Reaction to fire - Revision history

Jan: Remove links to pages that do not exist; retain displayed text (wiki-wide link audit).

2026-11-02T21:34:44Z

Remove links to pages that do not exist; retain displayed text (wiki-wide link audit).

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 2 November 2026
Line 59:		Line 59:
	In a room-corner test, lining materials are mounted on the walls or ceiling of a small enclosure. A burner near a rear corner provides the ignition exposure. Combustion products leave through the opening and enter a collection hood. Measurements in the exhaust can include gas concentrations, flow and smoke obscuration, alongside the information needed to determine heat release.<ref name="J_3-39" />		In a room-corner test, lining materials are mounted on the walls or ceiling of a small enclosure. A burner near a rear corner provides the ignition exposure. Combustion products leave through the opening and enter a collection hood. Measurements in the exhaust can include gas concentrations, flow and smoke obscuration, alongside the information needed to determine heat release.<ref name="J_3-39" />

	The [[Single Burning Item test]] uses two wall panels arranged as a corner without a ceiling. Babrauskas describes it as a European regulatory heat-release test in the 2002 handbook, and its geometry differs from the enclosed room-corner arrangement. The [[Euroclass system]] is the related classification topic; the historical test description alone does not provide a complete classification procedure.<ref name="B_3-32" />		The Single Burning Item test uses two wall panels arranged as a corner without a ceiling. Babrauskas describes it as a European regulatory heat-release test in the 2002 handbook, and its geometry differs from the enclosed room-corner arrangement. The [[Euroclass system]] is the related classification topic; the historical test description alone does not provide a complete classification procedure.<ref name="B_3-32" />

	Calorimeter results depend on specimen mounting, orientation, geometry and exposure. Janssens reports comparisons in which different apparatuses produced different peaks or time-dependent heat-release behaviour. Agreement for an average value did not necessarily imply agreement for the peak. The measured quantity and averaging period therefore belong with any reported result.<ref name="J_3-56" />		Calorimeter results depend on specimen mounting, orientation, geometry and exposure. Janssens reports comparisons in which different apparatuses produced different peaks or time-dependent heat-release behaviour. Agreement for an average value did not necessarily imply agreement for the peak. The measured quantity and averaging period therefore belong with any reported result.<ref name="J_3-56" />

Emma: Revise Basic article against FSE writing guidelines: sourced explanations, examples and references (GPT-6)

2026-11-02T18:41:31Z

Revise Basic article against FSE writing guidelines: sourced explanations, examples and references (GPT-6)

Emma: Revise Basic article against FSE writing guidelines: sourced explanations, examples and references (GPT-6)

2026-11-02T17:53:54Z

Revise Basic article against FSE writing guidelines: sourced explanations, examples and references (GPT-6)

Show changes

Sanne: Add diagrams fse-reaction-to-fire-v1.svg, fse-reaction-to-fire-v2.svg, fse-reaction-to-fire-v3.svg (level-1 visual plan)

2026-11-02T07:02:09Z

Add diagrams fse-reaction-to-fire-v1.svg, fse-reaction-to-fire-v2.svg, fse-reaction-to-fire-v3.svg (level-1 visual plan)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 2 November 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Effective heat of combustion is the ratio of heat release to mass loss and reflects actual burning conditions. It can differ substantially from the lower calorific value measured in a bomb calorimeter, especially for solids. Reaction-to-fire data therefore provide information that an energy inventory alone cannot supply.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Drysdale-1-95">Drysdale (2002), p. 1-95.</ref>		Effective heat of combustion is the ratio of heat release to mass loss and reflects actual burning conditions. It can differ substantially from the lower calorific value measured in a bomb calorimeter, especially for solids. Reaction-to-fire data therefore provide information that an energy inventory alone cannot supply.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Drysdale-1-95">Drysdale (2002), p. 1-95.</ref>
			[[File:fse-reaction-to-fire-v1.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Exposure leads to ignition, heat release, flame spread, smoke and toxic products.\|Reaction to fire covers several material responses. Based on Janssens (2002), pp. 3-38–3-39 and Quintiere (2002), p. 2-247.]]

	The complete time history matters. Peak heat release, early growth and long-term averages answer different questions, and their averaging periods must be reported. A single peak can obscure the exposure produced by the rest of the test.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" /><ref name="Janssens-3-56">Janssens (2002), p. 3-56.</ref>		The complete time history matters. Peak heat release, early growth and long-term averages answer different questions, and their averaging periods must be reported. A single peak can obscure the exposure produced by the rest of the test.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" /><ref name="Janssens-3-56">Janssens (2002), p. 3-56.</ref>
Line 30:		Line 31:

	The [[Single Burning Item test]] uses two wall panels in a corner configuration without a ceiling and provides a regulatory reaction-to-fire measurement for building products. Its result belongs to that arrangement. Installed walls, ceilings and rooms can introduce different heat feedback and ventilation.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-33">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-33.</ref>		The [[Single Burning Item test]] uses two wall panels in a corner configuration without a ceiling and provides a regulatory reaction-to-fire measurement for building products. Its result belongs to that arrangement. Installed walls, ceilings and rooms can introduce different heat feedback and ventilation.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-33">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-33.</ref>
			[[File:fse-reaction-to-fire-v2.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Four test scales from small cone specimen to room and facade systems.\|Reaction-to-fire tests address different scales and feedback. Based on Janssens (2002), p. 3-39 and Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-33.]]

	The [[Room corner test]] uses a small enclosure with a defined burner and opening and collects effluent in an exhaust system. It captures room-layer and surface feedback that open tests omit. This makes it useful when the intended application includes similar enclosure effects.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-1">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-1.</ref>		The [[Room corner test]] uses a small enclosure with a defined burner and opening and collects effluent in an exhaust system. It captures room-layer and surface feedback that open tests omit. This makes it useful when the intended application includes similar enclosure effects.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-1">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-1.</ref>
Line 40:		Line 42:

	New Zealand's C/VM2 provides another example of performance criteria tied to scenario. Its flooring requirements use critical radiant flux, with higher values indicating better performance in the commentary. The required value depends on occupancy, escape function and sprinkler protection.<ref name="CVM2-52" />		New Zealand's C/VM2 provides another example of performance criteria tied to scenario. Its flooring requirements use critical radiant flux, with higher values indicating better performance in the commentary. The required value depends on occupancy, escape function and sprinkler protection.<ref name="CVM2-52" />
			[[File:fse-reaction-to-fire-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Critical radiant flux values 4.5, 2.2 and 1.2 kW/m² for three C/VM2 situations.\|C/VM2 critical radiant flux depends on occupancy and sprinklers. Based on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 52.]]

	C/VM2 also groups materials from noncombustible or limited-combustibility products through to exposed polyurethane foams in its commentary. Those groups are specific to the 2025 second edition and its application. They are not a universal reaction-to-fire classification.<ref name="CVM2-52" />		C/VM2 also groups materials from noncombustible or limited-combustibility products through to exposed polyurethane foams in its commentary. Those groups are specific to the 2025 second edition and its application. They are not a universal reaction-to-fire classification.<ref name="CVM2-52" />

Jan: Repair new FSE wiki article: Reaction to fire (written by Kimi Code CLI)

2026-11-02T04:24:30Z

Repair new FSE wiki article: Reaction to fire (written by Kimi Code CLI)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:24, 2 November 2026
Line 114:		Line 114:

	* [[Combustibility]]		* [[Combustibility]]
	* [[Fire properties]]
	* [[Fire testing]]		* [[Fire testing]]
			* [[Flame retardant]]

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

Jan: New FSE wiki article: Reaction to fire (written by Kimi Code CLI)

2026-11-02T00:36:13Z

New FSE wiki article: Reaction to fire (written by Kimi Code CLI)

New page

'''Reaction to fire''' is the response of a material or product to a specified fire exposure. It describes how the item contributes to ignition, heat release, flame spread, smoke and sometimes toxic products. The assessment is tied to a test method and scenario rather than being an unqualified property independent of exposure.<ref name="Janssens-3-38">Janssens (2002), pp. 3-38–3-39.</ref><ref name="Quintiere-2-247">Quintiere (2002), p. 2-247.</ref>

Reaction to fire differs from [[Fire resistance]], which concerns a construction's ability to maintain structural adequacy, integrity and insulation during exposure. A material can contribute strongly to a fire without being part of a load-bearing assembly, while a noncombustible assembly can still fail through heat transfer or deformation.<ref name="CVM2-64">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.</ref><ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-155">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-155.</ref>

The assessment supports product comparison, classification and design data. It uses bench-, room- and system-scale tests to measure response and to provide inputs for models. Application to an installed product requires attention to geometry, ventilation and end use.<ref name="Janssens-3-39">Janssens (2002), p. 3-39.</ref><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-3.</ref>

== Ignition and heat release ==

Reaction-to-fire assessment begins with whether and when a material ignites under a defined exposure. Heat flux, pilot arrangement, backing and heat losses affect that transition. A material's response therefore cannot be represented by one universal ignition temperature.<ref name="Kanury-2-231">Kanury (2002), pp. 2-231–2-232.</ref><ref name="IFEG-3.3-3">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 3.3-3.</ref>

Heat release rate describes the power produced after ignition. It is linked to mass loss and effective heat of combustion, but that relationship can change during a test. A constant heat-of-combustion value should not be assumed when decomposition and combustion mode vary.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-1">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-1.</ref><ref name="Janssens-3-39" />

Effective heat of combustion is the ratio of heat release to mass loss and reflects actual burning conditions. It can differ substantially from the lower calorific value measured in a bomb calorimeter, especially for solids. Reaction-to-fire data therefore provide information that an energy inventory alone cannot supply.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Drysdale-1-95">Drysdale (2002), p. 1-95.</ref>

The complete time history matters. Peak heat release, early growth and long-term averages answer different questions, and their averaging periods must be reported. A single peak can obscure the exposure produced by the rest of the test.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" /><ref name="Janssens-3-56">Janssens (2002), p. 3-56.</ref>

== Flame spread and material contribution ==

[[Flame spread]] measures how fire moves over or alongside a material as heat produces new volatile fuel. It depends on forward heat transfer, airflow, orientation and thermal response. The same material can therefore show different spread in different installations.<ref name="Quintiere-2-246">Quintiere (2002), p. 2-246.</ref><ref name="Quintiere-2-247" />

Upward spread can preheat a large region above the flame, while lateral and downward spread use different heat-transfer paths. Backing and thickness alter energy storage, and char or melting changes the surface during exposure. These factors belong in the test description.<ref name="VR-4.3">Van Rossum (2027), §4.3.</ref><ref name="Quintiere-2-249">Quintiere (2002), p. 2-249.</ref>

[[Combustibility]] identifies the ability to burn, but reaction to fire measures the resulting behaviour. A combustible material can resist ignition under one exposure and spread rapidly under another. The two concepts should not be treated as synonyms.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-157">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-157.</ref><ref name="Kanury-2-231" />

Fire contribution also includes total energy and the stage at which it is released. A high peak can occur early or late, and decay can leave hot residue and smouldering. Evaluating only the initial reaction misses these later effects.<ref name="VR-4.11">Van Rossum (2027), §4.11.</ref><ref name="Ohlemiller-2-206">Ohlemiller (2002), p. 2-206.</ref>

== Test methods ==

[[Fire testing]] supplies controlled exposure and measurement. The cone calorimeter uses a small specimen and oxygen-consumption measurement, while room tests include enclosure feedback. The method determines which physical processes are represented and which extrapolations remain necessary.<ref name="Janssens-3-56" /><ref name="Janssens-3-39" />

The [[Single Burning Item test]] uses two wall panels in a corner configuration without a ceiling and provides a regulatory reaction-to-fire measurement for building products. Its result belongs to that arrangement. Installed walls, ceilings and rooms can introduce different heat feedback and ventilation.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-33">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-33.</ref>

The [[Room corner test]] uses a small enclosure with a defined burner and opening and collects effluent in an exhaust system. It captures room-layer and surface feedback that open tests omit. This makes it useful when the intended application includes similar enclosure effects.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-1">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-1.</ref>

The [[Large-scale facade fire test]] evaluates complete facade arrangements at a scale that includes joints, cavities and external flame paths. Material-level tests cannot capture all these interactions. System geometry and installation must accompany any application of the result.<ref name="IFEG-1.6-7">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-7.</ref><ref name="CVM2-64" />

== Classification ==

The [[Euroclass system]] provides a regulatory framework for classifying reaction-to-fire performance using defined methods and criteria. A classification must be based on the applicable test and edition, not inferred from a material's generic name or from another country's category. Regulatory context matters.<ref name="Janssens-3-38" /><ref name="CVM2-52">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 52.</ref>

New Zealand's C/VM2 provides another example of performance criteria tied to scenario. Its flooring requirements use critical radiant flux, with higher values indicating better performance in the commentary. The required value depends on occupancy, escape function and sprinkler protection.<ref name="CVM2-52" />

C/VM2 also groups materials from noncombustible or limited-combustibility products through to exposed polyurethane foams in its commentary. Those groups are specific to the 2025 second edition and its application. They are not a universal reaction-to-fire classification.<ref name="CVM2-52" />

A classification does not describe every property. Ignition, heat release, spread and smoke can vary independently, and an acceptable result for one criterion may be unacceptable for another. The detailed test evidence remains necessary for engineering use.<ref name="Purser-2-96">Purser (2002), p. 2-96.</ref><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" />

== Smoke and toxic products ==

Reaction-to-fire assessment can include smoke production and toxic yields. These influence visibility and inhalation hazard and vary strongly with combustion mode. A material that releases less heat may still produce hazardous smoke under fuel-rich conditions.<ref name="Purser-2-96" /><ref name="Gottuk-Lattimer-2-54">Gottuk and Lattimer (2002), p. 2-54.</ref>

Soot yield affects optical density, while carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and irritants affect incapacitation and survival. Their yields should be measured under conditions that represent the intended fire stage. Early well-ventilated data can underestimate later hazard.<ref name="Purser-2-96" /><ref name="Mulholland-2-259">Mulholland (2002), p. 2-259.</ref>

Fire-retarded materials provide a further example of trade-offs. Lower combustion efficiency can reduce energy release while increasing partially oxidised products. Total mass burned and total toxic production must be evaluated together rather than assuming one improvement covers all outcomes.<ref name="Drysdale-1-95" /><ref name="Purser-2-96" />

Smoke and toxicity are not always included in a classification to the same depth as heat release and spread. The report should state which were measured and which remain unassessed. This prevents a reaction-to-fire label from being mistaken for a complete life-safety evaluation.<ref name="Purser-2-85">Purser (2002), pp. 2-85–2-86.</ref><ref name="Babrauskas-3-33" />

== Data for models and design ==

Bench-scale data can support models of larger scenarios when the relevant mechanisms and geometry are represented. Heat-release curves, ignition criteria and material properties are useful inputs, but enclosure and installation assumptions remain part of the model. The data do not make those assumptions unnecessary.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" />

Room tests provide stronger evidence when enclosure feedback matters, but their ventilation and geometry must match the application. Open-burning data can instead be suitable for well-ventilated conditions with comparable fuel arrangement. Selection should follow the intended scenario.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-2">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-2.</ref>

Uncertainty includes measurement bias, random error, specimen variability and model extrapolation. Calibration addresses some bias, while interlaboratory trials help quantify reproducibility. These uncertainties should be visible in design comparisons.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-33" />

The final assessment should identify the required outcome. Product ranking, regulatory classification and design-fire development can require different data and criteria. A test that is appropriate for one may be insufficient for another.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="CVM2-52" />

== Limits and common misunderstandings ==

Reaction to fire is not an inherent pass-fail label for every situation. It is a measured response under specified exposure and mounting conditions. Real installations can change those conditions and therefore the result.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" /><ref name="Quintiere-2-247" />

It is not the same as fire resistance. Reaction to fire concerns contribution to fire, while fire resistance concerns the assembly's ability to continue performing required functions. Both may be needed for a complete assessment.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-209">Milke (2002), p. 4-209.</ref>

A higher-class or better-performing product in one test is not guaranteed to outperform another product in every installation. Orientation, backing, enclosure, ventilation and exposure can change the ranking. Compatibility with end use must be demonstrated.<ref name="Quintiere-2-247" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" />

Finally, heat release alone does not describe all hazards. Smoke, toxicity, structural response and delayed smouldering can remain. A complete fire-safety assessment must include the relevant consequences beyond the initial material reaction.<ref name="Purser-2-85" /><ref name="Ohlemiller-2-206" />

== Evaluating evidence and applicability ==

A reaction-to-fire report should identify the measured quantities and their reference conditions. Heat release per exposed area, total heat release, mass loss and toxic yield have different meanings. Comparing them without matching area, time and combustion basis would produce an invalid ranking.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Janssens-3-56" />

The fire stage should also be explicit. Early well-ventilated burning, developed fuel-rich burning and smouldering can produce different heat and product curves. A single value from one stage cannot describe the whole reaction without stating how the remaining stages are treated.<ref name="Purser-2-96" /><ref name="Gottuk-Lattimer-2-55" />

Product form should be preserved in the assessment. Layers, facings, joints and backing can change heat transfer and expose different materials over time. A result for a small homogeneous specimen may therefore not represent the installed composite product.<ref name="Beyler-Hirschler-1-112">Beyler and Hirschler (2002), p. 1-112.</ref><ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-156" />

Tests can be compared only after their methods are reconciled. Cone-calorimeter, Single Burning Item and room-corner arrangements use different exposures and boundaries. Agreement or disagreement should be evaluated using the same quantity, averaging interval and enclosure interpretation.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-33" /><ref name="Janssens-3-39" />

For classification, the detailed evidence should be checked against the applicable criteria. A strong result in one property does not compensate automatically for another criterion that was not measured or was unacceptable. This is particularly relevant when smoke and toxicity are outside the main classification.<ref name="CVM2-52" /><ref name="Purser-2-85" />

For design, the required scenario should control data selection. A study of early detection may need early heat-release and smoke curves, while a structural study needs developed exposure and decay. The same reaction-to-fire dataset may not support both without additional information.<ref name="IFEG-2.5-2">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 2.5-2.</ref><ref name="Lie-4-201">Lie (2002), pp. 4-201–4-203.</ref>

Uncertainty should be propagated into any extrapolation. Instrument error, specimen variability, enclosure differences and model assumptions all affect the final result. Sensitivity analysis can show which of these must be resolved before the reaction-to-fire evidence is reliable enough for the decision.<ref name="Babrauskas-3-33" /><ref name="VR-1.7">Van Rossum (2027), §1.7.</ref>

A final review should distinguish observed response from modelled prediction. Observed data describe the test, while a predicted installed reaction includes additional assumptions about the building and fire. Keeping those categories separate prevents a calculated outcome from being misreported as a test result.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" />

A final check is whether the assessment answers the intended question. A material's ability to ignite is different from its heat release after ignition, and both differ from its smoke production or its effect on a structure. Selecting only the easiest measurement can leave the governing consequence unexamined.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Purser-2-85" />

Reaction-to-fire evidence should also be separated from design-fire assumptions. A measured curve comes from a test, while a design curve is selected for analysis. The design curve may be based on test evidence, but it still includes choices about growth, developed burning and decay.<ref name="IFEG-1.2-29">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 1.2-29–1.2-30.</ref><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" />

For escape and tenability, the material response must be converted into conditions at the person. Source heat and product yields are transported and diluted before becoming exposure, and exposure time then affects incapacitation. A reaction-to-fire label alone cannot perform that conversion.<ref name="Purser-2-85" /><ref name="Gottuk-Lattimer-2-55">Gottuk and Lattimer (2002), p. 2-55.</ref>

The conversion also needs the person's location and exposure duration. A source yield can be high without producing the same concentration elsewhere, and a short high exposure can have a different effect from a long low one. Reaction-to-fire data therefore support, but do not replace, a building exposure assessment.<ref name="Gottuk-Lattimer-2-54" /><ref name="Purser-2-88">Purser (2002), p. 2-88.</ref>

For structural evaluation, the response must instead be converted into member temperature and mechanical response. Fire resistance depends on protection, loading and end conditions as well as material contribution. Reaction-to-fire and fire-resistance evidence therefore complement rather than replace each other.<ref name="Milke-4-209" /><ref name="CVM2-64" />

A final report should identify these boundaries and any criteria not assessed. It should state whether the result is a measurement, a classification or a modelled prediction and under which conditions each applies. That clarity prevents a reaction-to-fire result from being used as a universal safety label.<ref name="Janssens-3-39" /><ref name="Babrauskas-3-3" />

Assembly context determines which material properties and failure modes are relevant. Kodur and Harmathy distinguish load-bearing and insulating roles, while noting that most construction materials are heterogeneous. Their composition, microstructure and moisture can change the response even when two products share a generic material name.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-156">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-156.</ref>

The evidence chain should remain traceable from specimen to building. It records the tested material, its microstructure and mounting, the measured response and the conversion used for the installed condition. This allows another reviewer to see whether a result reflects material behaviour, assembly behaviour or an additional modelling assumption.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-156" /><ref name="Janssens-3-39" />

For readers, that means a reaction-to-fire result should not be shortened into a universal label. It is evidence about a material or product under specified exposure, with separate questions still to answer about transport, occupants and structural performance. Retaining those distinctions makes the result both clearer and more useful for design. It also makes clear which questions remain outside the original test and which additional evidence is needed to answer them in the intended building and for its occupants.<ref name="Purser-2-85" /><ref name="CVM2-64" />

== See also ==

* [[Combustibility]]
* [[Fire properties]]
* [[Fire testing]]

== Notes ==

<references />

== References ==

* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.
* Babrauskas, V. (2002). Heat release rates. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Drysdale, D. D. (2002). Thermochemistry. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Gottuk, D. T., & Lattimer, B. Y. (2002). Effect of combustion conditions on species production. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Janssens, M. (2002). Calorimetry. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Kanury, A. M. (2002). Flaming ignition of solid fuels. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Kodur, V. K. R., & Harmathy, T. Z. (2002). Properties of building materials. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Milke, J. A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of steel members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.). New Zealand Government.
* Mulholland, G. W. (2002). Smoke production and properties. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Ohlemiller, T. J. (2002). Smoldering combustion. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Purser, D. A. (2002). Toxicity assessment of combustion products. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Quintiere, J. G. (2002). Surface flame spread. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Van Rossum, E. (2027). ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering''. Fire Safety Academy.

[[Category:Materials & Fire Testing]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:41, 2 November 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Contribution to a developing fire ==		== Contribution to a developing fire ==

	A material can have several roles in the same building~~. It~~ may carry loads, insulate another component, and supply fuel when heated. Kodur and Harmathy distinguish these functions because a useful structural material can become an additional fire source. A description of its room-temperature strength therefore says little about its contribution to fire development.<ref name="KH_1-157" />		A material can have several roles in the same building, and it may carry loads, insulate another component, and supply fuel when heated. Kodur and Harmathy distinguish these functions because a useful structural material can become an additional fire source. A description of its room-temperature strength therefore says little about its contribution to fire development.<ref name="KH_1-157" />

	[[Combustibility]] concerns whether a material can burn. Reaction to fire examines a wider sequence, including the exposure needed for ignition and the subsequent rate of energy release. A combustible product that releases energy slowly can produce a different fire from one that burns rapidly. Material mass alone cannot describe that difference.<ref name="KH_1-157" /><ref name="B_3-1">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-1.</ref><ref name="B_3-32">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-32.</ref>		[[Combustibility]] concerns whether a material can burn. Reaction to fire examines a wider sequence, including the exposure needed for ignition and the subsequent rate of energy release. A combustible product that releases energy slowly can produce a different fire from one that burns rapidly. Material mass alone cannot describe that difference.<ref name="KH_1-157" /><ref name="B_3-1">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-1.</ref><ref name="B_3-32">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-32.</ref>
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Before a solid ignites, incoming heat raises its surface temperature and penetrates its interior. Some energy returns to the surroundings through radiation and convection. Moisture evaporation can absorb further energy before substantial decomposition occurs. The resulting balance depends on the exposure, material thickness and thermal properties.<ref name="K_2-231_2-232">Kanury (2002), pp. 2-231–2-232.</ref>		Before a solid ignites, incoming heat raises its surface temperature and penetrates its interior. Some energy returns to the surroundings through radiation and convection. Moisture evaporation can absorb further energy before substantial decomposition occurs. The resulting balance depends on the exposure, material thickness and thermal properties.<ref name="K_2-231_2-232">Kanury (2002), pp. 2-231–2-232.</ref>

	Heating can produce combustible gases through thermal decomposition, also called pyrolysis~~. These~~ gases mix with surrounding air and may ignite when suitable conditions develop. Piloted ignition involves an external ignition source, such as a small flame or spark. Ignition without such a pilot requires the gas mixture itself to reach conditions that sustain the reaction.<ref name="K_2-232">Kanury (2002), p. 2-232.</ref>		Heating can produce combustible gases through thermal decomposition, also called pyrolysis, and these gases mix with surrounding air and may ignite when suitable conditions develop. Piloted ignition involves an external ignition source, such as a small flame or spark. Ignition without such a pilot requires the gas mixture itself to reach conditions that sustain the reaction.<ref name="K_2-232">Kanury (2002), p. 2-232.</ref>

	[[Flame spread]] extends burning into previously unburned material. Heat from the advancing flame prepares the next surface region to release combustible gases. The flame front and the boundary of the decomposing solid are related, but they are not identical physical boundaries. Surface orientation and airflow affect the heat transferred ahead of the flame.<ref name="Q_2-246_2-247">Quintiere (2002), pp. 2-246–2-247.</ref>		[[Flame spread]] extends burning into previously unburned material. Heat from the advancing flame prepares the next surface region to release combustible gases. The flame front and the boundary of the decomposing solid are related, but they are not identical physical boundaries. Surface orientation and airflow affect the heat transferred ahead of the flame.<ref name="Q_2-246_2-247">Quintiere (2002), pp. 2-246–2-247.</ref>
Line 27:		Line 27:
	== Heat release and mass loss ==		== Heat release and mass loss ==

	Heat release rate measures the rate of thermal energy production, expressed in kilowatts. Mass loss rate measures how quickly the specimen loses mass, expressed in kilograms per second~~. The~~ effective heat of combustion connects these quantities under the particular burning conditions. It represents the energy released per unit mass lost, rather than a complete description of the fuel's chemistry.<ref name="B_3-1" /><ref name="J_3-39" />		Heat release rate measures the rate of thermal energy production, expressed in kilowatts. Mass loss rate measures how quickly the specimen loses mass, expressed in kilograms per second, and the effective heat of combustion connects these quantities under the particular burning conditions. It represents the energy released per unit mass lost, rather than a complete description of the fuel's chemistry.<ref name="B_3-1" /><ref name="J_3-39" />

	Multiplying the mass loss rate by the effective heat of combustion gives the corresponding heat release rate. The following form uses kilojoules per kilogram, so that the result is directly in kilowatts. Both quantities must refer to the same specimen and stage of burning.<ref name="B_3-1" /><ref name="J_3-39" />		Multiplying the mass loss rate by the effective heat of combustion gives the corresponding heat release rate. The following form uses kilojoules per kilogram, so that the result is directly in kilowatts. Both quantities must refer to the same specimen and stage of burning.<ref name="B_3-1" /><ref name="J_3-39" />
Line 51:		Line 51:
	Quintiere gives a simple illustration of surface spread on an upholstered chair. A burning region initially 6 cm across grows to 18 cm across after one minute at the stated radial spread rate. The corresponding circular area becomes nine times larger. This is a geometric illustration using the source's dimensions, rather than a prediction for every upholstered product.<ref name="Q_2-246" />		Quintiere gives a simple illustration of surface spread on an upholstered chair. A burning region initially 6 cm across grows to 18 cm across after one minute at the stated radial spread rate. The corresponding circular area becomes nine times larger. This is a geometric illustration using the source's dimensions, rather than a prediction for every upholstered product.<ref name="Q_2-246" />

	The distinction between spread distance and burning area matters when interpreting such an example~~. A~~ front advances along a boundary, while energy release comes from the active burning surface. Growth in that surface can provide more heat feedback and accelerate further involvement. The material's burning duration determines whether the earlier regions remain active as the boundary advances.<ref name="Q_2-246" />		The distinction between spread distance and burning area matters when interpreting such an example: a front advances along a boundary, while energy release comes from the active burning surface. Growth in that surface can provide more heat feedback and accelerate further involvement. The material's burning duration determines whether the earlier regions remain active as the boundary advances.<ref name="Q_2-246" />

	== What tests measure ==		== What tests measure ==

	[[Fire testing]] can examine a small specimen, a complete product or an assembly in a room~~. These~~ scales expose different parts of the burning process. A specimen test offers controlled exposure and detailed measurements, while a room test includes interactions with the enclosure. Neither description alone establishes that one test can replace the other.<ref name="J_3-38_3-39" />		[[Fire testing]] can examine a small specimen, a complete product or an assembly in a room, and these scales expose different parts of the burning process. A specimen test offers controlled exposure and detailed measurements, while a room test includes interactions with the enclosure. Neither description alone establishes that one test can replace the other.<ref name="J_3-38_3-39" />

	In a room-corner test, lining materials are mounted on the walls or ceiling of a small enclosure. A burner near a rear corner provides the ignition exposure. Combustion products leave through the opening and enter a collection hood. Measurements in the exhaust can include gas concentrations, flow and smoke obscuration, alongside the information needed to determine heat release.<ref name="J_3-39" />		In a room-corner test, lining materials are mounted on the walls or ceiling of a small enclosure. A burner near a rear corner provides the ignition exposure. Combustion products leave through the opening and enter a collection hood. Measurements in the exhaust can include gas concentrations, flow and smoke obscuration, alongside the information needed to determine heat release.<ref name="J_3-39" />

	The [[Single Burning Item test]] uses two wall panels arranged as a corner without a ceiling. Babrauskas describes it as a European regulatory heat-release test in the 2002 handbook~~. Its~~ geometry differs from the enclosed room-corner arrangement. The [[Euroclass system]] is the related classification topic; the historical test description alone does not provide a complete classification procedure.<ref name="B_3-32" />		The [[Single Burning Item test]] uses two wall panels arranged as a corner without a ceiling. Babrauskas describes it as a European regulatory heat-release test in the 2002 handbook, and its geometry differs from the enclosed room-corner arrangement. The [[Euroclass system]] is the related classification topic; the historical test description alone does not provide a complete classification procedure.<ref name="B_3-32" />

	Calorimeter results depend on specimen mounting, orientation, geometry and exposure. Janssens reports comparisons in which different apparatuses produced different peaks or time-dependent heat-release behaviour. Agreement for an average value did not necessarily imply agreement for the peak. The measured quantity and averaging period therefore belong with any reported result.<ref name="J_3-56" />		Calorimeter results depend on specimen mounting, orientation, geometry and exposure. Janssens reports comparisons in which different apparatuses produced different peaks or time-dependent heat-release behaviour. Agreement for an average value did not necessarily imply agreement for the peak. The measured quantity and averaging period therefore belong with any reported result.<ref name="J_3-56" />
Line 75:		Line 75:
	One tested wardrobe used unpainted plywood panels 3.2 mm thick, with 36.0 kg of combustible construction and 1.93 kg of contents. Its reported peak was 6,400 kW and its total heat release was 590 MJ. A 19 mm particleboard wardrobe contained 120.3 kg of combustible construction and 0.81 kg of contents. Its reported peak was 1,900 kW, while its total heat release was 1,349 MJ.<ref name="B_3-33">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-33.</ref>		One tested wardrobe used unpainted plywood panels 3.2 mm thick, with 36.0 kg of combustible construction and 1.93 kg of contents. Its reported peak was 6,400 kW and its total heat release was 590 MJ. A 19 mm particleboard wardrobe contained 120.3 kg of combustible construction and 0.81 kg of contents. Its reported peak was 1,900 kW, while its total heat release was 1,349 MJ.<ref name="B_3-33">Babrauskas (2002), p. 3-33.</ref>

	The thinner plywood package therefore produced approximately 3.4 times the peak power of the particleboard package. The particleboard package nevertheless released approximately 2.3 times as much total energy~~. These~~ ratios are calculated from the reported tests, whose constructions and contents differed. They illustrate package behaviour and cannot establish a universal ranking of plywood against particleboard.<ref name="B_3-32_3-33" />		The thinner plywood package therefore produced approximately 3.4 times the peak power of the particleboard package. The particleboard package nevertheless released approximately 2.3 times as much total energy, and these ratios are calculated from the reported tests, whose constructions and contents differed. They illustrate package behaviour and cannot establish a universal ranking of plywood against particleboard.<ref name="B_3-32_3-33" />

	The enclosure can further alter burning. Radiation from hot gases and surrounding surfaces supplies additional energy to the fuel, while ventilation can restrict combustion. A product burning freely in an open calorimeter may therefore behave differently inside a compartment. Babrauskas specifically cautions against extrapolating a room-test result to rooms with larger ventilation openings.<ref name="B_3-1_3-2" />		The enclosure can further alter burning. Radiation from hot gases and surrounding surfaces supplies additional energy to the fuel, while ventilation can restrict combustion. A product burning freely in an open calorimeter may therefore behave differently inside a compartment. Babrauskas specifically cautions against extrapolating a room-test result to rooms with larger ventilation openings.<ref name="B_3-1_3-2" />
Line 83:		Line 83:
	Classification connects specified test results with a defined regulatory framework. The intended use matters because a wall lining, floor covering and structural member serve different functions. New Zealand's C/VM2, second edition of 2025, treats rapid spread over internal surface linings as a specific design scenario. Its criteria depend on location, building use and importance level.<ref name="CVM_50_52">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 50–52.</ref>		Classification connects specified test results with a defined regulatory framework. The intended use matters because a wall lining, floor covering and structural member serve different functions. New Zealand's C/VM2, second edition of 2025, treats rapid spread over internal surface linings as a specific design scenario. Its criteria depend on location, building use and importance level.<ref name="CVM_50_52">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 50–52.</ref>

	In that New Zealand method, exposed internal wall and ceiling surfaces receive material Group Numbers. The commentary associates ordinary timber products with Group 3 and many fire-retardant-treated timbers with Group 2~~. It~~ identifies exposed polyurethane foams as examples associated with Group 4. These are explanatory examples, rather than classifications transferable to every product bearing the same material name.<ref name="CVM_50_52" />		In that New Zealand method, exposed internal wall and ceiling surfaces receive material Group Numbers. The commentary associates ordinary timber products with Group 3 and many fire-retardant-treated timbers with Group 2, and it identifies exposed polyurethane foams as examples associated with Group 4. These are explanatory examples, rather than classifications transferable to every product bearing the same material name.<ref name="CVM_50_52" />

	Flooring is assessed through critical radiant flux in the same document. A higher critical flux corresponds to better performance in the specified flooring assessment. For sleeping areas and exitways in care or detention buildings, the 2025 table gives 4.5 kW/m² without sprinklers and 2.2 kW/m² with sprinklers. These are New Zealand scenario requirements, not general ignition thresholds for all materials.<ref name="CVM_52">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 52.</ref>		Flooring is assessed through critical radiant flux in the same document. A higher critical flux corresponds to better performance in the specified flooring assessment. For sleeping areas and exitways in care or detention buildings, the 2025 table gives 4.5 kW/m² without sprinklers and 2.2 kW/m² with sprinklers. These are New Zealand scenario requirements, not general ignition thresholds for all materials.<ref name="CVM_52">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 52.</ref>