes

Tecnalia test – slight smoke outflow in the

degenerated area, extension of discolouration at 22 minutes

Exova test – no photo available at 22 minutes

Tecnalia test – unsustained flames observed in

the unexposed side at 23 minutes Exova – appearance at 25 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia test – integrity failure at 24 minutes by

ignition of cotton pad Exova test – appearance at 27 minutes

Tecnalia test – appearance of the exposed face

after testing Exova test – no photo available of exposed face

after testing

Tecnalia test – appearance of the unexposed

face after testing Exova test – appearance of unexposed face after

27 minutes 54 seconds

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


EN 1363-2 Slow Heating Curve

Tecnalia test – appearance at 1 minute Exova test – no photo available at 1 minute



TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P




Tecnalia test – coating close to TR4 shows swelling at 33 minutes


TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia test – swelling of the coating is observed widely across the surface of the sample at 37 minutes


Tecnalia test – coating shows discolouration at 40

minutes Exova test – appearance at 40 minutes

Tecnalia test – coating surrounding thermocouple

TR2 shows carbonisation Exova test – no photo available

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia test – Integrity failure at 44 minutes Exova test – appearance at 42 minutes

Tecnalia test – appearance of exposed face after

testing. Exova test – appearance of exposed face after

testing

Tecnalia test – appearance of unexposed face

after testing Exova test – appearance of unexposed face after

testing

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


WP5.5B - waterproof panel consisting of aluminium and 100% birch plywood sandwich around a cork rubber core, 14-15mm thick.


Tecnalia test – appearance at 1 minute Exova test – appearance at start of test


Tecnalia – appearance at 7 minutes Exova test – appearance at 10 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P





TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia test – appearance at 20 minutes

Tecnalia test - integrity failure at 21 minutes Exova test – appearance of exposed face after

full duration of test

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



Tecnalia test – appearance at 1 minute Exova test – appearance at start of test



TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



Tecnalia test – integrity failure at 38 minutes Exova test – integrity failure at 38 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


WP5.5C – glass fibre reinforced phenolic composite, 7-9mm thick.


Tecnalia test – appearance at start of test Exova test – appearance at start of the test

Tecnalia test – spalling observed at 7 minutes Exova test – no photo available


TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P




testing Exova test – appearance of exposed face after

testing


after testing Exova test – appearance of unexposed face after

testing

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



Tecnalia test – appearance at start of test Exova test – appearance at start of test

Tecnalia test – spalling observed at 22 minutes Exova test – appearance at 22 minutes

Tecnalia – appearance at 26 minutes Exova test – no photo available at 26 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



Tecnalia test – no photo available at 60 minutes Exova test – appearance at 60 minutes

Tecnalia test – no photo available at 90 minutes Exova test – appearance at 90 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



testing Exova test – appearance of exposed face after

testing


after testing Exova test – appearance of unexposed face at

107 minutes

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


WP5.5D – glass fibre reinforced phenolic composite, 19-21mm thick.


Tecnalia test – appearance of unexposed face at

start Exova test – appearance of unexposed face at

start

Tecnalia test – 41 minutes - spalling Exova test – appearance at 30 minutes


TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



Tecnalia test – no photo available Exova test – appearance at 90 minutes


TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P




Tecnalia – appearance of exposed face after test Exova – appearance of exposed face after test

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia – appearance of unexposed face after

testing Exova test – no photo available

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P



Tecnalia test – appearance of unexposed face at

start of test Exova test – appearance of unexposed face at

start of test

Tecnalia test – spalling at 50 minutes Exova test – appearance at 60 minutes


TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P





test Exova test – appearance of exposed face after

test

TRANSFEU WP5_D5.5 P


Tecnalia – appearance of unexposed face after

test Exova test – appearance of unexposed face after

test

FP7 Contract Number: 233786 - Transfeu€¦ · Vertically oriented FRP specimens are typically 1,0...

Documents

Transcript of FP7 Contract Number: 233786 - Transfeu€¦ · Vertically oriented FRP specimens are typically 1,0...