Essays on Presentation (R) Article

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

Note: THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY DURING THE PRESENTATION. The questions requested are in page 8. The references include links of the books. The presentation file is ISO1716.ppt (Check your email for the link)BS EN (ISO) 1716 Calorific Value Test and how it compares with the Cone Calorimeter Test; and how could the 1716 test assist in classifying hazard and/or risk of fire in a typical university lecture room, such as Mb41? Also, trace the history of the test and express a logically derived opinion of its usefulness and its limitations for fire safety conscious building designers. IntroductionFire presents hazards to life and property because of toxic gases, suffocating smoke, and too much heat.

These hazards are primarily generated by products made of combustible materials which unfortunately are being used in residential, private, government, industrial, and transportation. For this reason, a number of fire scenarios need to be considered for testing of products and there are methods required to comply with specific regulations or legislations. The following section discusses two known test method, the BS EN ISO 1716 Calorific Value Test and the Cone Calorimeter Test.

BS EN(ISO) 1716 Calorific Value TestThe ISO 1716 for calorific value of materials is types of test widely used in relation with flammability test methods in order to know and classify materials for building regulations. For instance, materials with a calorific value of less than 2500 kJ/kg in France are considered for M0 or given the highest classification. Moreover, to measure the calorific potential of materials, a bomb calorimetric method is used (Murphy 1998, p. 429). This method determines the calorific value of non-metal containing building material by using a high-pressure bomb in a water jacket immersed in a calorimeter vessel containing water.

The selected sample is contained in a crucible in the bomb, which pressurized with oxygen then ignited electrically to determine the peak temperature of the water jacket. Using particular formulae, the net calorific potential is calculated. This method determines the heat of total combustion rather than the heat release rate which were common in previous methods (Brown 1999, p. 682). The BS EN ISO 1716 can be applied mainly along with other test methods such EN 13823 or the Single Burning Item test, EN ISO 9239-1 or the Radiant Panel test, EN ISO 1182 or the Non-Combustibility test, etc, for classification required by Euroclass for non-combustible building products.

Some of the materials that can be tested with BS EN ISO 1716 are insulation products of mineral wool, fibre reinforced cement, silicate boards, sealing compound, and others. The specimen used in this type of test measures at 250 mm x 250 mm and weighing 50 grams (SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden 2009, p. 1). Some examples of calorific values determined by this method are below: MaterialCalorific Value(MJ/kg)Stone wool0.8-1.8Wood19Rubber32Phenolformaldehyde29Polyester31Polystyrene40Polyurethane foam26Polyisocyanurate foam24Ureaformaldehyde foam14Cone Calorimeter TestThe Cone Calorimeter test is known as ISO 5660 and its bench-scale test to determine the reaction to fire for surface lining materials that is being use in building construction.

A typical set up of apparatus for this test is below: In this test, specimen usually measures 100mm x 100mm with a thickness of about 6mm to 50 mm (Hume 1992, p. 4). The specimen is mounted in low heat loss insulating ceramic material horizontally and being exposed to a heat flux from an electric heater ranging from 25 to 75 kW/m2.

The mixture of gases above the specimen is then ignited by an electric spark source when it reaches a level above the lower flammability limit. The test usually ends after 10 minutes but may be longer in some cases depending on the material being tested. The main results of this test are time to ignition or TTI, Mass loss rate or MLR, and Heat Release rate or HRR (Horrocks & Price 2001, p. 360).

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us