Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Evaluating the fire risk of pipe insulation depending on

installation conditions
Ohk Kun Lim a, *, Woo Jun You b
a
R&D Laboratory, Korea Fire Institute, 331 Jisam-ro, Gyeonggi-do, 17088, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Architecture & Fire Safety, Dong Yang University, Yeongju-si, 36040, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to the high number of cases in which fire accidents were initiated from pipe insulation
Pipe insulation materials installed in small compartments, flame-retardant products should be used in building
Polyethylene foam construction. Typically, standardised rectangular type specimens are used to evaluate the
Fire growth rate
reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulation without considering the actual installation con­
Concealed space
Fire
ditions. In this study, polyethylene (PE) foam pipe insulation materials were tested, taking con­
struction methods into account, according to the NFPA 274 standard. The experimental results
showed that the fire growth rate varied from ultrafast to slow, depending on the installation
conditions, and that the time to reach the peak heat release rate varied significantly. In particular,
the addition of a galvanised steel casing lowered the fire risk even if the same PE foam material
was used. Therefore, to improve fire safety in small compartments, such as concealed or inter­
stitial spaces that do not have active fire protection systems, using galvanised steel casings is an
alternative method for building construction.

1. Introduction

Many piloti-type buildings in South Korea use the first floor as a parking lot, to provide additional parking spaces. In these
structures, thick insulating materials are used to conceal the space above the parking lot to improve heating efficiency and to prevent
the freezing of pipes that pass through the space. However, if a fire occurs, it can spread rapidly due to the undivided internal structure,
and fire detection may be delayed [1]. Additionally, active fire protection systems inside such spaces are not mandatory, as they are not
spaces where people reside. It is also difficult to perform fire-fighting activities, even if a fire is detected, as the internal space is not
directly visible.
As pipe insulation is used in smaller quantities compared with the other insulating materials used in building walls or ceilings, there
is less concern about their combustion. However, because they do combust, these materials can propagate flames to nearby insulation
materials, thereby spreading the fire to other parts of the building [2]. Furthermore, the drippings of burning materials also accelerate
a flame spread [3,4]. In 2014, the Goyang bus terminal fire was ignited by welding sparks during interior building construction in
South Korea [5]. The flame then spread through the insulating materials into the ceiling. This fire accident triggered modification of
the legislation regarding the use of pipe insulation materials. In response to the fire accident, the national fire safety codes on
water-based fire protection systems were revised to state that “insulating materials with flame-retardant property must be used.”
Currently, pipe insulation materials that have passed the horizontal flammability test according to ISO 9772 [6] are used in building

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: terence@kfi.or.kr (O.K. Lim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2020.100673
Received 12 May 2020; Received in revised form 29 May 2020; Accepted 29 May 2020
Available online 31 May 2020
2214-157X/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
O.K. Lim and W.J. You Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Fig. 1. Pipe insulation materials used in this study: (a) PE foam pipe insulation covered with coloured PVC tape on pipes installed in a building, and
(b) pipe insulation material with coloured tape, silver foil, and galvanised steel casing.

Table 1
Pipe insulation specimen types used in the NFPA 274 test.
Specimen type Configuration

PE PE foam pipe insulation covered with silver foil

PEG PE foam pipe insulation covered with silver foil and then finished with a galvanised steel casing
PEtape PE foam pipe insulation without silver foil that was covered with coloured PVC tape
PEtapeG PE foam pipe insulation without silver foil that was covered with coloured PVC tape and then finished with a galvanised steel casing
Glass Glass wool covered with silver foil

constructions.
According to field surveys conducted at commercial facilities, office buildings, department stores, and government offices, PE foam
pipe insulation is used for approximately 80% of the pipes used for water-based fire protection facilities. Among these, 90% were
sealed with a coloured polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tape for identification, as shown in Fig. 1(a) [7]. PE foam that is installed outdoors or
on hot water pipes can be finished using a 0.3-mm-thick galvanised steel casing, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The casing not only protects the
insulation materials from ultraviolet rays or rainwater, it also affixes the material to the pipe. Although various studies have been
conducted on the thermal conductivity characteristics and fire behaviour of insulating materials that are used inside and outside
buildings, such as PE, polyurethane (PU), and polyisocyanurate [8,9], studies have not been conducted on the reaction-to-fire per­
formance of pipe insulation considering the installation conditions such as PVC tape sealings and galvanised steel casings which are
commonly used in building construction. In this study, the fire behaviour of pipe insulation was observed using circular-shaped
specimens in accordance with the NFPA 274 standard. We then compared our results to investigate the actual fire risk depending
on the installation conditions when using identical material.

2. Materials and methods

Florence proposed a vertical pipe chase test to evaluate the reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulation under more realistic
conditions using a full-scale experiment [10]. To analyse the flame propagation characteristics of pipe insulation, a 2.4-m tall L-shaped
pipe structure was constructed, and a 1.8-kg wood crib was used as a fire source. Hough et al. compared the reaction-to-fire perfor­
mance of pipe insulation using wood and gas ignition sources, and quantified the results with a highly reproducible ignition source (a
gas burner) by applying 20 kW for 3 min and 70 kW for the next 7 min [11]. Based on these previous studies, a method for evaluating
the reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulation using a pipe chassis was established in the NFPA code in 2003 [12].
Pipe insulation materials are installed in the form of three L-shaped pipe structures with DN 60 metric size or 2 in nominal size pipe
inside the pipe chassis. The minimum horizontal and vertical length of the pipe insulation is 760 mm and 1520 mm, respectively. A gas
burner with nominal dimensions of 305 mm � 305 mm � 152 mm was positioned in the middle of the horizontal pipe insulation
material, and ignited with 30 kW for 3 min and 70 kW for 7 min, consecutively. A 300-mm-high steel structure was fixed on top of the
pipe chassis to determine whether flames higher than 300 mm were generated above the chassis during the test. In addition, the width
of the upper section of the pipe chassis was evenly divided, and three K-type sheathed thermocouples were installed to measure the
temperature.
For most water-based fire protection pipes, PE foam pipe insulation is used due to its low thermal conductivity and low cost in South
Korea. Circular-shaped PE foam specimens with a thickness and density of 25 mm and 24 kg/m3, respectively, were used for the four
different conditions presented in Table 1. For comparison, a non-combustible material, glass wool covered with silver foil, was also
tested.

2
O.K. Lim and W.J. You Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Fig. 2. NFPA 274 test using PE foam specimens covered with silver foil (PE1 specimen, (a)–(c)) and specimens finished with coloured PVC tape
(PEtape1 specimen, (d)–(f)): (a) before the test, (b) after 190 s (the maximum heat release rate reached), (c) after the test, (d) before the test, (e)
after 100 s (the maximum heat release rate reached), and (f) after the test.

3. Experimental results

Fig. 2(a) shows the PE foam pipe insulation material covered with silver foil before the test. The heat release rate began to increase
after approximately 120 s, and the maximum heat release rate was observed at approximately 195 s. The pipe insulation installed on
the vertical pipes was burned simultaneously. As shown in Fig. 2(b), rapid combustion occurred, and flames higher than 300 mm were
observed on top of the pipe chassis. The temperature also rapidly increased, exceeding 800 � C. Due to the rapid combustion, sparks
scattered to nearby areas. After the test, all the vertical pipes were burned, an afterflame was generated by the drippings of the
insulation material, and traces of burned material were found at the bottom of the structure, as presented in Fig. 2(c). Pipe insulation
consisting of PE foam without silver foil, but with coloured PVC tape, was installed, as depicted in Fig. 2(d). Rapid combustion
occurred 60 s after the start of the test, and the maximum heat release rate was observed after 100 s. As shown in Fig. 2(e), flames
considerably higher than 300 mm were observed on top of the pipe chassis. Most of the installed pipe insulation burned in approx­
imately 180 s. In addition, after rapid combustion, small flames inside the pipe chassis were caused by insulation material that
continuously melted and dripped (Fig. 2(f)).
After covering the PE foam with coloured PVC tape (no silver foil), the horizontal and vertical sections near the bent area of the L-
shaped pipe were covered using a 0.3-mm-thick galvanised steel casing. This was done so that the sections would not be in direct
contact with the flames from a sand burner (Fig. 3(a)). Unlike the previous test of the PEtape specimens, rapid combustion after
ignition did not occur and no flames were observed above the top of the test chassis during the 10-min test, as shown in Fig. 3(b). In

3
O.K. Lim and W.J. You Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Fig. 3. NFPA 274 test using PE foam specimens covered with coloured PVC tape and finished with a galvanised steel casing (PEtapeG specimen): (a)
before the test, (b) after 250 s, and (c) after the test.

Table 2
Reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulation materials.
Specimen ISO NFPA 274
9772
HRRpeaka [kW] HRRpeak time [s] THRb [MJ] TSRc [mb] Flame length [mm] Max. temp. [� C] Result

Criteria HF-1 <300 <50 <500 <300 <538

PE1 HF-1 765 195 65 404 >300 835 Fail
PE2 600 162 64 348 >300 747 Fail
PE3 843 189 67 622 >300 932 Fail
PEtape1 – 785 105 76 934 >300 905 Fail
PEtape2 751 57 74 775 >300 768 Fail
PEtape3 585 54 – – >300 907 Fail
PEG – 91 309 35 83 <300 143 Pass
PEtapeG 107 237 41 146 <300 157 Pass
Glass 81 237 33.9 47 <300 194 Pass
a
HRRpeak is the peak heat release rate during the test.
b
THR is the total heat released during the test.
c
TSR is the total smoke released during the test.

addition, the maximum temperature of the top section was 157 � C. Although the surface of the pipe insulation installed on the vertical
pipes was partly damaged by the heat of the ignition source, its shape was maintained, as shown in Fig. 3(c).
Table 2 presents the obtained data from all tests and Fig. 4 illustrates the heat release and smoke production rates during the test. In
the case of the PE foam covered with silver foil, it met the horizontal flammability criterion in accordance with ISO 9772, but did not
meet most criteria of the NFPA 274 test. Chick and Hodson (2016) reported the peak heat release rate (HRR) and total heat released
(THR) of foil-faced PE as 795 kW and 62.3 MJ, respectively, which also failed to meet the NFPA 274 criteria [13]. The specified
rectangular-shaped specimen used for the horizontal burning test in accordance with ISO 9772 is insufficient to evaluate the fire
behaviour of pipe insulation because the specimen thickness is limited to 13 mm, and the heat release rate of the ignition source is less
than 1 KW.
The PE specimens show a different peak HRR; however, a similar THR value was observed. The area under the HRR curve in Fig. 4
(a) shows a similar value. A relatively faster flame propagation was observed in the PE2 specimen, whereas the installed pipe insu­
lations were preheated and combusted simultaneously in the PE1 and PE3 specimens. The PE2 specimen reached the peak HRR
approximately 30 s before the other two specimens.
The PE and PEtape specimens exhibited similar maximum HRRs, but there was a clear difference in the time to reach the peak HRR.
When exposed to the same ignition source, PEtape specimens reached the peak HRR at less than 100 s, and the smoke production rate
also rapidly increased in proportion to the HRR (Fig. 4(c) and (d)). The coloured PVC tape used for construction achieved a class rating
of VTM-0. This is the highest flame-retardant performance rating according to the ISO 9773 test [14], which evaluates the combustion
performance of thin plastic films by small flames. However, it was found that the PEtape specimens generated a considerable amount of
smoke when compared with the amount of smoke released in the test that used the PE specimens (foam covered with silver foil).

4
O.K. Lim and W.J. You Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Fig. 4. Heat release and smoke production rates according to pipe insulation installed conditions: (a) heat release rate of PE specimens, (b) smoke
production rate of PE specimens, (c) heat release rate of PEtape specimens, (d) smoke production rate of PEtape specimens, (e) heat release rate of
PEG, PEtapeG, and Glass specimens, and (f) smoke production rate of PEG, PEtapeG, and Glass specimens.

Considering the time to reach the peak HRR, the PE foam covered with a coloured PVC tape (PEtape specimens) shows more rapid
combustion compared with the PE foam covered with silver foil (PE specimens). The PVC tape combusted first, leading to flame
propagation alongside the PE foam insulation, which caused a comparatively faster combustion. These results confirm that the
reaction-to-fire performance of insulating materials varies depending on the installation conditions, such as using foil coverings or
sealing coloured PVC tapes.
In the case of using a galvanised steel casing as depicted in Fig. 4(e) (PEG and PEtapeG specimens), the maximum HRR was
approximately 100 kW after 230 s, which was a relatively low value compared to other tests with identical insulation materials. This
appears to be due to the galvanised steel casing, which blocked direct flame contact. Additionally, the heat transfer was disturbed by

5
O.K. Lim and W.J. You Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Fig. 5. Fire growth rate curves as a function of time and peak heat release rates.

the generated void space between the casing and insulation material because of the melted pipe insulations inside the casing, which
interrupted the continuous combustion of pipe insulations. No drippings were observed under the pipe chassis.
Glass wool covered with silver foil was evaluated for comparison, and it satisfied all the criteria of NFPA 274. When the PE foam
specimens sealed with the coloured PVC tape and silver foil were covered with a galvanised steel casing, it was observed that the
released heat reduced significantly, similar to the case of the non-combustible material.

4. Discussion

Hough et al. evaluated PE foam pipe insulation with thicknesses of 13 mm and 25 mm [11]. Owing to their cylindrical geometry,
the 25-mm sample had more than twice the amount of insulating material, which resulted in significantly different heat release and
smoke production rates. Because thicker pipe insulation has a faster heat release rate, even when exposed to the same ignition source, it
is necessary to consider the maximum thickness of the specimen when evaluating reaction-to-fire performance. However, specimens
with a thickness of 13 mm or less were used in the horizontal burning test of ISO 9772 [6]. This makes it difficult to evaluate the actual
fire risk in buildings because 25-mm and 40-mm-thick PE foam materials are commonly used in building construction. Although the
ignition of the cotton indicator was not observed in the horizontal burning test, flames were continuously observed at the bottom of the
test chassis during the NFPA 274 test due to the melting of insulation material. Therefore, the installation methods, as well as the
applied thickness, must be considered using a full-scale test when evaluating the reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulation.
NFPA 92 [15] divides the fire growth rate into four stages – ultrafast, fast, medium, and slow. Fig. 5 plots the maximum heat release
rates over time along the fire growth curves. PEtape specimens exhibit a fire growth rate between ultrafast and fast, and PE specimens
have a fire growth rate between fast and medium. Specimens finished with a galvanised steel casing and glass wool material have a fire
growth rate that is less than the slow fire growth curve.
The fire risk of pipe insulations is reduced by adopting non-combustible material like glass wool which has comparatively lower
thermal performance and workability than PE foam. As observed in the experiments, the fire behaviour was changed depending on the
installation conditions. Thus, optimised construction design can be achieved by using a high thermal performance material with a
specified installation condition such as applying a galvanised steel casing to prevent rapid flame propagation in the event of a fire.

5. Conclusions

The experimental results obtained in this study showed that the reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulations was changed
depending on the installation conditions. Even when the same PE foam was used, specimens covered with silver foil and specimens
sealed with coloured PVC tape exhibited significantly different amounts of released smoke as well as time to reach the peak heat release
rate. These specimens did not meet the reaction-to-fire performance criteria presented by NFPA 274; however, the specimens covered
with galvanised steel casings did meet the criteria. Therefore, covering pipe insulation with a galvanised steel casing can be an
alternative method to reduce the fire risk of buildings.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ohk Kun Lim: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Woo Jun You: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing.

6
O.K. Lim and W.J. You Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 21 (2020) 100673

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the National Fire Agency (Republic of Korea), grant number 2018-NFA002-008-01020000-2019.

References

[1] H.-W. Suh, S.-M. Im, T.-H. Park, H.-J. Kim, H.-S. Kim, H.-K. Choi, J.-H. Chung, S.-C. Bae, Fire spread of thermal insulation materials in the ceiling of piloti-type
structure: comparison of numerical simulation and experimental fire tests using small- and real-scale models, Sustainability 11 (2019) 3389, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11123389.
[2] L. Zhou, A. Chen, X. Liu, F. Zhang, The effectiveness of horizontal barriers in preventing fire spread on vertical insulation panels made of polystyrene foams, Fire
Technol. 52 (3) (2015) 649–662, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0478-x.
[3] H. Zhu, Y. Gao, G. Zhu, Experimental studies on the effects of spacing on dripping behavior of thin polymethyl-methacrylate slab, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 8
(2016) 10–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2016.04.004.
[4] Q. Xie, R. Tu, N. Wang, X. Ma, X. Jiang, Experimental study on flowing burning behaviors of a pool fire with dripping of melted thermoplastics, J. Hazard Mater.
267 (2014) 48–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.033.
[5] E.-P. Lee, Analysis of the working conditions of screen fire shutters in the Goyang bus terminal fire, Fire Sci. Eng. 32 (2) (2018) 82–91, https://doi.org/10.7731/
kifse.2018.32.2.082.
[6] International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 9772, 2012 – Cellular Plastics – Determination of Horizontal Burning Characteristics of Small Specimen
Subjected to a Small Flame, 2012. Switzerland.
[7] O.K. Lim, D. Nam, H.-Y. Jang, Evaluation of the reaction-to-fire performance of pipe insulation material using small room test, Fire Sci. Eng. 33 (4) (2019) 1–8,
https://doi.org/10.7731/kifse.2019.33.4.001.
[8] S.T. McKenna, N. Jones, G. Peck, K. Dickens, W. Pawelec, S. Oradei, T.R. Hull, Fire behaviour of modern façade materials – understanding the Grenfell Tower
fire, J. Hazard Mater. 368 (2019) 115–123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.077.
[9] D.S. Choi, M.J. Ko, Comparison of various analysis methods based on heat flowmeters and infrared thermography measurements for the evaluation of the in situ
thermal transmittance of opaque exterior walls, Energies 10 (2017) 1019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071019.
[10] D.M. Florence, A novel fire test for pipe insulation, Fire Technol. 13 (3) (1977) 199–210, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02303415.
[11] P. Hough, T. Fritz, P. Hunsberger, D. Reed, Evaluating the fire performance of thermal pipe insulation systems by use of the vertical pipe chase apparatus, in:
Insulation Materials: Testing and Applications, fourth ed., 2002, pp. 270–283, https://doi.org/10.1520/stp11018s.
[12] National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 274 Standard Test Method to Evaluate Fire Performance Characteristics of Pipe Insulation, 2013. Massachusetts,
USA.
[13] C. Chick, S. Hodson, Mitigating the risk of fire spread from pipe insulation, Off. J. AIRAH 15 (3) (2016) 46–54.
[14] International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 9773, 1998 Plastics — Determination of Burning Behaviour of Thin, Flexible Vertical Specimens in
Contact with a Small-Flame Ignition Source, 2014. Switzerland.
[15] National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 92 Standard for Smoke Control Systems, 2012. Massachusetts, USA.