Docstoc

Address List No Phone

Document Sample
Address List No Phone Powered By Docstoc
					                        ROP MEETING AGENDA
             Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee
                       on Furnishings and Contents
                      Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Meeting
                    Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown
                                  Cleveland, OH

   1. Call to Order. Call meeting to order by Henry Paszczuk at 8:00 a.m. on
      Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at the Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland –
      Downtown, Cleveland, OH.

   2. Introduction of Attendees. For a committee roster, see pg. 02.

   3. Approval of Minutes. Approve the October 1, 2007 meeting minutes. See pg. 03.

   4. Standardization of Language Where Supervision of Sprinkler Systems Is
      Required.

   5. Consistency of List Based Options – i.e., when all conditions must be met or
      some conditions must be met.

   6. NFPA 101 ROP Preparation. For public proposals, see pg. 05.

      •   NFPA 286 for Wall and Ceiling Tile Materials – 101:10.2.4.1 and
          5000:10.4.1.

      •   NFPA 101 Paragraph 10.2.7.2 and 10.2.8.2 Floor Coverings.

      •   Upholstered Furniture Heat Release Rates – NFPA 101: 10.3.3 and 10.3.4.

   7. NFPA 5000 ROP Preparation. For public proposals, see pg. 42.

   8. Other Business.

   9. Future Meetings.

   10. Adjournment.


Enclosures




                                                                                 1 of 59
                                                                                                      8/19/2009
Address List No Phone                                                                            Kristin Collette
Furnishings and Contents                                                                              SAF-FUR
Safety to Life
Henry Paszczuk                              E 4/15/2004 Kristin Collette                                 6/29/2007
 Chair                                        SAF-FUR Secretary (Staff-Nonvoting)                        SAF-FUR
 Connecticut Department of Public Safety                 National Fire Protection Association
 1111 Country Club Road                                  1 Batterymarch Park
 Middletown, CT 06457                                    Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Vytenis Babrauskas                         SE 10/1/1993 William E. Fitch                              SE 1/1/1991
 Principal                                    SAF-FUR Principal                                         SAF-FUR
 Fire Science and Technology Inc.                       Phyrefish Enterprises, Inc.
 9000 - 300th Place SE                                  31 SE 5th Street, Suite 3815
 Issaquah, WA 98027                                     Miami, FL 33131-2528

Marcelo M. Hirschler                        SE 1/1/1991 Alfred J. Hogan                               E 7/26/2007
 Principal                                    SAF-FUR Principal                                         SAF-FUR
 GBH International                                       3391 Lakeview Drive, SE
 2 Friar’s Lane                                          Winter Haven, FL 33884-3172
 Mill Valley, CA 94941                                   New England Association of Fire Marshals

E. Ken McIntosh                              M 1/1/1996 C. Anthony Penaloza                          RT 3/21/2006
 Principal                                    SAF-FUR Principal                                         SAF-FUR
 Carpet and Rug Institute                                Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.
 PO Box 2048                                             16015 Shady Falls Road
 Dalton, GA 30722-2048                                   Elmendorf, TX 78112
 Alternate: James K. Lathrop

Shelley Siegel                              U 7/20/2000 Dwayne E. Sloan                              RT 7/26/2007
 Principal                                    SAF-FUR Principal                                         SAF-FUR
 Universal Design and Education Network                  Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
 9268 Palomino Drive                                     12 Laboratory Drive
 Lake Worth, FL 33467-1024                               PO Box 13995
 American Society of Interior Designers                  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995
                                                         Alternate: Randall K. Laymon

T. Hugh Talley                               M 1/1/1990   James K. Lathrop                            M 4/17/2002
 Principal                                    SAF-FUR      Alternate                                    SAF-FUR
 Hugh Talley Company                                       Koffel Associates, Inc.
 3232 Landmark Drive                                       81 Pennsylvania Avenue
 Morristown, TN 37814                                      Niantic, CT 06357
 American Furniture Manufacturers Association              The Carpet and Rug Institute
                                                           Principal: E. Ken McIntosh

Randall K. Laymon                          RT 7/26/2007 Kristin Collette                                 6/29/2007
 Alternate                                    SAF-FUR Staff Liaison                                      SAF-FUR
 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.                          National Fire Protection Association
 333 Pfingsten Road                                      1 Batterymarch Park
 Northbrook, IL 60062-2096                               Quincy, MA 02169-7471
 Principal: Dwayne E. Sloan




                                                                                                     2 of 59   1
                              Meeting Minutes
           NFPA Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents
                         (BLD-FUR, SAF-FUR)
                                    1 October 2007
                            Marriott Providence Downtown
                                    Providence, RI
                                 (via Teleconference)

1. Call to Order. Chair Fitch called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.

2. Introduction of Committee Members and Guests. The following committee
   members were in attendance

NAME                                     REPRESENTING
William Fitch                            Phyrefish Enterprises, Inc.
Lisa Bonneville                          American Society of Interior Designers
Eugene Cable                             US Department of Veterans Affairs
Marcelo Hirschler                        GBH International
Henry Paszczuk                           Connecticut Department of Public Safety
Anthony Penaloza                         Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.
James Lathrop                            The Carpet and Rug Institute (Alternate to Ken
                                         McIntosh)
Kristin Collette                         NFPA Staff Liaison

The following committee members were absent:

NAME                                     REPRESENTING
Vytenis Babrauskas                       Fire Science and Technology Inc.
Alfred Hogan                             New England Association of Fire Marshals
Ken McIntosh (Note: Alternate            The Carpet and Rug Institute
member James Lathrop present)
Dwayne Sloan                             Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
T. Hugh Talley                           American Furniture Manufacturers Association


3. Approval of Minutes from 2006 November 2 Meeting. The minutes were
   approved without any modification.

4. Preparation of NFPA 101 ROC. All comments were addressed. See the ROC letter
   ballot package.

5. Preparation of NFPA 5000 ROC. All comments were addressed. See the ROC
   letter ballot package. The Committee found that the issue addressed by comment


                                                                                      1
                                                                                     3 of 59
BLD/SAF-FUR
1 October 2007 Meeting Minutes
   5000-41 regarding the references of NFPA 255 (due for withdrawal during the
   Annual 2009 cycle), required further action. Committee comments regarding this
   issue were developed for the respective committees to be addressed at their ROC
   meetings.

6. Other Business. No new business was addressed.

7. Scheduling of Next Meeting. No meeting was scheduled as of this time. The next
   meeting will most likely be held at the ROP stage in the fall of 2009.

8. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 AM by Chair Fitch.

Meeting minutes prepared by:




Kristin Collette, NFPA Staff Liaison




                                                                                      2
                                                                                     4 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-22 Log #117e SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                    Revise text to read as follows:
 2.3.6 ASTM Publications.
 ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. www.astm.org
 ASTM D 1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperatures of Plastic,1996 (2001 e1) 2001.
 ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006
2004.
 ASTM D 2898, Standard Test Methods for Accelerated Weathering of Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood for Fire Testing,
2008 (e1) 1994 (1999).
 ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2009a 2004.
 ASTM E 108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, 2007a 2004.
 ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2008a 2007a.
 ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C, 2009
2004.
 ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy
Source, 2009a 2006.
 ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2008b 2002.
 ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,
2008a 2002.
 ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,
2008a 2002.
 ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 2002.
 ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2002.
 ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, 2007 2000.
 ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 2001.
 ASTM E 2010, Standard Test Method for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Window Assemblies, 2001.
 ASTM E 2073, Standard Test Method for Photopic Luminance of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Markings, 2007.
 ASTM E 2074, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, Including Positive Pressure Testing of
Side-Hinged and Pivoted Swinging Door Assemblies, 2000e1.
 ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using
Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2004 e1.
 ASTM F 851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, 1987 (2005) 2000.
 ASTM F 1577, Standard Test Methods for Detention Locks for Swinging Doors, 2005 2001.
 ASTM G 155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials,
2005a 2000ae1.
                 This proposal updates ASTM standards to the most recent editions. ASTM E 2010 and ASTM E 2074
have been withdrawn.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-40 Log #CP2 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Technical Committee on Fundamentals,
                         Revise text to read as follows:
                                        . Any movable objects in a building that normally are secured or otherwise put in
place for functional reasons, excluding (1) parts of the internal structure of the building and (2) any items meeting the
definition of interior finish. [    2009]
                    This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary
definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        1
                                                                                                            5 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-41 Log #CP3 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Technical Committee on Fundamentals,
                       Revise text to read as follows:
                                  The level of incident radiant heat energy in units of W/cm2 on a floor covering system at
the most distant flameout point. [        2006]
                   This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary
definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-45 Log #31 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Glossary of Terms Technical Advisory Committee / Marcelo Hirschler,
                      Revise text to read as follows:
 3.3.84.2* Interior Finish. The exposed surfaces of walls, ceilings, and floors within buildings.

                   It is important to have consistent definitions of terms within NFPA. The term “interior finish is the
responsibility of NFPA 850 but would be more appropriate for NFPA 101 or NFPA 5000.
 The committee was created by NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA
documents.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        2
                                                                                                            6 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                 NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-207 Log #20 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________



            Thomas W. Jaeger, Jaeger and Associates, LLC




           Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulating
actual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to establish the classification of any
material on which a rating by standard test is not available, unless otherwise provided in 10.2.1.2 or 10.2.1.3..
            Materials applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings in a total thickness of less than 1/28 in. (0.9 mm)
shall not be considered interior finish and shall be exempt from tests simulating actual installation if they meet the
requirements of Class A interior wall or ceiling finish when tested in accordance with 10.2.3 using fiber cement board as
the substrate material.
           Approved existing installations of materials applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings in a total
thickness of less than 1/28 in. (0.9 mm) shall be permitted to remain in use and the provisions of 10.2.2 through
10.2.3.7.2 shall not apply.
               Fixed or movable walls and partitions, paneling, wall pads, and crash pads applied structurally or for
decoration, acoustical correction, surface insulation, or other purposes shall be considered interior finish and shall not
be considered decorations or furnishings.

                    Facilities are being cited for not having flame spread rating/fire test data on existing interior finishes
(wallpaper, paint) that is less than 1/28 inches in thickness. Prior to the 2000 edition of the                      , interior
finishes less than 1/28 inches in thickness, i.e. paint and wallpaper, were largely exempted from complying with interior
finishes requirements. A judgment comparing the material to the fire behavior characteristics of paper of a similar
thickness was the basic requirement. Because these wall finish materials were not regulated in the same manner as the
criteria imposed in the 2000 and later editions of the Code, the facilities have no surface burning characteristics data
available to judge their performance as noted in Section 10.2.1.2. The facility is then cited for a deficiency and required
to replace the existing finish material. Please see excerpts from the 1997 edition of the                        below. We do
agree that newly installed interior finishes in new and existing buildings must comply with Section 10.2.1.2 of the 2000
and 2009                        . We do not agree that previously approved existing wall finishes must comply with Section
10.2.1.2. If existing wall finishes that are less than 1/28 inches in thickness were required to comply with Section
10.2.1.2, this would be a retroactive requirement to all existing wall finishes less than 1/28 inches in thickness. We also
want to point out that these wall finishes have a useful life and will eventually be replaced with finishes complying with
Section 10.2.1.2.
  We are asking that the TIA apply to the 2000                       because every existing health care facility in the United
States is required to comply with the 2000 edition in accordance with Federal Medicare and Medicaid Regulations. The
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has clearly stated in the past that changes in newer editions of the
Code do not apply to the 2000 edition and the 2000 edition is the law of the land. CMS has in the past accepted,
through their regulatory process, TIA’s. That is why we are asking to have the TIA apply to both the most recent edition,
the 2009 edition and the 2000 edition.
  Although all existing health care facilities, approximately 30.000, came under the enforcement of the 2000
       in 2003, it has not been until recently that the surveyors have discovered the oversight for existing building
finishes in the Exception to Sections 10.2.1 and 10.2.1.2. We are now having thousands of facilities being cited for not
having the documentation of finishes less than 1/28 inch, which they were never required to have in the past. The entire
Section 10.2 was reformatted when Sections 6-5 and 6-6 where moved into a new Chapter 10 in the 2000 edition. See
ROP 101-274 for 2000 edition. It was here that the new language and requirement were added to the Exception to
Section 10.2.1 and no relieve was given for existing buildings. We believe this was an oversight and now needs to be
corrected in the 2000 and 2009 editions.
  Occupancies that have yet to replace these existing finishes seem to be caught in an oversight of the code when the
revision was made in the 2000 edition. This TIA is asking to address the issue of the existing buildings that seem to be
an inadvertent oversight.



  Printed on 8/21/2009                                          3
                                                                                                               7 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                  NFPA 101




_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-208 Log #69 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  10.2.1.1 Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulating
actual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to establish the classification of any
material on which rating classification by a standard test is not available, unless otherwise provided in 10.2.1.2.
                    The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and
fire protection rating.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                          4
                                                                                                               8 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                 NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-209 Log #84 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                   New text to read as follows:
         Lockers constructed of combustible materials shall be considered interior finish.

                                     Where lockers constructed of combustible materials other than wood are used, the
lockers shall be considered interior finish and shall comply with Section 10.2, except as permitted by 10.3.8.2.
                             Lockers constructed entirely of wood and of noncombustible materials shall be permitted to be
used in any location where interior finish materials are required to meet a Class C classification in accordance with
10.2.3.
                    Traditionally lockers, in schools (high schools, middle schools, universities), clubs, swimming pools
and gymnasiums, were constructed of steel. In recent years, the use of lockers constructed of combustible materials has
become prevalent. These lockers typically line an entire wall (for example a corridor in a school) and are not regulated
by the life safety code. Lockers are not usually considered interior finish. The only other materials regulated by NFPA
101 at present are: interior trim, upholstered furniture, mattresses and decorations. Lockers do not fall into any of those
categories.
  Combustible lockers can present a significant fire load and, if ignited, are likely to spread fire the same way that interior
finish materials spread fire. They should be considered interior finish materials and regulated like all other interior finish
materials for any occupancy.
  The following wording comes from an advertisement for “Rust Free Plastic Lockers”. “Our waterproof plastic lockers
are convenient for many types of locations, from boat decks to pool areas. Along with their rustproof quality, they are
durable for many years of use. Available as single or multiple tiered units, our plastic lockers are ideal for any area near
water or humidity whether a spa, pool, shower or beach area. Plastic lockers withstand the humidity and corrosiveness
of water and pool areas and last much longer than traditional metal lockers. Wet swimsuits and towels, or even sweaty
clothing will never rust, corrode delaminate or crack our 100% plastic foot lockers or stand-up plastic locker solutions!”
The lockers by this particular manufacturer are constructed of 3/8 inch thick solid plastic bodies and heavy duty ½ inch
thick doors. Typically the “solid plastic” used is either high density polyethylene or polypropylene.

 ***Insert Figure 1 here***

  In some “high-end” environments, such as country clubs, plastic lockers are not found. Instead, lockers are made with
“the highest quality materials and meticulous attention to detail. Locker sides, top and bottom are made of ¾ inch
industrial grade particleboard with stain and impact resistant white melamine finish inside and out. Locker back is the
same particleboard in a ½ inch thickness. All exposed edges are finished with matching edge banding. These club
lockers include number plates and heavy duty keyed cam locks for security. Wooden Lockers feature highly durable ¾
inch solid wood raised panels. Wood locker surfaces are finished with 1 coat of sealer and 2 coats of lacquer for
maximum durability. Laminate Lockers feature high pressure laminate doors.”

 ***Insert Figure 2 here***

 ***Insert Figure 3 here***

  One manufacturer advertises 100% polypropylene lockers, which “will not rust, corrode, fade, or require repainting, Our
plastic lockers will save you money from having to replace rusty metal lockers or warped wood and wood laminated
lockers in a few short years.” This manufacturer also states that the 100% polypropylene lockers last “ten times longer
than metal lockers” and last “longer than wood lockers, or plastic laminated lockers in humid environments such as in
tropical climates, and where there are locker rooms near showers, saunas, pools or in facilities which require frequent
sanitation. Wood lockers, in a humid environment will warp. Plastic-laminated lockers are simply particle board covered
with a laminate sheet. Moisture will seep into connector and hinge screw holes in the locker and eventually will soften
the particle board.” This manufacturer states that plastic lockers are impervious to moisture and will not fade, warp, or
delaminate.
  In another proposal I have already discussed the fire performance of polyethylene and polypropylene.
  Wood interior finish corresponds typically to Class C interior finish, which is usually allowed other than in corridors and

  Printed on 8/21/2009                                          5
                                                                                                              9 of 59
                             




NFPA101/L84/Figure 1/A2011/ROP 

 

                                  10 of 59
 


 




NFPA101/L84/Figure 2/A2011/ROP 

 

                                  11 of 59
                                   




NFPA101/L84/Figure 3/A2011/ROP 

 

                                      12 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                     NFPA 101
exits. Therefore, lockers made exclusively out of wood should be allowed anywhere that Class C interior finish is
allowed without additional testing. If there is some doubt as to whether the material is wood or a plastic resembling
wood, it would be up to the manufacturer to demonstrate that the lockers are made of wood in order to be exempted
from testing.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-210 Log #70 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                         Revise text to read as follows:
 10.2.3.4* Products required to be tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning
Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building
Materials, shall be classified as follows in accordance with their flame spread index and smoke developed index
development, except as indicated in 10.2.3.4(4):
 (1) Class A interior wall and ceiling finish shall be characterized by the following:
     (a) Flame spread index, 0–25
     (b) Smoke developed index, 0–450
 (2) Class B interior wall and ceiling finish shall be characterized by the following:
     (a) Flame spread index, 26–75
     (b) Smoke developed index, 0–450
 (3) Class C interior wall and ceiling finish shall be characterized by the following:
     (a) Flame spread index, 76–200
     (b) Smoke developed index, 0–450
 (4) Existing interior finish shall be exempt from the smoke developed index development criteria of 10.2.3.4(1)(b),
(2)(b), and (3)(b).
                    This is purely an editorial change; the terms to be used should be flame spread index and smoke
developed index.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-211 Log #71 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                         Revise text to read as follows:
               Products shall be tested using method B of the test protocol of NFPA 265,
                                                                                                            . The following
conditions shall be met:
 (1) Flame shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.
 (2) During the 150 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:
 (a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.
 (b) Flashover shall not occur.
 The interior finish shall comply with the following:
 1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.
 2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the samples on the 8 foot by 12 foot (2440 by 3660 mm) walls.
 3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 265, shall not occur.
                                                                                                        2
 4. For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m .
                    Most of this proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail the
criteria if the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of the
room or ceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test if flashover occurs
when the burner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burns
completely within a minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case. This proposal
adds the smoke requirements for new installations, to be consistent with IBC building code requirements.



  Printed on 8/21/2009                                            6
                                                                                                                 13 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                      NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-212 Log #72 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                        Revise text to read as follows:
               The following conditions shall be met when using the test protocol of NFPA 286,
                                                                                                :
  (1) Flames shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.
  (2) During the 160 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:
  (a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.
  (b) Flashover shall not occur.
  (3) The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.
                                                                                                          2
  (4) For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1000 m .
  1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.
  2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling.
  3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur.
  4. The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.
                                                                                                        2
  5. For new installations the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m .
                    This proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail the criteria
if the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of the room or
ceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test if flashover occurs when the
burner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burns completely within a
minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                            7
                                                                                                                 14 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-213 Log #73 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                       Revise text to read as follows:
 10.2.4.1* Textile Wall and Textile Ceiling Materials. The use of textile materials on walls or ceilings shall comply with
one of the following conditions:
 (1) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL
723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on
the walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.
 (2) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL
723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on
partitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height,
whichever is less.
 (3) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL
723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to
extend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions.
 (4) Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of having a Class A when
tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be continued to be used.
 (5) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard
Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and
Walls. (See 10.2.3.7.)
 (6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286,
Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth.
(See 10.2.3.7.)



                    This proposed change is both editorial and clarification.
 1. Classifications based on ASTM E 84 or UL 723 are not called ratings, since that term is used for fire resistance
ratings and fire protection ratings (using a standard time-temperature curve).
 2. It is possible to get Class A for an interior finish material by testing to NFPA 265 and NFPA 286, so the clarification
about the test is important to ensure that a wall covering material that passed a room corner test is not subject to the
same restrictions as one that passed the Steiner tunnel test.
 3. Testing wall coverings in the Steiner tunnel needs to be done with the specimen preparation and mounting method
of ASTM E 2404.
 4. Existing wall coverings already tested and previously approved should not be required to be ripped out.
 I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by
NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA documents. The committee has
not reviewed this recommendation and therefore, this proposal is not being submitted in the name of the committee.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                         8
                                                                                                            15 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-214 Log #74 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  10.2.4.2* Expanded Vinyl Wall and Expanded Vinyl Ceiling Materials. The use of expanded vinyl wall or expanded vinyl
ceiling materials shall comply with one of the following conditions:
  (1) Materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723,
using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on the
walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.
  (2) Materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723,
using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on
partitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height,
whichever is less.
  (3) Materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723,
using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to
extend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions.
  (4) Previously approved existing Existing installations of materials meeting the requirements for the occupancy
involved, and with classification in accordance with the provisions of 10.2.3.4 when tested in accordance with ASTM E
84 or UL 723 (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be continued to be used.
  (5) Materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard Methods
of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls. (See
10.2.3.7.)
  (6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286,
Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth.
(See 10.2.3.7.)



                    This proposed change is both editorial and clarification.
 1. Classifications based on ASTM E 84 or UL 723 are not called ratings, since that term is used for fire resistance
ratings and fire protection ratings (using a standard time-temperature curve).
 2. It is possible to get Class A for an interior finish material by testing to NFPA 265 and NFPA 286, so the clarification
about the test is important to ensure that a wall covering material that passed a room corner test is not subject to the
same restrictions as one that passed the Steiner tunnel test.
 3. Testing wall coverings in the Steiner tunnel needs to be done with the specimen preparation and mounting method
of ASTM E 2404.
 4. Existing wall coverings already tested and previously approved should not be required to be ripped out.
 I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by
NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA documents. The committee has
not reviewed this recommendation and therefore, this proposal is not being submitted in the name of the committee.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                         9
                                                                                                            16 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-215 Log #364 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. / Rep. Bobrick
                        Add a NEW 10.2.4.4 to read:
 10.2.4.4 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE). High density polyethylene (HDPE) shall not be permitted as an interior
wall or ceiling finish unless it has been tested in accordance with NFPA 286,

  Renumber the existing 10.2.4.4 through 10.2.4.6 as appropriate.
                  HDPE is a thermoplastic that when it burns gives off considerable energy and produces a pooling
flammable liquids fire. Recent full scale room-corner tests using NFPA 286 have demonstrated a significant hazard.
These tests had to be terminated prior to the standard 15 minute duration due to flashover occurring, yet there was still
much of the product left to burn. Extensive flammable liquid pool fires occurred during the tests. Yet this same material
when tested in accordance with the tunnel test, ASTM E-84, is often given a FSI of 25 or less. However the resulting test
is so intense some labs will not test HDPE partitions in their tunnel due to the damage it can do to the tunnel. This
proposal will assure that when using HDPE partitions they will be formulated in such a manner to reduce the hazard that
they present. Following is some of the date from one of the NFPA 286 tests: Peak HRR )(excl. burner) 1733 kW; Total
                                                                                2                             o       o
Heat Released (excl. burner) 121 MJ; Peak Heat Flux to the floor 35.2 kW/m ; Peak Avg. Ceiling Temp 805 C, 1481 F.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-216 Log #75 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  10.2.4.6 Metal Ceiling and Wall Panels. Listed factory finished Class A metal ceiling and wall panels meeting the
requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be
finished with one additional application of paint. Such painted panels shall be permitted for use in areas where Class A
interior finishes are required. The total paint thickness shall not exceed 1/28 in. (0.9 mm).
                    This proposed change is simply editorial clarification.
  I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by
NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA documents. The committee has
not reviewed this recommendation and therefore, this proposal is not being submitted in the name of the committee.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                       10
                                                                                                         17 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-217 Log #77 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                         New text to read as follows:
                                                                              High density polyethylene and polypropylene
materials shall not be used as interior wall or ceiling finish unless the material complies with the requirements of Section
10.2.3.7.2. The tests shall be performed on a finished assembly related to the actual end-use configuration and on the
maximum thickness intended for use.
                    Polypropylene and high density polyethylene interior finish materials need to be treated the same way,
because polypropylene and polyethylene behave in a very similar fashion in fires.
  James Lathrop has explained the problems associated with polyethylene (HDPE), when it is used as an interior finish
material, as follows (exact quote):
  “HDPE is a thermoplastic that when it burns gives off considerable energy and produces a pooling flammable liquids
fire. Recent full scale room-corner tests using NFPA 286 have demonstrated a significant hazard. These tests had to be
terminated prior to the standard 15 minute duration due to flashover occurring, yet there was still much of the product
left to burn. Extensive flammable liquid pool fires occurred during the tests. Yet this same material when tested in
accordance with the tunnel test, ASTM E-84, is often given a FSI of 25 or less. However the resulting test is so intense
some labs will not test HDPE partitions in their tunnel due to the damage it can do to the tunnel. This proposal will
assure that when using HDPE partitions they will be formulated in such a manner to reduce the hazard that they
present. Following is some of the data from one of the NFPA 286 tests: Peak HRR (excl burner) 1733 kW; Total Heat
                                                                           2                               o      o
Released (excl. burner) 121 MJ; Peak Heat Flux to the floor 35.2 kW/m ; Peak Avg Ceiling Temp 805 C, 1481 F.”
  He has also explained that HDPE is extensively used in toilet room privacy partitions.
  It is worth putting the data Jim Lathrop presented into perspective by noting that pass/fail criteria are 800 kW and that
those materials which perform well in the room-corner test usually exhibit heat release rates less than 400 kW, as
opposed to over 1700 kW for HDPE.
  The materials in Table 1 (attached) were tested in a room corner test and in the Steiner tunnel test (ASTM E 84). Most
materials were tested in the NFPA room corner tests but some were tested in the much more severe ISO 9705 room
corner test (where the ignition burner is at 100 kW for 10 min and then at 300 kW for a further 10 min, as opposed to 40
kW/150 kW or 40 kW/160 kW for NFPA room-corner tests). Even here, some materials perform with low peak heat
release rates.

 ***Table 1 here***

  Experience in the past has long shown that materials with FSI values of less than 25 when tested in accordance with
ASTM E 84, particularly if they are thermally thin materials or materials that melt and drip during the test (such as HDPE
or polypropylene) cannot be guaranteed to be safe enough to be permitted to be used based simply on ASTM E 84
testing.
 A new product has now become available in the market: polypropylene toilet room privacy partitions.
 Polypropylene is a material that is very similar to polyethylene. Polypropylene is also a thermoplastic polyolefin
material, just like polyethylene and there is almost no difference in fire performance. Both materials melt and drip and
cause flaming drips when they burn and release large amounts of heat. The consequence of this is that pool fires are
formed on the floor beneath the material. Table 2 shows cone calorimeter (ASTM E 1354) data for polypropylene and
polyethylene. These materials should not be used as interior finish unless they comply with the criteria for tests to NFPA
286.

 ***Table 2 here***

 ***Figure 1 here***

    The photograph above shows a 3 mm (1/8 inch) thick sheet of polypropylene exposed to fire and the resulting pool
fire (Photo and quotes below from NIST Technical Note 1493, T.J. Ohlemiller and J.R. Shields, “Aspects of the Thermal
Behavior of Thermoplastic Materials”, 2008).
  In the above work, NIST tests were conducted with thin sheets of polypropylene and revealed the problems associated
with the generation of melt pool fires and the role of a pool fire in the overall fire growth process. The publication states

  Printed on 8/21/2009                                         11
                                                                                                            18 of 59
               Table 1: Steiner tunnel and room corner test data
       FSI          Pk RHR (kW)                FSI                Pk RHR (kW)
   ASTM E 84      Room Corner Test          ASTM E 84           Room Corner Test
                     (NFPA 286)                                    (NFPA 265)
        15                195             Old Textile Wall Covering Data (1986)
        27                359             Cases Where E 84 is Poor Predictor
        10                 40                   25                     684
        70               1460                   15                    5771
        15                128                   15                     928
        15                153                   25                    1166
         0                 40
         0                 35           Cases Where E 84 Is not a Poor Predictor
        15                 22                   15                     310
        28                120                   15                     182
        25                106                   15                     297
       200                930                   25                     249
       200                945                   25                     309
       200               1070
       200               1075
        25                125
       < 25               234
       < 25              1733                 (Jim Lathrop Data on HDPE)
ASTM E 84 Room Corner Test (ISO         Room Corner Test Comments (ISO 9705)
                    9705)
    22               120                            (walls and ceiling)
  < 25                54                               (ceiling only)
  < 25               160                               (ceiling only)
  < 25               154                            (walls and ceiling)
    22      20 @ 10 min – 548 @ 11                  (walls and ceiling)
                      min
    22               110                               (ceiling only)
  < 25               517                            (walls and ceiling)
  < 25                58                               (ceiling only)




NFPA101/L77/Table 1/A2011/ROP

                                                                            19 of 59
                       Table 2 – Cone calorimeter test data for
  standard polypropylene and polyethylene materials – 6 mm, 0.25 inch, thick (1992)
                                                 PP     PE Average of Plastics (*)
                           2         2
       Pk HRR @ 20 kW/m (in kW/m )             1,170    913              295
       Pk HRR @ 40 kW/m2 (in kW/m2)            1,509 1,408               443
                           2         2
       Pk HRR @ 70 kW/m (in kW/m )             2,421 2,735               640
 Total Heat Released @ 20 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231          162               92
 Total Heat Released @ 40 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 207          221              126
 Total Heat Released @ 70 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231          228              131
           *: based on cone calorimeter study of 35 materials, published in:
     “Heat Release in Fires” by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson – Elsevier, 1992.




NFPA101/L77/Table 2/A2011/ROP


                                                                              20 of 59
                                   




NFPA101/L77/Figure 1/A2011/ROP 

 

 

                                      21 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                     NFPA 101
that the results showed the following: “Thermoplastic materials yield extra complexity when they burn in the context of
the products in which they are found. Under the influence of gravity, the liquid phase formed during thermal degradation
flows downward. If, as is typical, this liquid is burning, then it extends the flaming zone on the solid downward onto
whatever surfaces are available to catch the liquid (ultimately a horizontal floor or ground surface). This constitutes, at
the least, a new form of flame spread on the object containing the thermoplastic (in addition to normal forms of flame
spread over solid surfaces, which are typically fastest in the upward direction), extending the area of fuel that is burning
and thereby increasing the overall heat release rate from the object. In many cases this downward flow of flaming liquid
results in a pool fire under the object. If that pool fire is close enough to the object that its plume reaches the object, the
result can be a self feeding pool fire that further enhances the rate of heat release from the burning system. In addition
to this penchant for liquid-assisted flame spread, thermoplastic materials also tend to deform significantly as they burn.
Thus large changes in the geometric shape of the burning object are common. These two aspects of thermoplastics
make modeling fire growth on them, or on objects containing them, extraordinarily difficult.”
  With regard to the polypropylene sheet experiment described in the photograph the report states: “The pool fire is
centered near the rear edge of the sample, not under the leading edge of the flames on the sheet. This is because it is
being fed flaming polymer melt most rapidly from an area several centimeters behind the forward-most portion of the
sample flame front where the shape of the trailing edge of the sheet curves rapidly from near vertical toward the
horizontal. There is a flow separation region there that tends to dump nearly all of the melt flow accumulated from higher
up on the trailing edge of the sheet. From this flow impingement area on the catch surface, the melt tends to flow radially
at first. That portion of the melt that is going forward (in the direction of flame spread) under the leading edge of the
flames on the base of the sheet encounters a cold catch surface that extracts heat from the melt, lowers its temperature
and rapidly raises its viscosity. This nearly halts the flow in this direction, which, in fact, greatly slows the potential rate of
fire spread. Because much of the “forward” flow of melt is inhibited and, because the catch surface in the opposite
direction has been pre-heated by the pool fire in its march forward, there is a preferential melt flow backward, away from
the direction of fire spread and toward the rear end of the pool fire. This tends to somewhat disengage the pool fire from
the overall forward fire spread process. The melt flow on the catch surface appears to be driven by the small hydrostatic
head that develops due to the finite thickness of the melt layer on this horizontal surface. Near the foot of the pool fire
flames, the flow is also driven outward, away from the pool fire center, by the surface tension gradient that is large in this
region. (One can often see a step up in melt layer thickness beneath the flame foot.) Note that the region of the pool
directly beneath the flames is bubbling, indicating in-depth generation of gaseous degradation products from the
polymer melt. Also note that, on the left (just to the left of the flame foot), the pool fire has burned out by locally
consuming all of the melt, leaving a dry central area. Around this area, however, there is a substantial amount of melt
that has not burned and is left by the fire. Evidently, this residue has cooled sufficiently (and remains sufficiently
heat-sunk to the catch surface) that it will not allow flame spread onto its surface (in effect, its temperature cannot be
raised to the point where it will ignite). Note that the polymer sheet itself is somewhat wavy on its rear edge (warped out
of the plane defined by the cold portion of the sample sheet). This is a consequence of the heat induced softening (and,
perhaps, expansion) of the sheet before it actually begins to melt and flow at an appreciable rate. This aspect of the
sample behavior was not reproducible. It interacts with the location of the separation point on the rear edge of the
sample and thus influences where the bulk of the melt gets deposited in relation to the leading edge of the fire on the
base of the sample. This appeared to be a major source of scatter in the evolution of the heat release rate from the fire,
as described further below. The above processes could conceivably produce an essentially steady-state, propagating
fire after some initial transient. Interestingly, while the flame spread rate along the bottom edge of the sample sheet is
nearly steady in all cases, other aspects of the fire, including the heat release rate, are not steady.”
  It needs to be pointed out that this is not an indictment of all polypropylene materials. It is possible to prepare
polypropylene materials that exhibit excellent fire performance, including no significant flaming when tested in the ASTM
E 84, Steiner tunnel. When one non fire retarded polypropylene material (1.5 mm, 0.06 inch thick) was subjected to a
small open flame screening test, it ignited, dripped a flaming stream of plastic to the floor and continued to burn on the
floor until it was consumed on the specimen holder and on the floor. On the other hand, a fire retarded polypropylene
material (3 mm, 1/8 inch thick) was subjected to the same small open flame screening test and caused no flaming drips.
When it was then subjected to the ASTM E 84 test, it produced a flame spread index of 50 and a smoke developed
index of 215, without flaming drips. Table 3 shows some cone calorimeter results on nine fire retarded polypropylene
materials, which gave very adequate fire performance.

 ***Table 3 here***




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                           12
                                                                                                                 22 of 59
                Table 3 - Cone Calorimeter Tests on Fire Retarded
                 Polypropylene Specimens (3 mm, 1/8 inch, thick)
                                Tests at 20        Tests at 40 kW/m2
                                        2
                                   kW/m
               Material           Pk HRR                 Pk HRR

                                  kW/m2                  kW/m2
              FR PP 1              236                     243
              FR PP 2              168                     206
              FR PP 3              207                     209
              FR PP 4              195                     206
              FR PP 5              301                     231
              FR PP 6              215                     193
              FR PP 7              228                     193
              FR PP 8              207                     188
              FR PP 9              202                     172
                                                          2
          PP Car HVAC duct                480 (at 25 kW/m )




NFPA101/L77/Table 3/A2011/ROP


                                                                       23 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-218 Log #76 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                      New text to read as follows:
 10.2.4.7 Site-fabricated stretch systems. The use of site-fabricated stretch systems shall comply with one of the
following conditions:
 (1) Materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, using the
specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2573, (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on walls and ceilings.
 (2) Materials shall be permitted on walls and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286, Standard Methods of
Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth. (See 10.2.3.7.)
 (3) Previously approved existing installations of site-fabricated stretch systems meeting the requirements for the
occupancy involved shall be permitted to be continued to be used.

                                 . A system, fabricated on site and intended for acoustical, tackable or aesthetic purposes,
that is comprised of three elements:        a frame (constructed of plastic, wood, metal or other material) used to hold
fabric in place,   a core material (infill, with the correct properties for the application), and  an outside layer,
comprised of a textile, fabric or vinyl, that is stretched taut and held in place by tension or mechanical fasteners via the
frame.



                   This proposed adds a product, site-fabricated stretch systems, that is not presently explicitly
addressed in the code but for which ASTM E05 (committee on fire standards) has developed a specimen preparation
and mounting method for testing in accordance with the Steiner tunnel test, ASTM E 84 or UL 723. When these systems
are not tested using the requirements of ASTM E 2573, the test is not fully representative of the hazard of the material
because the frame is not properly tested. Existing site-fabricated stretch systems already tested and previously
approved should not be required to be ripped out.
 Two particular concerns exist regarding the testing of these systems: (a) some manufacturers/jurisdictions believe that
these systems are simply textiles and have required testing based on NFPA 701, which is not safe and (b) some stretch
systems that do not contain the frame and core material are being confused with these systems and they need to be
addressed and tested differently.
 A definition is being added of the type of products in question, for clarification.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        13
                                                                                                           24 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-219 Log #78 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                     New text to read as follows:
                                             . For new installations, site-fabricated stretch systems containing all three
components described in the definition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use, and shall comply
with the requirements of Section 10.2.3. If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen
preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2573.

  Site-fabricated stretch system. A system, fabricated on site and intended for acoustical, tackable or aesthetic purposes,
that is comprised of three elements: (a) a frame (constructed of plastic, wood, metal or other material) used to hold
fabric in place, (b) a core material (infill, with the correct properties for the application), and (c) an outside layer,
comprised of a textile, fabric or vinyl, that is stretched taunt and held in place by tension or mechanical fasteners via the
frame.



                  The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2573,
Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of site-fabricated stretch systems. Until now there was no
correct mandatory way to test these systems. These systems are now being used extensively because they can stretch
to cover decorative walls and ceilings with unusual looks and shapes. The systems consist of three parts: a fabric (or
vinyl), a frame and an infill core material. The testing has often been done of each component separately instead of
testing the composite system. That is an inappropriate way to test and not the safe way to conduct the testing. Now that
a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. The proposed definition was taken from
the standard, ASTM E 2573, word for word.
 Some systems do not consist of all three components of site-fabricated stretch systems and they should be tested in a
manner appropriate to their use. In particular systems that contain a stretch membrane only and no core material have
been shown to behave very differently in a fire situation from the site-fabricated stretch systems. It is important that the
correct mounting method be used for each system.
 This type of product is not exclusive to any individual manufacturer. Three examples, taken from different
manufacturers, are shown as illustrations.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-220 Log #79 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                     New text to read as follows:
                                         . Reflective insulation materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use,
and shall comply with the requirements of Section 10.3.2 or 10.3.6.2. If the materials are tested in accordance with
ASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2599.

 Reflective insulation. Thermal insulation consisting of one or more low emittance surfaces bounding one or more
enclosed air spaces.




                  The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2599,
Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of reflective insulation materials and radiant barrier materials.
Until now there was no correct mandatory way to test these materials. In fact, unless the materials are mounted as
indicated in ASTM E 2599, the results of testing in the Steiner tunnel (ASTM E 84) are misleading and can lead to
unsafe implications. Now that a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. The
proposed definition was taken from the standard, ASTM E 2599, word for word.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        14
                                                                                                           25 of 59
 




                                   




NFPA101/L78/Figure 1/A2011/ROP 

 

 

                                      26 of 59
                                      




NFPA101/L78/Figure 2/A2011/ROP 

 

 

                                  27 of 59
                                   




NFPA101/L78/Figure 3/A2011/ROP 

 

                                      28 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                  NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-221 Log #80 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  10.2.6.1* The required flame spread index or smoke developed index development classification of existing surfaces of
walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings shall be permitted to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings to
surfaces having higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted. Such treatments shall be tested, or shall be
listed and labeled for application to the material to which they are applied, and shall comply with the requirements of
NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials.
                    This is purely an editorial change; the terms to be used should be flame spread index and smoke
developed index.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-222 Log #33 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             George M. Lanier, Rome, GA
                        Revise 10.2.6.1* to read as follows:
  "10.2.6.1* The required flame spread or smoke development classification of existing or new walls, partitions,
columns, and ceilings shall, based upon technical documentation submitted to and approved by the authority having
jurisdiction, be permitted to be secured by applying approved fire -retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame
spread ratings than permitted. Such treatments shall be tested, or shall be listed and labeled for application to the
material to which they are applied, and shall comply to the requirements of NFPA 703, Standard for Fire
Retardant-Treated Wood and Fire Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, or other standard deemed equivalent by
the authority having jurisdiction."
                   The proposed changes open the door for fire retardant coatings to be used on "new" building materials
subject to the approval of the authority having jurisdiction, which is consistent with 1.4; 1.4.1; 1.4.2; 1.4.3; 1.6; 3.2.1;
3.2.4; and 3.2.5. It is not uncommon for owners and architects to desire to use materials such as wood decorative
products that have flame spread ratings or smoke generation classifications that exceed general code limitations. These
could be considered "new" for new projects. Rather than prohibiting the use of "new" materials outright, establish a clear
procedure whereby the authority having jurisdiction can evaluate products for use on "new" materials as well as
"existing" materials. See a proposal for revisions to A.10.2.6.1.




_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-223 Log #81 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                          Revise text to read as follows:
  10.2.7.4 Interior floor finishes shall be classified as follows in accordance with their the critical radiant flux values
ratings:
                                                                                                              2
  (1) Class I interior floor finish shall be characterized by a critical radiant flux not less than 0.45 W/cm , as determined
by the test described in 10.2.7.3.
                                                                                                               2
  (2) Class II interior floor finish shall be characterized by a critical radiant flux not less than 0.22 W/cm but less than
             2
0.45 W/cm , as determined by the test described in 10.2.7.3.
   10.2.8.2 Unless specifically prohibited elsewhere in this Code, where an approved automatic sprinkler system is in
accordance with Section 9.7, Class II interior floor finish shall be permitted in any location where Class I interior floor
finish is required, and where Class II is required, no critical radiant flux classification rating shall be required.
                     This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and fire
protection rating.



  Printed on 8/21/2009                                          15
                                                                                                              29 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-224 Log #82 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  10.3.1* Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, draperies, curtains, and other similar loosely hanging
furnishings and decorations shall comply with one of the following:
  (a)* they shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria contained in NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire
Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films or
  (b) they shall exhibit a heat release rate not exceeding 100 kW when tested in accordance with NFPA 289, Standard
Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, using the 20 kW ignition source .
  A.10.3.1(a) Testing per NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films,
applies to textiles and films used in a hanging configuration. If the textiles are to be applied to surfaces of buildings or
backing materials as interior finishes for use in buildings, they should be treated as interior wall and ceiling finishes in
accordance with Section 10.2 of this Code, and they should then be tested for flame spread index and smoke developed
index values in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building
Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or for flame
spread and flashover in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth
Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls. Films and other materials used as interior finish
applied to surfaces of buildings should be tested for flame spread index and smoke developed index values in
accordance with ASTM E 84 or ANSI/UL 723 or for heat and smoke release and flashover in accordance with NFPA
286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth.
  The test results from NFPA 701 are suitable for classification purposes but should not be used as input into fire
models, because they are not generated in units suitable for engineering calculations.
  A.10.3.1(b) NFPA 289                                                                    was developed specifically to
address testing of individual fuel packages, such as decorations or combustible vegetation. The test method assesses
various fire properties, including heat and smoke release, when an individual fuel package is exposed to a gas burner
ignition source. The test results are generated in units suitable for engineering calculations.



                   The NFPA Fire Tests developed modern fire testing technology for decorations and single fuel
packages, by using a propane gas burner. NFPA 289 is more versatile than NFPA 701 and is also likely to offer lower
variability. The 20 kW gas burner ignition source in NFPA 289 was specifically designed with the intent of being a
substitute for UL 1975 and for use with decorations. This should be permitted as an alternate option for items tested to
NFPA 701.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        16
                                                                                                           30 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-225 Log #83 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                        Revise text to read as follows:
 10.3.7* Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, furnishings and contents made with foamed plastic
materials that are unprotected from ignition shall have a heat release rate not exceeding 100 kW when tested in
accordance with UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes, or when tested in
accordance with NFPA 289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, using the 20 kW ignition
source.
 A.10.3.7 Neither ANSI/UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes, nor NFPA
289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, are is not intended for evaluating interior wall and
ceiling finish materials.
 Actual test results for heat, smoke, and combustion product release from ANSI/UL 1975 or from NFPA 289 might be
suitable for use as input into fire models intended for performance-based design.



                    UL 1975 was developed in the 1970s and uses a 340 g wood crib as the ignition source. More modern
technology, using a propane gas burner, has recently been developed by the NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Tests,
specifically for this type of product. NFPA 289 is more versatile than UL 1975 and is also likely to offer lower variability.
The 20 kW gas burner ignition source in NFPA 289 was specifically designed with the intent of being a substitute for UL
1975. This proposal does not recommend the deletion of the use of UL 1975 but simply offers a more modern alternate
option.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                         17
                                                                                                            31 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-226 Log #85 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                         New text to read as follows:
                                                                                             Containers for rubbish, waste or
linen, including their lids, with a capacity of 20 gallons (75.7 L) or more shall be constructed of noncombustible materials
                                                                                   2
or of materials that meet a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m when tested, at an incident heat flux of
          2
50 kW/m in the horizontal orientation, at a thickness as used in the container but not less than 0.25 in. (6 mm), in
accordance with ASTM E 1354, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products
Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, or NFPA 271, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke
Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. Metal wastebaskets and other
metal rubbish, waste or linen containers with a capacity of 20 gallons (75.7 L) or more shall be         in accordance with
UL 1315, Standard for Safety for Metal Waste Paper Containers, and shall be provided with a noncombustible lid.




                    Large waste or linen containers made of polyethylene burn vigorously and produce high heat release
rates.
  If this requirement is in Chapter 10 it can be picked up by any of the occupancy chapters as needed. This proposal
also tries to get consistent language between codes, since the UFC talks about rubbish containers and the IFC talks
about waste containers, and addresses containers above 20 gallons. IFC requires that metal containers be listed to UL
1315.
  Since the UFC (NFPA 1) is trending to become very much of an extract code, it is important to get the key information
from it and place it in the Life safety code. I will not repeat information I have given elsewhere about the problem of
melting and high heat release polyethylene. I just want to state that an investigation of the UL web site indicates that
there are several pages (over 70 materials) of listed polyethylene materials that have been fire retarded, meeting a UL
94 V-2 flammability requirement or better, so that they are easily available and can also easily be designed, so that the
pass/fail criterion proposed is not very severe.
  Also, a test I conducted on a 22.4 lb polyethylene garbage can resulted in us having to extinguish the fire at 13.35 min
when it had reached over flashover conditions in a small 8 ft x 12 ft x 8 ft room, with a maximum of 1.342 MW. The heat
release was still growing when we extinguished the fire.
  The Uniform Fire Code already has the following section:
  “19.2.1.2 Nonmetallic Containers.
                                                                                              3
  19.2.1.2.1* Nonmetallic rubbish containers exceeding a capacity of 5 ft3 [40 gal (0.15 m )] shall be manufactured of
                                                                           2                    2
materials having a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m at a flux of 50 kW/m when tested in the
horizontal orientation, at a thickness as used in the container but not less than of 0.25 in. (6 mm), in accordance with
ASTM E 1354, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen
Consumption Calorimeter, or NFPA 271, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for
Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter.”
  The Uniform Fire Code also has an annex A item that explains that ASTM E 1354 or NFPA 271 is the cone
calorimeter. The cone calorimeter test standard does not indicate the exact conditions (heat flux and orientation) needed
                                                                     2
for testing. The annex also explains that the value of 300 kW/m for peak rate of heat release of the rubbish container
material corresponds to the value that Douglas fir wood emits under the same conditions and that rubbish containers are
often manufactured of polyethylene [effective heat of combustion ca. 19,000 Btu/lb (45 MJ/kg)], which releases much
more heat in a fire than the typical contents of the container, much of which is paper (effective heat of combustion ca.
6400 Btu/lb (15 MJ/kg]). The annex then contains Table A.19.2.1.2.1 (shown below), which shows peak heat release
                                                                                                       2
rates of a series of materials (34 plastics and Douglas fir wood) at an incident heat flux of 40 kW/m , in the horizontal
orientation and at a thickness of 0.25 in. (6 mm).

 ***Figure 1 here***

 Table Source: Hirschler 1992. “Heat release from plastic materials”, M.M. Hirschler, Chapter 12 a, in “Heat Release in
Fire,” Elsevier, London, UK, Eds. V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson, 1992. pp. 375–422."



  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        18
                                                                                                            32 of 59
NFPA101/L85/Figure 1/A2011/ROP 

 

                                  33 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                 NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-412 Log #67 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                          Revise text to read as follows:
  Table A.10.2
  Textile wall coverings - Column on Application requirement – Row on Section 10.2.4.1(4)
  Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of Class A having a Class A
rating permitted to be continued to be used
  Textile ceiling coverings - Column on Application requirement – Row on Section 10.2.4.1(4)
  Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of Class A having a Class A
rating permitted to be continued to be used
  Fire-retardant coatings - Column on Application requirement
  Required flame spread index or smoke developed index values development classification of existing surfaces of walls,
partitions, columns, and ceilings permitted to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having
higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted; such treatments required to be tested, or listed and labeled for
application to material to which they are applied
  Table A.10.2.2 Notes
  Notes:
  (1) Class A interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index, 0–25 (new applications), smoke developed index,
0–450.
  (2) Class B interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index, 26–75 (new applications), smoke developed index,
0–450.
  (3) Class C interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index, 76–200 (new applications), smoke developed index,
0–450.
                                                                                     2
  (4) Class I interior floor finish — critical radiant flux, not less than 0.45 W/cm .
                                                                                       2                          2
  (5) Class II interior floor finish — critical radiant flux, not more than 0.22 W/cm , but less than 0.45 W/cm .
  (6) Automatic sprinklers — where a complete standard system of automatic sprinklers is installed, interior wall and
ceiling finish meeting requirements of at least with a flame spread rating not exceeding Class C is permitted to be used
in any location where Class B is required and meeting requirements with a rating of Class B in any location where Class
A is required; similarly, Class II interior floor finish is permitted to be used in any location where Class I is required, and
no critical radiant flux classification rating is required where Class II is required. These provisions do not apply to new
detention and correctional occupancies.
  (7) Exposed portions of structural members complying with the requirements for heavy timber construction are
permitted.
  †See corresponding chapters for details.
                     The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and
fire protection rating.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                         19
                                                                                                             34 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-413 Log #116 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  A.10.2.3.4 It has been shown that the method of mounting interior finish materials might affect actual performance.
Where materials are tested in intimate contact with a substrate to determine a classification, such materials should be
installed in intimate contact with a similar substrate. Such details are especially important for “thermally thin” materials.
For further information, see ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building
Materials.
  Some interior wall and ceiling finish materials, such as fabrics not applied to a solid backing, do not lend themselves to
a test made in accordance with ASTM E 84. In such cases, the large-scale test outlined in NFPA 701, Standard
Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films, is permitted to be used.
  Prior to 1978, the test report described by ASTM E 84 included an evaluation of the fuel contribution as well as the
flame spread index rating and the smoke developed index development value. However, it is now recognized that the
measurement on which the fuel contribution is based does not provide a valid measure. Therefore, although the data
are recorded during the test, the information is no longer normally reported. Classification of interior wall and ceiling
finish thus relies only on the flame spread index and the smoke developed index development value.
  The 450 smoke developed index development value limit is based solely on obscuration. (See A.10.2.4.1.)
  A.10.2.6.1 It is the intent of the Code to mandate interior wall and ceiling finish materials that obtain their fire
performance and smoke developed characteristics in their original form. However, in renovations, particularly those
involving historic buildings, and in changes of occupancy, the required fire performance or smoke developed
characteristics of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings might have to be secured by applying
approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted. Such
treatments should comply with the requirements of NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood and
Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials. When fire-retardant coatings are used, they need to be applied to
surfaces properly prepared for the material, and application needs to be consistent with the product listing. Deterioration
of coatings applied to interior finishes can occur due to repeated cleaning of the surface or painting over applied
coatings, but permanency must be assured in some appropriate fashion. Fire-retardant coatings must possess the
desired degree of permanency and be maintained so as to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service
conditions encountered in actual use.
                    The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and
fire protection rating.
  Also: smoke development value should be smoke developed index.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                        20
                                                                                                            35 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                  NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-414 Log #34 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             George M. Lanier, Rome, GA
                       Revise the first paragraph of A.10.2.6.1 to read as follows: "A.10.2.6.1 It is the primary intent of the
Code to mandate interior wall and ceiling finish materials that obtain their fire performance and smoke develop ment
ed-characteristics in their original form. It is not the intent of the Code to infringe on the duties and powers of the
authority having jurisdiction to evaluate and permit the use of fire retardant coatings on new or existing building
materials. However, In renovations, particularly those involving historic buildings, and in changes of occupancy, the
required fire performance or smoke development ed characteristics of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns,
and ceilings might have to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame
spread ratings than permitted. Situations arise where the owner or architect of new construction may desire the use of
materials that may have higher flame spread ratings that have similar issues as existing surfaces in existing buildings. It
is the responsibility of authority having jurisdiction to evaluate the appropriateness of the specific fire-retardant coating
for use on a specific material in the configuration that the material is to be used and installed. It is the primary intent of
the Code that such treatments should comply with the requirements of NFPA 703,
                                                                 provided however, the authority having jurisdiction is not
restricted by the Code from utilizing other standards, and technical documentation in evaluating and approving the use
of flame-retardant coatings to existing or new materials."
  The remiander on the annex note remains unchanged.
                   The proposed revisions to A.1 0.2.6.1 are in support of proposed revisions to the Code text. The
proposed changes open the door for fire retardant coatings to be used on "new" building materials subject to the
approval of the authority having jurisdiction, which is consistent with 1.4; 1.4.1; 1.4.2; 1.4.3; 1.6; 3.2.1; 3.2.4; and 3.2.5.
It is not uncommon for owners and architects to desire to use materials such as wood decorative products that have
flame spread ratings or smoke generation classifications that exceed general code limitations. These could be
considered "new" for new projects. Rather than prohibiting the use of "new" materials outright, establish a clear
procedure whereby the authority having jurisdiction can evaluate products for use on "new" materials as well as
"existing" materials. See a proposal for revisions to 10.2.6.1.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                         21
                                                                                                             36 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                        NFPA 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
101-432 Log #118c SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                    Revise text to read as follows:
 D.1.2.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. www.astm.org
 ASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Products
and Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006 2005.
 ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006
2004.
 ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2009a 2004.
 ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2008a 2007a.
 ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2008b 2002.
 ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,
2008a 2002.
 ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,
2008a 2002.
 ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models, 2005a 2004.
 ASTM E 1472, Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models, 2007 2003.
 ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 2002.
 ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2002.
 ASTM E 1996 E 1966 Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 2001.
 ASTM E 2030, Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings, 2008 2002.
 ASTM E 2174, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Stops, 2004 2001.
 ASTM E 2238, Standard Guide for Evacuation Route Diagrams, 2002.
 ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using
Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2004 e1.
 ASTM E 2393, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Resistive Joint Systems and Perimeter Fire
Barriers, 2004.
 ASTM E 2484, Standard Specification for High-Rise Building External Evacuation Controlled Descent Devices, 2008
2006.
 ASTM E 2513, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Platform Rescue Systems, 2007.
 ASTM F 1637, Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces, 2007 2004.
 ASTM F 1870, Standard Guide for Selection of Fire Test Methods for the Assessment of Upholstered Furnishings in
Detention and Correctional Facilities, 2005.
                 This proposal updates ASTM standards to the most recent editions.




  Printed on 8/21/2009                                    22
                                                                                                    37 of 59
38 of 59
39 of 59
                                                                                                      Page 1 of 1



Subject:                                       FW: For your next FUR meeting

 
From: Harrington, Greg
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:12 PM
To: Collette, Kristin
Cc: Cote, Ron
Subject: For your next FUR meeting

Kristin:

In 101-2009, there appears to be an inconsistency between 10.2.7.2 and 10.2.8.2. I always understood 10.2.7.2
must be met for all floor coverings other than carpet (min. CRF of 0.1 W/cm2) regardless of sprinkler protection.
10.2.8.2 permits the reduction from Class II to no rating where sprinklers are provided, but I don’t think that
impacts 10.2.7.2. Can you ask FUR to clarify this for the next cycle?

We also discussed adding language to 10.2.4.1 and 10.2.4.2 to preclude the use of 10.2.8.1 for textile and
expanded vinyl wall and ceiling materials.

(I didn’t look, but I imagine there are corresponding provisions in 5000.)

Thanks!

‐‐Greg




                                                                                                       40 of 59

file://C:\Documents and Settings\lmackay\Desktop\10.2.7.2 floor coverings.htm                            9/1/2009
                                                                                                    Page 1 of 1



Subject:                          FW: LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4

 
From: Cote, Ron
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:50 AM
To: Harrington, Greg
Cc: Collette, Kristin
Subject: RE: LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4

Please assume we can not delete the annex, and prepare commentary explaining the discrepancy.

Ron


From: Harrington, Greg
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:46 AM
To: Cote, Ron
Cc: Collette, Kristin
Subject: LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4

In preparing Handbook commentary for Ch. 10, I discovered that FUR revised the heat release rate values for
upholstered furniture and mattresses in 10.3.3 and 10.3.4, but neglected to revise the associated annex text
which refers to the old values. This creates a conflict between the code language and the annex; the annex notes
are now wrong. I’m not sure the annex notes would be correct if we substituted in the new values.

Can the annex notes be deleted, or should I write commentary explaining this is a committee oversight?

Thanks.

Gregory Harrington, P.E.
Principal Fire Protection Engineer
NFPA – Quincy, MA USA




                                                                                                     41 of 59

file://C:\Documents and Settings\lmackay\Desktop\LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4.htm                           9/1/2009
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                              NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-27 Log #40 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                     New text to read as follows:
                                        . Reflective insulation materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use,
and shall comply with the requirements of Section 10.3.2 or 10.3.6.2. If the materials are tested in accordance with
ASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2599.

 Reflective insulation. Thermal insulation consisting of one or more low emittance surfaces bounding one or more
enclosed air spaces.




                  The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2599,
Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of reflective insulation materials and radiant barrier materials.
Until now there was no correct mandatory way to test these materials. In fact, unless the materials are mounted as
indicated in ASTM E 2599, the results of testing in the Steiner tunnel (ASTM E 84) are misleading and can lead to
unsafe implications. Now that a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. The
proposed definition was taken from the standard, ASTM E 2599, word for word.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-41 Log #CP5 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Technical Committee on Fundamentals,
                         Revise text to read as follows:
                                          . Any movable objects in a building that normally are secured or otherwise put in
place for functional reasons, excluding (1) parts of the internal structure of the building and (2) any items meeting the
definition of interior finish. [    2009]
                     This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary
definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-42 Log #CP6 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Technical Committee on Fundamentals,
                       Revise text to read as follows:
                                    The level of incident radiant heat energy in units of W/cm2 on a floor covering system at
the most distant flameout point. [        2006]
                    This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary
definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                         1
                                                                                                            42 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                 NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-45 Log #16 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
          Glossary of Terms Technical Advisory Committee / Marcelo Hirschler,
                   Revise text to read as follows:
                          The exposed surfaces of walls, ceilings, and floors within buildings.

                   It is important to have consistent definitions of terms within NFPA. The term “interior finish is the
responsibility of NFPA 850 but would be more appropriate for NFPA 101 or NFPA 5000.
 The committee was created by NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA
documents.




_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-105 Log #32 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                       Revise text to read as follows:
  10.1.1 Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulating
actual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to establish the classification of any
material for which a rating classification by a standard test is not available, unless otherwise provided in 10.1.2.
                   The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating
and fire protection rating.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                           2
                                                                                                              43 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-106 Log #39 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                       Revise text to read as follows:
 10.2.4.1* Textile Wall and Textile Ceiling Materials. The use of textile materials on walls or ceilings shall comply with
one of the following conditions:
 (1) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL
723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on
the walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.
 (2) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL
723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on
partitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height,
whichever is less.
 (3) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL
723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to
extend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions.
 (4) Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of having a Class A when
tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be continued to be used.
 (5) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard
Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and
Walls. (See 10.2.3.7.)
 (6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286,
Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth.
(See 10.2.3.7.)



                     This proposed change is both editorial and clarification.
  1. Classifications based on ASTM E 84 or UL 723 are not called ratings, since that term is used for fire resistance
ratings and fire protection ratings (using a standard time-temperature curve).
  2. It is possible to get Class A for an interior finish material by testing to NFPA 265 and NFPA 286, so the clarification
about the test is important to ensure that a wall covering material that passed a room corner test is not subject to the
same restrictions as one that passed the Steiner tunnel test.
  3. Testing wall coverings in the Steiner tunnel needs to be done with the specimen preparation and mounting method
of ASTM E 2404.
  4. Existing wall coverings already tested and previously approved should not be required to be ripped out.
I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by
NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA documents. The committee has
not reviewed this recommendation and therefore, this proposal is not being submitted in the name of the committee.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                         3
                                                                                                            44 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                     NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-107 Log #33 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                        Revise text to read as follows:
              Products shall be tested using the Method B test protocol of NFPA 265. The following conditions shall be
met:
 (1) Flame shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.
 (2) During the 150 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:
     (a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.
     (b) Flashover shall not occur.
 The interior finish shall comply with the following:
 1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.
 2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the samples on the 8 foot by 12 foot (2440 by 3660 mm) walls.
 3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 265, shall not occur.
                                                                                 2
 4. The total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m .
                    Most of this proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail the
criteria if the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of the
room or ceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test is flashover occurs
when the burner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burns
completely within a minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case. This proposal
adds the smoke requirements for new installations, to be consistent with IBC building code requirements.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-108 Log #34 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                       Revise text to read as follows:
            Products shall be tested using the test protocol of NFPA 286. The following conditions shall be met:
  (1) Flame shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.
  (2) During the 160 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:
      (a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.
      (b) Flashover shall not occur.
  (3) The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.
                                                                                                                     2
  (4) For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 10,760 ft2 (1000 m ).
  1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.
  2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling.
  3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur.
  4. The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.
                                                                                 2
  5. The total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m .
                    This proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail the criteria
if the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of the room or
ceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test is flashover occurs when the
burner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burns completely within
a minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case.
  The clause about new installations is removed because it is redundant since the building code applies only to new
installations.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                             4
                                                                                                                  45 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                              NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-109 Log #35 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                     Revise text to read as follows:
 10.4.3.1.2 Cellular or foamed plastic materials tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of
Insulated Wall Construction, or FM 4880, Approval Standard for Class I Fire Rating of Insulated Wall or Wall and
Roof/Ceiling Panels, Interior Finish Materials or Coating, and Exterior Wall Systems shall also be tested for smoke
release. Suitable smoke tests include the following:
 (1) Additional measurements of smoke release into the duct that demonstrate that the total smoke released throughout
the test does not exceed 1000 m2
 (2) NFPA 286, with the acceptance criterion of 10.2.3.7.2(4) 10.3.6.2
 (3) NFPA 255, ASTM E 84, or UL 723, with a smoke developed index not exceeding 450

                This proposal addresses two minor issues: (a) it corrects the section associated with pass/fail criteria
for NFPA 286 and (b) it eliminates the reference to NFPA 255, which is slated for withdrawal.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-110 Log #36 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
            Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                       Revise text to read as follows:
  10.4.3.2 Cellular or foamed plastic shall be permitted for trim not in excess of 10 percent of the wall or ceiling area,
provided that it is not less than 20 lb/ft3 (320 kg/m3) in density, is limited to ½ in. (13 mm) in thickness and 4 in. (100
mm) in width, and complies with the requirements for Class A or Class B interior wall and ceiling finish, as described in
10.3.2; however, the smoke release rating shall not be limited.
                    The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating
and fire protection rating.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                         5
                                                                                                           46 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-111 Log #37 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                        New text to read as follows:
                                                                            High density polyethylene and polypropylene
materials shall not be used as interior wall or ceiling finish unless the material complies with the requirements of Section
10.3.6.2. The tests shall be performed on a finished assembly related to the actual end-use configuration and on the
maximum thickness intended for use.
                    Polypropylene and high density polyethylene interior finish materials need to be treated the same way,
because polypropylene and polyethylene behave in a very similar fashion in fires.
  James Lathrop has explained the problems associated with polyethylene (HDPE), when it is used as an interior finish
material, as follows (exact quote):
  “HDPE is a thermoplastic that when it burns gives off considerable energy and produces a pooling flammable liquids
fire. Recent full scale room-corner tests using NFPA 286 have demonstrated a significant hazard. These tests had to be
terminated prior to the standard 15 minute duration due to flashover occurring, yet there was still much of the product
left to burn. Extensive flammable liquid pool fires occurred during the tests. Yet this same material when tested in
accordance with the tunnel test, ASTM E-84, is often given a FSI of 25 or less. However the resulting test is so intense
some labs will not test HDPE partitions in their tunnel due to the damage it can do to the tunnel. This proposal will
assure that when using HDPE partitions they will be formulated in such a manner to reduce the hazard that they
present. Following is some of the data from one of the NFPA 286 tests: Peak HRR (excl burner) 1733 kW; Total Heat
                                                                           2                               o      o
Released (excl. burner) 121 MJ; Peak Heat Flux to the floor 35.2 kW/m ; Peak Avg Ceiling Temp 805 C, 1481 F.”
  He has also explained that HDPE is extensively used in toilet room privacy partitions.
  It is worth putting the data Jim Lathrop presented into perspective by noting that pass/fail criteria are 800 kW and that
those materials which perform well in the room-corner test usually exhibit heat release rates less than 400 kW, as
opposed to over 1700 kW for HDPE.
  The materials in Table 1 (attached) were tested in a room corner test and in the Steiner tunnel test (ASTM E 84). Most
materials were tested in the NFPA room corner tests but some were tested in the much more severe ISO 9705 room
corner test (where the ignition burner is at 100 kW for 10 min and then at 300 kW for a further 10 min, as opposed to 40
kW/150 kW or 40 kW/160 kW for NFPA room-corner tests). Even here, some materials perform with low peak heat
release rates.

 ***Table 1 here***

  Experience in the past has long shown that materials with FSI values of less than 25 when tested in accordance with
ASTM E 84, particularly if they are thermally thin materials or materials that melt and drip during the test (such as HDPE
or polypropylene) cannot be guaranteed to be safe enough to be permitted to be used based simply on ASTM E 84
testing.
 A new product has now become available in the market: polypropylene toilet room privacy partitions.
 Polypropylene is a material that is very similar to polyethylene. Polypropylene is also a thermoplastic polyolefin
material, just like polyethylene and there is almost no difference in fire performance. Both materials melt and drip and
cause flaming drips when they burn and release large amounts of heat. The consequence of this is that pool fires are
formed on the floor beneath the material. Table 2 shows cone calorimeter (ASTM E 1354) data for polypropylene and
polyethylene. These materials should not be used as interior finish unless they comply with the criteria for tests to
NFPA 286.

 ***Table 2 here***

 ***Figure 1 here***

 The photograph above shows a 3 mm (1/8 inch) thick sheet of polypropylene exposed to fire and the resulting pool fire
(Photo and quotes below from NIST Technical Note 1493, T.J. Ohlemiller and J.R. Shields, “Aspects of the Thermal
Behavior of Thermoplastic Materials”, 2008).
 In the above work, NIST tests were conducted with thin sheets of polypropylene and revealed the problems associated
with the generation of melt pool fires and the role of a pool fire in the overall fire growth process. The publication states

  Printed on 8/25/2009                                         6
                                                                                                            47 of 59
               Table 1: Steiner tunnel and room corner test data
       FSI          Pk RHR (kW)                FSI                Pk RHR (kW)
   ASTM E 84      Room Corner Test          ASTM E 84           Room Corner Test
                     (NFPA 286)                                    (NFPA 265)
        15                195             Old Textile Wall Covering Data (1986)
        27                359             Cases Where E 84 is Poor Predictor
        10                 40                   25                     684
        70               1460                   15                    5771
        15                128                   15                     928
        15                153                   25                    1166
         0                 40
         0                 35           Cases Where E 84 Is not a Poor Predictor
        15                 22                   15                     310
        28                120                   15                     182
        25                106                   15                     297
       200                930                   25                     249
       200                945                   25                     309
       200               1070
       200               1075
        25                125
       < 25               234
       < 25              1733                 (Jim Lathrop Data on HDPE)
ASTM E 84 Room Corner Test (ISO         Room Corner Test Comments (ISO 9705)
                    9705)
    22               120                            (walls and ceiling)
  < 25                54                               (ceiling only)
  < 25               160                               (ceiling only)
  < 25               154                            (walls and ceiling)
    22      20 @ 10 min – 548 @ 11                  (walls and ceiling)
                      min
    22               110                               (ceiling only)
  < 25               517                            (walls and ceiling)
  < 25                58                               (ceiling only)




NFPA5000/L37/Table 1/A2011/ROP

                                                                            48 of 59
                       Table 2 – Cone calorimeter test data for
  standard polypropylene and polyethylene materials – 6 mm, 0.25 inch, thick (1992)
                                                 PP     PE Average of Plastics (*)
                           2         2
       Pk HRR @ 20 kW/m (in kW/m )             1,170    913              295
       Pk HRR @ 40 kW/m2 (in kW/m2)            1,509 1,408               443
                           2         2
       Pk HRR @ 70 kW/m (in kW/m )             2,421 2,735               640
 Total Heat Released @ 20 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231          162               92
 Total Heat Released @ 40 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 207          221              126
 Total Heat Released @ 70 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231          228              131
           *: based on cone calorimeter study of 35 materials, published in:
     “Heat Release in Fires” by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson – Elsevier, 1992.




NFPA5000/L37/Table 2/A2011/ROP

                                                                              49 of 59
                                    




NFPA5000/L37/Figure 1/A2011/ROP 

 

                                       50 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                                   NFPA 5000
that the results showed the following: “Thermoplastic materials yield extra complexity when they burn in the context of
the products in which they are found. Under the influence of gravity, the liquid phase formed during thermal degradation
flows downward. If, as is typical, this liquid is burning, then it extends the flaming zone on the solid downward onto
whatever surfaces are available to catch the liquid (ultimately a horizontal floor or ground surface). This constitutes, at
the least, a new form of flame spread on the object containing the thermoplastic (in addition to normal forms of flame
spread over solid surfaces, which are typically fastest in the upward direction), extending the area of fuel that is burning
and thereby increasing the overall heat release rate from the object. In many cases this downward flow of flaming liquid
results in a pool fire under the object. If that pool fire is close enough to the object that its plume reaches the object, the
result can be a self feeding pool fire that further enhances the rate of heat release from the burning system. In addition
to this penchant for liquid-assisted flame spread, thermoplastic materials also tend to deform significantly as they burn.
Thus large changes in the geometric shape of the burning object are common. These two aspects of thermoplastics
make modeling fire growth on them, or on objects containing them, extraordinarily difficult.”
  With regard to the polypropylene sheet experiment described in the photograph the report states: “The pool fire is
centered near the rear edge of the sample, not under the leading edge of the flames on the sheet. This is because it is
being fed flaming polymer melt most rapidly from an area several centimeters behind the forward-most portion of the
sample flame front where the shape of the trailing edge of the sheet curves rapidly from near vertical toward the
horizontal. There is a flow separation region there that tends to dump nearly all of the melt flow accumulated from higher
up on the trailing edge of the sheet. From this flow impingement area on the catch surface, the melt tends to flow radially
at first. That portion of the melt that is going forward (in the direction of flame spread) under the leading edge of the
flames on the base of the sheet encounters a cold catch surface that extracts heat from the melt, lowers its temperature
and rapidly raises its viscosity. This nearly halts the flow in this direction, which, in fact, greatly slows the potential rate of
fire spread. Because much of the “forward” flow of melt is inhibited and, because the catch surface in the opposite
direction has been pre-heated by the pool fire in its march forward, there is a preferential melt flow backward, away from
the direction of fire spread and toward the rear end of the pool fire. This tends to somewhat disengage the pool fire from
the overall forward fire spread process. The melt flow on the catch surface appears to be driven by the small hydrostatic
head that develops due to the finite thickness of the melt layer on this horizontal surface. Near the foot of the pool fire
flames, the flow is also driven outward, away from the pool fire center, by the surface tension gradient that is large in this
region. (One can often see a step up in melt layer thickness beneath the flame foot.) Note that the region of the pool
directly beneath the flames is bubbling, indicating in-depth generation of gaseous degradation products from the
polymer melt. Also note that, on the left (just to the left of the flame foot), the pool fire has burned out by locally
consuming all of the melt, leaving a dry central area. Around this area, however, there is a substantial amount of melt
that has not burned and is left by the fire. Evidently, this residue has cooled sufficiently (and remains sufficiently
heat-sunk to the catch surface) that it will not allow flame spread onto its surface (in effect, its temperature cannot be
raised to the point where it will ignite). Note that the polymer sheet itself is somewhat wavy on its rear edge (warped out
of the plane defined by the cold portion of the sample sheet). This is a consequence of the heat induced softening (and,
perhaps, expansion) of the sheet before it actually begins to melt and flow at an appreciable rate. This aspect of the
sample behavior was not reproducible. It interacts with the location of the separation point on the rear edge of the
sample and thus influences where the bulk of the melt gets deposited in relation to the leading edge of the fire on the
base of the sample. This appeared to be a major source of scatter in the evolution of the heat release rate from the fire,
as described further below. The above processes could conceivably produce an essentially steady-state, propagating
fire after some initial transient. Interestingly, while the flame spread rate along the bottom edge of the sample sheet is
nearly steady in all cases, other aspects of the fire, including the heat release rate, are not steady.”
  It needs to be pointed out that this is not an indictment of all polypropylene materials. It is possible to prepare
polypropylene materials that exhibit excellent fire performance, including no significant flaming when tested in the ASTM
E 84, Steiner tunnel. When one non fire retarded polypropylene material (1.5 mm, 0.06 inch thick) was subjected to a
small open flame screening test, it ignited, dripped a flaming stream of plastic to the floor and continued to burn on the
floor until it was consumed on the specimen holder and on the floor. On the other hand, a fire retarded polypropylene
material (3 mm, 1/8 inch thick) was subjected to the same small open flame screening test and caused no flaming drips.
When it was then subjected to the ASTM E 84 test, it produced a flame spread index of 50 and a smoke developed
index of 215, without flaming drips. Table 3 shows some cone calorimeter results on nine fire retarded polypropylene
materials, which gave very adequate fire performance.

 ***Table 3 here***




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                            7
                                                                                                                 51 of 59
                Table 3 - Cone Calorimeter Tests on Fire Retarded
                 Polypropylene Specimens (3 mm, 1/8 inch, thick)
                                Tests at 20        Tests at 40 kW/m2
                                        2
                                   kW/m
               Material           Pk HRR                 Pk HRR

                                  kW/m2                  kW/m2
              FR PP 1              236                     243
              FR PP 2              168                     206
              FR PP 3              207                     209
              FR PP 4              195                     206
              FR PP 5              301                     231
              FR PP 6              215                     193
              FR PP 7              228                     193
              FR PP 8              207                     188
              FR PP 9              202                     172
                                                          2
          PP Car HVAC duct                480 (at 25 kW/m )




NFPA5000/L37/Table 3/A2011/ROP

                                                                       52 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                               NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-112 Log #38 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council
                      New text to read as follows:
                                           . Site-fabricated stretch systems containing all three components described in
the definition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use, and shall comply with the requirements of
Section 10.3.2 or 10.3.6.2. If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen preparation
and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2573.

  Site-fabricated stretch system. A system, fabricated on site and intended for acoustical, tackable or aesthetic purposes,
that is comprised of three elements: (a) a frame (constructed of plastic, wood, metal or other material) used to hold
fabric in place, (b) a core material (infill, with the correct properties for the application), and (c) an outside layer,
comprised of a textile, fabric or vinyl, that is stretched taunt and held in place by tension or mechanical fasteners via the
frame.



                   The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2573,
Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of site-fabricated stretch systems. Until now there was no
correct mandatory way to test these systems. These systems are now being used extensively because they can stretch
to cover decorative walls and ceilings with unusual looks and shapes. The systems consist of three parts: a fabric (or
vinyl), a frame and an infill core material. The testing has often been done of each component separately instead of
testing the composite system. That is an inappropriate way to test and not the safe way to conduct the testing. Now
that a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. The proposed definition was taken
from the standard, ASTM E 2573, word for word.
  Some systems do not consist of all three components of site-fabricated stretch systems and they should be tested in a
manner appropriate to their use. In particular systems that contain a stretch membrane only and no core material have
been shown to behave very differently in a fire situation from the site-fabricated stretch systems. It is important that the
correct mounting method be used for each system.
  This type of product is not exclusive to any individual manufacturer. Three examples, taken from different
manufacturers, are shown as illustrations.

 ***Figure 1 here***

 ***Figure 2 here***

 ***Figure 3 here***


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-113 Log #41 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
              Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                         Revise text to read as follows:
           Interior floor finishes shall be grouped in the classes specified in 10.6.4.1 and 10.6.4.2 in accordance with the
critical radiant flux requirements ratings.
                     This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and fire
protection rating.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                         8
                                                                                                             53 of 59
 




                                    




NFPA5000/L38/Figure 1/A2011/ROP 

 

                                       54 of 59
                                       




NFPA5000/L38/Figure 2/A2011/ROP 

 

 

                                   55 of 59
                                    




NFPA5000/L38/Figure 3/A2011/ROP 

 

 

                                       56 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                             NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-250 Log #18 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                         Revise text to read as follows:
  Table A.10.2(a) Interior Finish Classification Limitations
  Notes:
  (1) Class A interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index 0-25, (new) smoke developed index 0-450.
  (2) Class B interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index 26-75, (new) smoke developed index 0-450.
  (3) Class C interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index 76-200, (new) smoke developed index 0-450.
                                                                                    2
  (4) Class I interior floor finish — critical radiant flux not less than 0.45 W/cm .
                                                                                     2                          2
  (5) Class II interior floor finish — critical radiant flux not less than 0.22 W/cm , but less than 0.45 W/cm .
  (6) Where a complete standard system of automatic sprinklers is installed, interior wall and ceiling finish meeting
requirements of at least with a rating not exceeding Class C is permitted to be used in any location where Class B is
required, and interior wall and ceiling finish meeting requirements with a rating of Class B is permitted to be used in any
location where Class A is required; similarly, Class II interior floor finish is permitted to be used in any location where
Class I is required, and no critical radiant flux classification rating is required where Class II is required. These
provisions do not apply to new health care facilities.
  (7) Exposed portions of structural members complying with the requirements for heavy timber construction are
permitted.
  †Paragraph 11.1.4.2 requires Class I or Class II interior floor finish in exits.
  ‡ See corresponding chapters for details.
                     The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating
and fire protection rating.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                        9
                                                                                                           57 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                              NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-251 Log #19 BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
             Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International
                        Revise text to read as follows:
  A.10.3.1 ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or UL 723,
Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials are considered nationally recognized
consensus standard test methods for determining the flame spread index and smoke developed index development
index of building materials and are likely to yield equivalent test results to those of ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of
Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials. (See also A.10.3.2.)
  A.10.3.1.3 It is the intent of the Code to mandate interior wall and ceiling finish materials that have had their fire
performance and smoke developed characteristics determined in their original form. However, in renovations,
particularly those involving historic buildings, and in changes of occupancy, the required fire performance or smoke
developed characteristics of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings might have to be secured by
applying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted.
Such treatments should comply with the requirements of NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood and
Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials. Where fire-retardant coatings are used, they need to be applied to
properly prepared surfaces, and the application needs to be consistent with the product listing. Deterioration of coatings
applied to interior finishes can occur due to repeated cleaning of the surface or painting over applied coatings, but
permanency must be ensured in some appropriate fashion. Fire-retardant coatings must possess the desired degree of
permanency and be maintained so as to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions
encountered in actual use.
  A.10.3.2 It has been shown that the method of mounting interior finish materials can affect actual performance. Where
materials are tested in intimate contact with a substrate to determine a classification, such materials should be installed
in intimate contact with a similar substrate. Such details are especially important for thermally thin materials. For further
information, see ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or UL 723,
Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials .
  Some interior wall and ceiling finish materials, such as fabrics not applied to a solid backing, do not lend themselves to
a test made in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723. In such cases, if the material is not treated as interior finish, the
appropriate test outlined in NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films,
should be considered.
  Prior to 1978, the test report described by ASTM E 84 or UL 723 included an evaluation of the fuel contribution as well
as the flame spread index rating and the smoke developed index development value. However, it is now recognized that
the measurement on which the fuel contribution is based does not provide a valid measure. Therefore, although the data
are recorded during the test, the information is no longer normally reported. Classification of interior wall and ceiling
finish thus relies only on flame spread index and smoke developed index development value .
  The smoke developed index development value limit of 450 is based solely on obscuration.
                    The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 or
less and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, in
accordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating
and fire protection rating.
  Also: smoke development value should be smoke developed index.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                        10
                                                                                                           58 of 59
Report on Proposals – June 2011                                                                     NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
5000-266 Log #84b BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
           Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
                     Revise text to read as follows:
 H.1.2.17 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.
 ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, 1997 2008, Revised 2001 2009.
 ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, 2001 2009.
 ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2003.
 ANSI/UL 580, Standard for Tests for Uplift Resistance of Roof Assemblies, 2006, Revised 2009.
 ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2003, Revised 2005 2008.
 ANSI/UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction, 1996, Revised 2001 2007.
 ANSI/UL 1256, Standard for Fire Test of Roof Deck Constructions, 2007.
 ANSI/UL 1479, Standard for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Firestops, 2006, Revised 2007 2008.
 UL Subject 1588, Outline of Investigation for Roof and Gutter De-Icing Cable Units, 2002.
 ANSI/UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, 2004 1997, Revised 2008.
 ANSI/UL 1820, Standard for Fire Test of Pneumatic Tubing for Flame and Smoke Characteristics, 2004, Revised 2009.
 ANSI/UL 1887, Standard for Fire Test of Plastic Sprinkler Pipe for Visible Flame and Smoke Characteristics, 2004,
Revised 2009.
 ANSI/UL 1897, Standard for Uplift Tests for Roof Covering Systems, 2004, Revised 2008.
 ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Optical Fiber Cable Raceway, 2004, Revised 2007.
 ANSI/UL 2043, Standard for Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release for Discrete Products and Their
Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces, 2001 2008.
 ANSI/UL 2079, Standard for Tests for Fire Resistance of Building Joint Systems, 2004, Revised 2006 2008.
 UL, Fire Resistance Directory, 2007 2009.
                 Update referenced standards to reflect ANSI approvals and most recent revisions.




  Printed on 8/25/2009                                   11
                                                                                                   59 of 59

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:11/15/2011
language:English
pages:59