1. Rationale
Item 1 Not for ballot: Rationale This revision was suggested at the December 2006 meeting in Atlanta to include a longitudinal joint in materials provided in plank, tile, or strip form. The proposal was made from a laboratory involved in testing laminate flooring materials who found that a product burned readily along a longitudinal joint but did not burn if the plank surface with no joint was tested. This was initially balloted as Item 1 on Subcommittee Ballot E05.22 (07-03). There was one negative from Tom Fritz: Although well-intended, this requirement can be written so that it is more easily understood. As it now reads, there is a question about materials that fall between 200 and 300 mm. Suggest rewording: At the Task Group meeting on December 3, 2007, it was agreed that Toms proposal was superior to that balloted, the negative ruled persuasive, and the item withdrawn for re-ballot. At the Main Committee meeting on December 5, 2007, permission was granted by Chairman Paul Shipp to re-ballot the item concurrently using the wording proposed by Tom. Item 2 Not for ballot: Rationale This is a revision requested at the June 2007 meeting by a flooring manufacturer to include sample preparation instructions for laminate flooring products. In the laminate industry there are two basic ways of attaching laminate boards, one is a tongue and groove with a pre-glued groove that is activated by water, and the other is the click method. Specific means of sealing seams are not included, nor is the traditional laminate flooring thickness of 6 to 10 mm mentioned. This item was initially balloted as Item 3 on Subcommittee Ballot E05.22 (07-03) as a new paragraph in Section 9 Test Specimens. 9.x A laminate floor mounted over the cushion proposed for simulated concrete subfloor6 (see X2.5) with new sections in Appendix X2, Guideline for Mounting Methods, describing the procedures. One negative was received from Dr. Marcelo Hirschler: This should be an annex and not an appendix. It is written in mandatory language and it addresses the way something needs to be done if it is done. This change can be done editorially I think. At the Task Group meeting on December 3, 2007, discussion was that all procedures for sample preparation currently included in Section 9 reference Appendix X2 where instructions are given. It was agreed that reference to the non-mandatory Appendix is not correct and all of the instructions, including this revision, should be referenced in a mandatory Annex. The negative did not object to new sections that were balloted; only the reference to the non-mandatory Appendix. Thus, Marcelos negative was found persuasive and the balloted item was withdrawn for re-ballot. It was the conclusion of the Task Group that this could not be done editorially. At the Main Committee meeting on December 5, 2007, permission was granted by Chairman Paul Shipp to re-ballot the item concurrently by removal of the mounting procedures from the Appendix to a mandatory Annex. Item 3 Not for ballot: Rationale Time zero is currently defined in Terminology, Section 3.2.4, which is somewhat difficult to locate because it is included with the definition for flame-out. The initially balloted item was for the definition be left in 3.2.4 and that information on time zero also be shown in Section 12 on Procedure and made clear in the report section, in 14.1.6. This was balloted as Item 2 in Subcommittee Ballot E05.22 (07-04) where it received two negatives. The first negative was from Fred Schall: I agree that the current wording of the standard leaves some confusion as to when time zero is. However, I do not believe that that act of closing the door on the front of the chamber be the correct time zero either. It seems to me time zero should be initiated when the specimen is set in place in front of the radiant panel, whether or not the door is or is not closed is not as important as the instance of the start of the radiant insult to the specimen face. I suggest the item be re-balloted using the instant the specimen is set in place of the radiant panel as the start of time zero. The second negative was from Rod McPhee: I am voting negative on this item (Item 2) but if my recommended changes can be addressed through editorial changes, Id be willing to withdraw the negative. 1. It is inappropriate to define a concept within a definition of a separate concept. Move the definition for time zero to a separate entry in section 3.2 as follows: 3.2.4 flame-out, n the point in time at which the last vestige of flame or glow disappears from the surface of the test specimen, frequently accompanied by a final puff of smoke. 3.2.x time zero, n the point in time, after the specimen has been moved into the chamber, at which the door to the chamber is closed. 2. The new 12.6 is informational and not part of the normative procedure. Also, with the listing of a separate entry in 3.2 of the concept and definition for time zero the information is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. However, if it is considered as a useful cross-reference, then it should simply be inserted as a NOTE to section 12.5 as follows: NOTE: Time zero is the time at which the door is closed. (See 3.2.x). Do not renumber sections 12.7 - 12.12. Do not include cross-reference to 12.6 in Section 14.1.6. Both negatives were discussed at the Task Group meeting on December 3, 2007. For Freds negative, it was agreed that time zero should remain as the time at which the door is closed with a time limitation as to when the door is closed subsequent to moving the specimen tray into the chamber and subjecting the specimen to the radiant heat exposure. Although the time limitation is an arbitrary number, Marcelo pointed out that the usual total test time is lengthy and the 3-second time limitation is inconsequential. It was also agreed that Rods recommendation to move the definition for time zero into a separate section in Terminology. Thus both negatives could be resolved. The negatives were found persuasive and the item was withdrawn for re-ballot. At the Main Committee meeting on December 5, 2007, permission was granted by Chairman Paul Shipp to re-ballot the item concurrently.
Keywords
critical radiant flux; fire; floor-covering systems; radiant panel;
Citing ASTM Standards
[Back to Top]
