Insulati o n

Second Issue January 2018

Building Fabric vs Building Contents

Smoke Toxicity from Room Fires
A WHITE PAPER

Low Energy –
Low Carbon Buildings
Executive Summary

This paper presents and evaluates two fire tests conducted on The contribution of the insulation materials is negligible since
a furnished domestic room. the plasterboard acts as a thermal barrier. This is expected
for a typical room fire and demonstrates the need to look at
The tests only differed in the type of insulation material used in
the fire and smoke performance of whole build–ups instead of
the room walls. One was insulated with PIR insulation and one
individual construction products.
was insulated with rock mineral fibre insulation.
Towards the end of the tests, lower level toxic gas emissions
The tests were conducted in order to assess the relative
were observed from the involvement of the insulation products
contributions of the insulation materials and the room contents
in the fire.
to the spread of fire and toxic gas emissions.
This was far after substantial FED and FEC values had been
The test results with regard to heat release rate, smoke and
reached due to the burning of the contents of the room.
toxic gas emissions show that the two insulation materials
behave similarly during the fire, and the main threat for The results demonstrate that efforts to reduce deaths from
occupants comes from the room’s combustible contents. fires in dwellings should not focus solely on the performance of
combustible construction products in general, and combustible
The main release of toxic gas emissions came from the
insulation in particular.
burning of, and consequent smoke emission from, the room’s
combustible contents. Efforts to improve the fire safety of dwelling contents and
furnishings and the use of effective fire warning systems may
A sharp peak in the concentration of the toxic gases
have a much greater impact on fire safety.
is reached when flash–over occurs. At this stage, the
concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide
briefly but clearly exceed the 30 minute LC50 lethal
concentration.

This occurred significantly before the building envelope and

insulation materials became involved in the fire.

2
Introduction
It is acknowledged that smoke inhalation causes or at least
contributes to the majority of fatalities in fires in domestic
properties.
It is known that modern domestic room fires can become fully
developed, and flashover can occur after only a few minutes. If
an occupant has not escaped by this time, then they would be
unlikely to survive.
Occupants in other rooms may also be exposed to related
smoke while in situ or while evacuating a building, although
without themselves suffering the effects of the heat from
flashover (because they are separated from the original fire).
Building fires, and the evaluation of the toxic hazards from
them, are very complex. The risk of building occupants being
affected by toxic fumes depends on several factors such as
the availability of combustible material, stage of the fire, and
conditions of the combustion process, etc.
This overall complexity makes it difficult to evaluate the
smoke toxicity of a single product, in particular a construction
product.
In addition, the generation of toxic combustion products is not
simply a material property: the smoke produced by burning
construction products, and the resulting hazard, are strongly
dependent on the way a product is integrated into the building,
the fire scenario (e.g. room size, temperature, ventilation), and
exposure time.
3
This has led international standardisation committees
addressing fire safety of buildings to conclude that, so far,
there is no suitable test method for assessing the contribution
of individual construction products to the emission of toxic
gases linked to real fires.
Despite this conclusion by experts in the field, there remains
a significant lobby, funded in large part by the mineral fibre
insulation industry, that seeks to associate combustible
construction products in general, and combustible insulation
materials in particular, with public safety as regards fire and
smoke in buildings. Because of this lobby, the question has
been raised in recent European discussions about what the
role of construction products is in the overall generation of
toxic smoke.
In order to shed light on this issue, PU Europe commissioned
Warrington Fire Ghent to conduct comparative tests, under
the same fire conditions, of two identically furnished domestic
rooms, one insulated with PIR insulation and one insulated
with rock mineral fibre insulation.
The objective of this study was to assess the contribution of
the building fabric versus that of the building contents to heat
release rate, smoke production and toxicity of fire effluents,
and to determine whether there was any significant difference
between the contributions of the two differing insulation
materials.
Testing

The inner dimensions of the test room without insulation Both rooms were identically furnished as detailed in Appendix A.
were in accordance with the dimensions given in ISO 9705
The chosen fire scenario for this comparative testing simulates
(3.6 m x 2.4 m x 2.4 m). The floor, ceiling and walls were
a waste bin fire (propane burner, 30 kW as defined in ISO
made of cellular concrete. The walls, apart from the wall
9705) that ignites the curtain and spreads to the armchair (first
containing the door, were insulated. The only difference
5 minutes of the test). The burner was therefore placed in a
between the two tests was that in one test the insulation was
corner and the curtain was installed just above the burner.
PIR and in the other it was rock mineral fibre. Details for the
After 5 minutes the burner was turned off and the further
insulation products are given in Table 1. In order to achieve a
development of the fire was observed and analysed.
fair comparison, the insulation thicknesses differed (80 mm vs.
140 mm) so that the wall U–values in both tests were identical. The time of ignition of the armchair was chosen to be the
starting point of the analysis, to minimise variations in fire
In order to achieve the same inner volume of the test room
spread in the early stages of the fire (burning curtains).
in the test with PIR insulation, before mounting the insulation
system an additional 50 mm cellular concrete layer was
constructed inside ISO 9705 dimensioned room.

In both tests, the insulation products were placed between

50 mm wide wooden battens at 570 mm centres, which were
mechanically fixed to the concrete wall. The insulation layer
was lined with 12.5 mm plasterboard. The plasterboard lining
was applied with no horizontal joints, and with vertical joints
located on top of the wooden battens. A power socket was
placed near to the main fire–load, to create a realistic weak
spot in the plasterboard lining.

Test 1 Test 2
PIR insulation boards with composite foil facing
Insulation product Rock mineral fibre without facing
on both sides
Reaction to fire classification according to
EN 13501-1 for the product as placed on A1 E
the market
Thermal conductivity (W/m·K) 0.035 0.022
Thickness (mm) 140 80
Table 1: Insulation products used in Test 1 and Test 2

4
Results

Heat Release Rate

Figure 1 shows a graph of heat release rate. For details on the
method of measurement see Appendix B.
The point in time when the chair ignited defines the “start
of the test”. Flashover occurred 7:24 mins. (444 secs.) after
ignition of the chair in the rock mineral fibre test, and 6:55
mins. (415 secs.) in the PIR test. Flashover was caused by
burning of the contents of the room only.
In both tests, a second peak of the heat release rate was
observed after 13–15 mins. (780–900 secs.). Subsequently,
the fire decayed. First cracks appeared in the gypsum
plasterboard in both tests after about 20 mins. (1,200 secs.).
During the decay phase there was a slightly less steep decay
in the PIR test, however, the HRR curves of both tests were
below 50 kW after approximately 50 mins.

Figure 1: Heat release rate versus smoke transmission

5
Results

Concentration of Gaseous Effluents

The following effluent gases were analysed (for further details For HCN only in a very late phase of the test (more than 20
see Appendix B): mins. after the start of the test) there is a slight increase in
l carbon monoxide (CO); concentration in the PIR test compared with the rock mineral
fibre test. This phenomenon can be attributed to the PIR
l carbon dioxide (CO2);
insulation being partly exposed to radiative heat and direct
l hydrogen cyanide (HCN);
flame impingement from the room’s interiors by this time.
l formaldehyde (CHOH);
The formaldehyde and acrolein curves indicate that in
l acrolein (C3H4O);
the same late phase of the tests the insulation was also
l sulfur dioxide (SO2); contributing. However, in these cases there is a slight increase
l hydrogen chloride (HCl); and in concentration in the rock mineral fibre test compared with
l NOx (measured by the sum of N2O, NO and NO2). the PIR test.

Gas concentrations correlated well with heat release rate. These late stage increases show that the contribution of the
The example curves in Figure 2 show that for CO no significant insulation products occurred very late and after much higher
difference can be seen. concentrations were reached in both tests due to the burning
room contents.

Concentration of carbon monoxide (CO). The currently accepted 30 minute Concentration of formaldehyde (CHOH). The currently accepted 30 minute
LC50 concentration for CO is 5700 ppm. Concentrations briefly but clearly LC50 concentration for CHOH is 750 ppm. Concentrations lie well below the
exceed the 30 minute LC50 lethal concentration. 30 minute LC50 lethal concentration.

Concentration of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The currently accepted 30 minute Concentration of acrolein (C3H4O). The currently accepted 30 minute LC50
LC50 concentration for HCN is 165 ppm. Concentrations briefly but clearly concentration for C3H4O is 150 ppm. Concentrations lie well below
exceed the 30 minute LC50 lethal concentration. the 30 minute LC50 lethal concentration.

Figure 2: Comparison of gas concentrations

Note: The 30–min LC50 concentration is the concentration of combustion products causing the death of 50 percent of animals when exposed 30 minutes to the given concentration.

6
Toxicity
In order to assess the relative toxicity of the gaseous effluents
from both tests, the Fractional Effective Dose (FED) and
Fractional Effective Concentration (FEC) were computed by
Exova Warringtonfire (UK), according to ISO 13571: 2012.
FED is the dose received at time t divided by effective dose to
cause incapacitation or death, where dose = concentration x
time.
FEC is the ratio of the concentration of an irritant at a point in
time, to the concentration expected to cause incapacitation or
death.
Note: Toxicity is only to a certain degree a material property. It is strongly influenced by
the environment, availability of oxygen, thermal attack, air flow and surfaces available for
combustion. The chemistry of the combustion of a given material can therefore proceed along
various routes and produce species in very different quantities dependant on conditions to
which it is subjected. Such changes would impact the FED and FEC values.
Figure 3: FED comparison
7
FED was calculated based on the concentrations of carbon
monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and carbon dioxide measured
during the tests and is shown in Figure 3. The data is
uncorrected for the gas burner output, but this is consistent in
both tests.
FEC was calculated based on the concentrations of
formaldehyde, acrolein, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and
nitrous oxides and is shown in Figure 4.
FED and FEC clearly demonstrate that the early phases of
both tests, during which time the construction products were
not yet involved in the fire, contribute the most to human
toxicity. FED remained fairly static after about 10 mins. A
slight increase in FEC occurred in the rock mineral fibre test
after about 18 mins., but the increase and the absolute values
were significantly lower than the peak values reached during
flashover.
This means that the contents of the room were the major
contributors to both FED and FEC.
Results

Figure 4: FEC comparison

8
Conclusion

Due to the identical set–up of fire source and fire load in
both tests, a number of conclusions can be drawn on the
contributions of the building contents and the construction
products used in these test build–ups.
Up until the point in time that the fire starts to decay (after
15 minutes), the building contents are the main contributor
to the fire and cause the flash–over situation. This results in
a very similar heat release rate for the build–up insulated with
rock mineral wool and that with PIR. The contribution of the
insulation materials is negligible since the plasterboard acts
as a thermal barrier. This is expected for a typical room fire
and demonstrates the need to look at the fire performance of
whole build–ups instead of construction products only.
A sharp peak in the concentration of the toxic gases
is reached when flash–over occurs. At this stage, the
concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide
briefly but clearly exceed the 30 minute LC50 lethal
concentration.
During the decay phase the insulation material becomes
exposed to the fire when the plasterboard starts to crack or fall
down. This does not lead to new peak values in heat release
rate for either of the build–ups.
Calculations show that the effluent from the armchair and other
furniture contents are the major contributor to both FED and
FEC values.
The above–mentioned observations are only valid for the
tested build–up and fire source, in particular:
l for both tests, the ventilation conditions (opening of the
doorway) were kept constant – other ventilation conditions
will have a major impact on the concentration of the toxic
gases;
l for both tests. an armchair was used as fire source – a
different fire source can have different concentrations and
peak values of the measured effluent gases; and
l depending on the fire load the insulation might contribute
at a different point in time.
The results demonstrate that efforts to reduce deaths from
fires in dwellings should not focus solely on the performance of
combustible construction products in general, and combustible
insulation in particular.
Efforts to improve the fire safety of dwelling contents and
furnishings and the use of effective fire warning systems may
have a much greater impact on fire safety.

In the decay phase, carbon monoxide concentrations are

very similar for both build–ups. On the other hand, for rock
mineral wool, the formaldehyde and acrolein concentrations
are higher in the decay phase. For the PIR insulation, the
hydrogen cyanide concentration is higher. However. all
concentrations measured lie well below the 30 minute LC50
lethal concentration in this decay phase.

9
Appendix A – Room contents

Both rooms were fully furnished. The contents of the rooms

were:
l curtain (fabric): installed width of 80 cm with a curtain rod l TV bench (timber, 120 cm x 40 cm x 74 cm);
(installed 15 cm from the wall and 5 cm from the ceiling); l TV (19 inch); and
l armchair (timber and foam filling, 80 cm x 70 cm x 55 cm) l bookcase (timber, 40 cm x 28 cm x 202 cm) with 7
with 2 pillows; identical books.
l small table (timber, 55 cm x 55 cm x 50 cm) with a few
magazines and a remote control;

Contents of the tested rooms in relation to the burner

Photos of the room content and the power socket

10
Appendix B – Measurements

Heat Release Rate

The heat release was measured and recorded using the
oxygen depletion method according to ISO 9705-1:2016 and
the European standard EN 14390:2007. The sampling port
was installed in the exhaust duct and oxygen and carbon
dioxide were continuously measured which allowed for
determination of the heat release rate.

Concentration of Gaseous Effluents

The fire effluent gases were measured with an FTIR
spectrometer. The sampling and the analysis were done based
on ISO 16405 (Room corner and open calorimeter – Guidance
on sampling and measurement of effluent gas production
using FTIR technique) and ISO 19702 (Guidance for sampling
and analysis of toxic gases and vapours in fire effluents using
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy).

Gas sampling was installed in the duct work of the smoke

exhaust system of the testing facility. This sampling position
represents cooled and diluted fire effluents. ISO 16405 states
that this sampling position is often preferred over sampling
outflowing gases directly at the top of the doorway as matrix
effects from the fire effluents are minimized by the dilution. At
this position due to cooling and dilution effects all chemical
reaction in the fire effluent would have ceased which would not
be the case when sampling directly from the immediate vicinity
of the fire where further chemical reaction, combustion and
decomposition could take place. Using the known volume flow
rate in the exhaust duct, the dilution effect has been reversed
prior to calculating the Fractional Effective Dose (FED) and
Fractional Effective Concentration (FEC).

11
Contact Details

Customer Service Technical Advice / Design

For quotations, order placement and details of despatches please Kingspan Insulation supports all of its products with a comprehensive
contact the Kingspan Insulation Customer Service Department on Technical Advisory Service. Calculations can be carried out
the numbers below: to provide U–values, condensation / dew point risk, required
insulation thicknesses etc…
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 388 601
U–value calculations can also be carried out on the
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 388 888
Kingspan Insulation U–value Calculator, available
email: customerservice@kingspaninsulation.co.uk for free online at www.uvalue-calculator.co.uk or
downloaded as an App.
Literature & Samples The Kingspan Insulation Technical Service Department can also
Kingspan Insulation produces a comprehensive range of technical give general application advice and advice on design detailing and
literature for specifiers, contractors, stockists and end users. fixing etc... Site surveys are also undertaken as appropriate.
The literature contains clear user friendly advice on typical The Kingspan Insulation British Technical Service Department
design; design considerations; thermal properties; sitework operates under a management system
and product data. certified to the BBA Scheme for Assessing the
Competency of Persons to Undertake U–value CERTIFICATE CS/1004-4
For copies please contact the Kingspan Insulation Marketing and Condensation Risk Calculations.
U Value Competency Scheme

Department, or visit the Kingspan Insulation website, using the

details below: Please contact the Kingspan Insulation Technical Service
Department on the numbers below:
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 387 384
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 387 382
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 387 484
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 387 482
email: literature@kingspaninsulation.co.uk email: technical@kingspaninsulation.co.uk
www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/literature

General Enquiries
Tapered Roofing For all other enquiries contact Kingspan Insulation on the
For technical guidance, quotations, order placement and numbers below:
details of despatches please contact the Kingspan Insulation
Tapered Roofing Department on the numbers below: Tel: +44 (0) 1544 388 601
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 388 888
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 387 383 email: info@kingspaninsulation.co.uk
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 387 483
email: tapered@kingspaninsulation.co.uk Kingspan Insulation Ltd. reserves the right to amend product specifications without prior notice.
Product thicknesses shown in this document should not be taken as being available ex–stock
and reference should be made to the current Kingspan Insulation price–list or advice sought
from Kingspan Insulation’s Customer Service Department (see above left). The information,
technical details and fixing instructions etc. included in this literature are given in good faith
and apply to uses described. Recommendations for use should be verified for suitability and
compliance with actual requirements, specifications and any applicable laws and regulations.
For other applications or conditions of use, Kingspan Insulation offers a Technical Advisory
Service (see above), the advice of which should be sought for uses of Kingspan Insulation
products that are not specifically described herein. Please check that your copy of this literature
is current by contacting the Kingspan Insulation Marketing Department (see left).

Kingspan Insulation Ltd

Pembridge, Leominster, Herefordshire HR6 9LA, UK
www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk

®
Kingspan and the Lion Device are Registered Trademarks of the Kingspan Group plc in the UK, Ireland and other countries. All rights reserved.
Registered in England & Wales, No. 01882722. Registered Office: Pembridge, Leominster, Herefordshire HR6 9LA UK. VAT GB428602456.