Chapter 30
Comparison of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers in Global Fire Performance Tests Downloaded by UNIV OF ARIZONA on December 19, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 18, 2012 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2012-1118.ch030
Michael Stevens* and Philippe Coutelen Ashland Performance Materials 5200 Blazer Parkway, Dublin OH 43017 *E-mail:
[email protected] Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) have been used widely in building, construction and mass transit applications in many parts of the world. Although some efforts towards the harmonization of fire performance standards are taking place (like EN45545 in the European train industry) most countries continue to have their own requirements to qualify materials for specific applications. As the economy becomes more global, it would be helpful for composite fabricators and end users to predict how materials perform in the different tests. A study was undertaken to test 10 different materials from the United States and Europe to see how they perform in a range of North American and European fire performance tests. The tests studied were UL 94, ASTM E162, ASTM E84, ASTM E662, ASTM E1354, IMO A653, NFP 92501, NFP 16-101, and EN 13823. The results will be discussed. Although it was found that fire performance is generally dependant upon the resin system and the type of fire retardant used, the fire performance in a given test was seldom indicative of a material’s performance in another procedure.
Introduction The fire code requirements for building, construction and mass transit applications vary significantly across the world. Even fire performance requirements within the same country are different for these applications. Materials used in these areas may be similar, but must be tested to all of the different standards. Historically, there has been very little correlation between the © 2012 American Chemical Society In Fire and Polymers VI: New Advances in Flame Retardant Chemistry and Science; Morgan, A., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2012.
Downloaded by UNIV OF ARIZONA on December 19, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 18, 2012 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2012-1118.ch030
various fire performance tests. This makes it difficult for a material supplier or a fabricator to determine what fire retardant system to use for each application. In the past, each European country had its own fire codes and employed its own fire test procedure. This required that materials meet different qualifications for the same application in each nation. The European Union has begun harmonizing the fire code tests. The new standard for building and construction applications has been issued and is starting to be adopted by various European nations. EN45545 is the proposed standard for the European rail industry. This will make it easier to have materials qualified for use all across Europe without having to tests to every country’s individual specifications. As companies continue to expand globally, there is a strong need to find economies of scale and to sell a uniform product across all geographies. It is of paramount importance to know how a particular FRP product will perform in the fire performance tests used for qualifying them for applications in different countries. This study was set up to look at how typical FRP systems from the United States will perform in the new EU standard tests and also how FRP systems designed for the European market will perform in the standard U.S. fire performance tests for buildings, mass transit and marine applications.
Experimental A series of resins with various degrees of fire performance was chosen for this study. All of the resins are commercially available. The method for obtaining fire retardancy was also varied. This was done to see if the method of obtaining fire retardancy would give different results in the various tests. The resins evaluated include brominated resins, a combination of brominated resins filled with aluminum trihydrate (ATH), and non-brominated resins filled with ATH. The test laminates were made using three layers of chopped strand glass mat to achieve 20-30% glass fiber content. The panels were made in the laboratory using a hand lay-up process. The thickness of each panel measured approximately 3 mm. All panels were made the same in order to remove this variable from the comparison. The panels were cured at room temperature and then post cured for six hours at 80 °C. The resin systems tested are listed in Table 1. The fire tests that were evaluated covered the most common tests used in building applications, mass transit rolling stock, and the marine industry. The tests used in the study were ASTM E84 (1), ASTM E162 (2), ASTM E662 (3), ASTM E1354 (4), NFP92501 (5), NFP16-101 (6), EN 13823 (7) and IMO A653 (8). The descriptions of these tests can be found in the standards. Each of these tests uses different sample configurations and heat fluxes. Some of the tests (e.g. ASTM E84) also have a set air flow through the test apparatus. A description of the requirements as well as guidance on how to test FRP for the new European Union requirements for building and construction applications is described in the Draft International Standard ISO/DIS 25762 (9). This also compares how different FRP materials perform in these tests.
482 In Fire and Polymers VI: New Advances in Flame Retardant Chemistry and Science; Morgan, A., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2012.
Downloaded by UNIV OF ARIZONA on December 19, 2012 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 18, 2012 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2012-1118.ch030
Table 1. Resins used in test program Resin Number
Halogen
ATH Filler
A
Yes
Yes
B
Yes
Yes
C
Yes
Yes
D
Yes
Yes
E
Yes
No
F
Yes
No
H
No
Yes
I
No
Yes
K
No
Yes
Results and Discussions Tables 2, 3 and 4 gives the flame spread data for all of the tests, Tables 5, 6 and 7 gives the smoke test data for all of the tests. The discussion of these results are below. The most common test used in the United States for building and construction applications is ASTM E84; commonly referred to as the Steiner Tunnel Test. The Flame Spread Index (FSI) results of these tests are shown in Figure 1. The Smoke Developed Index (SDI) is shown in Table 2. The resin systems containing halogens performed well in this test. The level of halogen in the resin tends to determine the flame spread index. Bromine synergists like antimony can also be employed to obtain a lower flame spread index with a given amount of bromine or the same FSI with lower bromine content. The systems utilizing ATH as the sole fire retardant (FR) additive do not do as well in this test. It requires very high loadings of ATH to obtain a flame spread index of
