Regional sales manager, Carboline Company, St. Louis, Mo.
Corporate fire protection engineering and OSHA consultant, Stearns-Roger Engineering Corporation, Denver, Colo.
Pages: 26 Published: Jan 1983
The exposure of proprietary fireproofing materials and concrete to the proposed ASTM Standard Hydrocarbon Pool-Fire Test Environments (E 5) does not exhibit any significant difference for thermal shock from ASTM Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (E 119-76).
The duration of protection is reduced in the hydrocarbon pool-fire environment, but the areas under the furnace time/temperature curves are essentially unchanged. The shorter duration is offset by the area under the curve attributed to the more rapid heat rise for specimens compared with those tested using ASTM E 119. There appears to be a measurable relationship between the proposed ASTM E 5 hydrocarbon pool-fire and ASTM E 119 tests, which provides data to forecast the result of one to the other for a given furnace and set of circumstances.
This work was undertaken to compare the effects of the proposed ASTM E 5 simulated hydrocarbon pool-fire on fire resistive coatings and poured-in-place concrete versus the standard ASTM E 119-76 time/temperature criteria. Specimens of similar construction were tested in both environments. A hose stream, similar to that used in petrochemical industry fire-fighting practices, was used on the specimens tested in the hydrocarbon type fire to evaluate the erosive effect and thermal shock characteristics of the generic proprietary products in the marketplace. All specimens showed some erosion.
The test program showed no reason to incur the cost of testing to the proposed ASTM E 5 Hydrocarbon Pool-Fire Test Standard, as 3-h ASTM E 119 rated fireproofing, and 50-mm (2-in.) poured-in-place concrete provided similar correlations between both tests.
hydrocarbon pool fire, thermal shock, hose stream, cementitious fireproofing, fire test, fire resistive coatings
Paper ID: STP31894S