Special Issue: Fire Safe Indoor and Built Environment

Indoor and Built

Environment
Indoor and Built Environment
2023, Vol. 32(1) 9–24

A review of thermal properties ! The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

of timber and char at elevated sagepub.com/journals-

permissions
DOI: 10.1177/
temperatures 1420326X211035557
journals.sagepub.com/home/ibe

Long Shi1 and Michael Y. L. Chew2

Abstract
Timber is one of the most frequently adopted combustible materials in the built environment. The
thermal properties are the determining factors for assessing the fire risk in a building. The main thermal
properties of timber and their char are reviewed, especially those temperature-dependent and moisture-
dependent properties, including kinetic properties, ignition properties, thermal conductivity, specific
heat capacity, effective heat of combustion and thermal diffusivity. The study has collected and sum-
marized various thermal properties data and empirical models of hardwood and softwood with different
mass percentages in cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, as temperature increases. The average ignition
temperature and effective heat of combustion of softwood are about 12.9% and 9.5% higher than those
of hardwood, respectively. From most of the previous models, the thermal conductivity of timber char
increases as temperature rises. Cellulose with a high density shows a higher thermal conductivity, but
its impacts on the specific heat capacity are limited. Models to predict the main thermal properties of the
hardwood, softwood and char are recommended. The collected data, together with those empirical
models, can provide useful data resources and tools for the related fire risk assessments.

Keywords
Timber, Thermal properties, Temperature dependence, Moisture dependence, Fire safety, Elevated
temperatures
Accepted: 10 July 2021

Introduction
As a green solution, the use of timber has gained pop-
ularity in the building sector during the past decade.1
However, its massive adoption are accompanied by fire
risk. The concerns of timber fire or timber building fire
have been raised by the public2 and policymakers, espe-
cially for tall buildings.3
Due to its combustible characteristics, its fire risk
should be seriously assessed according to the local con-
ditions before applying it in the buildings. Timber is
quite a unique combustible material that its many ther-
mal properties could affect the overall assessment and
fire behaviours. These could include the ignition prop-
erties, thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity,
effective heat of combustion and thermal diffusivity.
Under a building fire, the elevation of the surface tem-
perature of a timber element, together with the change
of internal temperature under effects of conduction,
convection and radiation, is a dynamic one. Pyrolysis
processes trigger when the temperature arrives at a crit-
ical level, while gas volatiles are released, and a part of
the virgin timber gradually changes to char. The char
could provide a determining impact on the follow-up
fire behaviours as it acts as a thermal barrier to the
1
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, School of
Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
2
Department of Building, National University of Singapore,
Singapore
Corresponding author:
Michael Y. L. Chew, Department of Building, National
University of Singapore, Singapore 117566.
Email: bdgchewm@nus.edu.sg
10
external heat sources. Ignition happens when those gas
volatiles are ignited as it rises to a critical temperature.4
Flame heat flux then adds a heat source to the timber
surface that could accelerate the burning processes.
Thermal properties of timber at elevated tempera-
tures are critical inputs for accurate numerical model-
ling. Many pyrolysis models have been developed
previously to predict the pyrolysis behaviours of
timber slabs under external radiation, such as
Gpyro,5 ThermaKin6 and the authors’ FiresCone.7 In
these models, thermal properties at elevated tempera-
tures are critical to the modelling accuracy. The related
sensitivity analysis8 and optimization algorithm (e.g.
genetic algorithm9) are adopted to determine the
appropriate values for timbers. However, there is still
a lack of data that can provide a good data source for
pyrolysis and fire modelling, especially for various
timber types.
Many factors could affect the thermal properties of
timber, such as moisture content and application types
(e.g. cross-laminated timber10) The determination of
the thermal properties for timber is much more chal-
lenging than those isotropic construction materials,
such as steel,11 concrete12 and polymers.13 For exam-
ple, as an anisotropic material, timber’s thermal con-
ductivity to the fibre orientation is generally twice of
that perpendicular to fibre.14 Some of its characteristics
even complicate the situation, such as internal mois-
ture15 and pyrolysis behaviours under a high-
temperature environment.7,16,17 Previous research
found that the ignition time of those wet timber
could be 65.5% longer than those of dry wood under
the same level of radiation.15
Research gaps on timber’s thermal properties still
exist, and the related collection and summary are
urgently needed for the fire safety area. Although tim-
bers’ thermal properties are well-known, one of the
most critical aspects for accurate fire modelling is
those temperature-dependent thermal properties. This
is because the temperature environment could greatly
affect its thermal properties. Temperature could largely
affect the thermal properties of timber. They are
temperature-dependent and change with elevated tem-
peratures. Specific experimental instruments are needed
to gain these temperature-dependent data, which
makes the data acquirement more complex when com-
pared to those thermal properties under ambient tem-
perature. To tackle this, some simulations have
attempted to simply use temperature-independent ther-
mal properties or temperature-dependent thermal
properties obtained from other species of timber as
input parameters. This has resulted in a dramatic
decrease in modelling accuracy.18 Hence, the gathering
of as many viable temperature-dependent data as pos-
sible is necessary.
Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)
Fire-resistance of timber presents a period of time
that the timber product fails in one or more ways under
fire conditions, such as loadbearing capacity, insula-
tion, and integrity.19 The fire resistance level is a func-
tion of those thermal properties, which vary under
elevated temperatures. Many studies have been under-
taken to assist the amendment of the related building
codes and design standards on timber products and
buildings.20,21
Temperature-dependent thermal properties of
timber such as kinetic parameters, ignition tempera-
ture, thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, effec-
tive heat of combustion and thermal diffusivity based
on experimental tests are reviewed. This study aims to:
• Address the main thermal properties of various
timber types under elevated temperatures;
• Collect and analyse the related experimental data of
various types of timber under elevated temperatures;
and
• Recommend the temperature-dependent thermal
properties of timber for potential future modelling
inputs and uses.
The classification of timber
Timber usually contains the hardwood and softwood.
Hardwood shows pores or vessel elements that exist
among parenchyma cells and fibre. Softwood contains
overlapping tracheid, connected by bordered pit aper-
tures, parenchyma cells and, in some cases, resin
canals.22 Table 1 shows a typical classification of com-
monly used timber.
The main components of timber are cellulose, hemi-
celluloses and lignin. Table 2 shows the chemical com-
ponents of dry wood in mass percentage.23 In Table 2,
limited difference can be seen for the mass fraction of
cellulose in softwood and hardwood. However, soft-
wood shows a relatively lower mass fraction of hemi-
celluloses and a higher lignin fraction. The influences of
Table 1. The classification of commonly used timbers.
Type Items
Softwood Balsam fir, Cypress, Douglas fir, Eastern
white cedar, Hemlock, Jack pine,
Ponderosa pine, Red pine, Redwood,
Southern pine, Spruce, Sugar pine,
Western red cedar, Western larch,
White fir, White pine, etc.
Hardwood Balsam poplar, Basswood, Beech, Birch,
Blackbutt, Cherry, Large-tooth aspen,
Mahogany, Maple, Oak, Sweet gum,
Trembling aspen, Walnut, White ash,
Willow, etc.
Shi and Chew 11

Table 2. Chemical components of dry wood in mass

percentage.23

Types Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin

Softwood 40–44 20–32 25–35

Hardwood 40–44 23–40 18–25

different mass fractions of components on their ther-

mal properties are analysed in the following content.

Kinetic properties of timbers

The pyrolysis process of timber has its own character-
istics. The thermal degradation of timber above 100 C Figure 1. Two-steps reaction scheme for thermal
can be divided into four phases:24 decomposition of timber.

• Within 100–200 C, timber becomes dehydrated,
which then generates water vapour and non-
combustible gases and liquids, including CO2,
formic acid, acetic acid and H2O. Due to prolonged
exposures at higher temperatures, timber can
become charred.
• Within 200–300 C, significant pyrolysis then starts
for some timber components; and besides those
gases and liquids, large amounts of CO are released
during this phase from the pyrolysis layer, together
with the other gas products25 such as CO2, CH4 and
lower amounts of H2 and C2 hydrocarbons;
• The third phase happens between 300 and 450 C
accompanied by the vigorous production of flamma-
ble volatiles. Significant depolymerization of cellu-
lose takes place within the range 300–350 C. Also,
aliphatic side chains are split off from the aromatic
rings in the lignin at around 300 C. Finally, the
carbon–carbon linkage between lignin structural
units is cleaved within 370–400 C; and
• When the temperature goes over 450 C, the left
timber residue is char, which could undergo further
degradation when the temperature keeps rising.
the order of reaction; E is the activation energy, J/mol;
and R is the universal gas constant, J/mol  K.
However, practical situations at elevated tempera-
tures are much complicated than the one-step reaction.
For example, some parts of virgin timber change into
tar initially, and then the tar changes into char and gas
volatiles when the temperature increases. This two-
steps reaction for timber’s thermal decomposition is
shown in Figure 1.
This two-steps reaction can also be expressed by the
Arrhenius law. The virgin timber changes into gas vol-
atiles, tar and char simultaneously during pyrolysis
process. So, the mass-loss rate of timber is dependent
on these three processes, which can be given by
equation (2)
@ms
¼ km0 ¼ ðkg1 þ kt þ kc1 Þm0 (2)
@t
where kg1, kt and kc1 are the production reaction rate of
gas, tar and char, respectively, 1/s.
For all five processes, the related mass loss can be
described by equation (3)

Virgin timber changes to char after water evapora- @mi

¼ ki mi (3)
tion and the burning of fuel inside. This process is usu- @t
ally considered a one-step reaction. The virgin timber
changes to char directly during drying and combustion where i represents g1, t, c1, g2, c2 for the five processes,
processes. An nth order Arrhenius law, equation (1), respectively.
can describe the mass reduction in this process The rate of reactions, k, is governed by the
  Arrhenius Law in equation (4)
 
@ms ms  mf n E  
¼ Am0 exp  (1)  n
@t m0 RT ms  mf Ei
ki ¼ Ai exp  (4)
m0 RT
where ms, m0, and mf are the dynamic mass, initial
mass, and final mass of timber, respectively, kg; t is To obtain A and E in the above Arrhenius equa-
the time, s; A is the pre-exponential constant, 1/s; n is tions, some thermal analysis methods were used,
12 Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)

namely thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differ-
ential scanning calorimetry (DSC).26 At the early stage
of thermal analysis, the isothermal method has usually
been adopted.27 However, accurate isothermal condi-
tions are difficult to be maintained and controlled
because of the limited experimental conditions.
Furthermore, one non-isothermal curve contains the
same amount of information as several isothermal
curves. Thus, the non-isothermal method28 replaces
the isothermal method later under the rapid develop-
ment of experimental conditions. Table 3 shows a sum-
mary of experimental kinetic data for timber.
Table 4 shows a summary of timber components’
experimental kinetic data, including cellulose, hemicel-
lulose and lignin. Hemicellulose shows the highest
activation energy, and it is followed by cellulose and
lignin, respectively. The activation energy of hemicellu-
lose is higher than 180 kJ/mol, cellulose is between
71 and 213 kJ/mol, and lignin is between 25 and
145 kJ/mol. It means the reactions of hemicellulose
and cellulose are more complex than those of lignin.
Table 4 shows that lignin’s pre-exponential
frequency factor is less than 1 when the temperature
is higher than 617 K.

Table 3. A summary of experimental kinetic data for timber.

Experimental
References Timber condition Temp. range Kinetic expression

Samolada and vasalos29 Firwood Isothermal 673–773 K kg1 þ kt ¼ 2.40  104exp(94/RT)

Wagenaar et al.30 Pine TGA 553–673 K kc1 ¼ 3.05  107exp(125/RT)
773–873 K kt ¼ 9.28  109exp(149/RT)
kg1 ¼ 1.11  1011exp(177/RT)
k ¼ 1.4  1010exp(150/RT)
Chan et al.31 Pine – – kc1 ¼ 1.08  107exp(121/RT)
kt ¼ 2  108exp(133/RT)
kg1 ¼ 1.3  108exp(140/RT)
Liu and Fan32 Nanmu TGA 435–568 K k ¼ 5.53  108exp(116.57/RT)
568–623 K k ¼ 1.99  1024exp(290.53/RT)
623–728 K k ¼ 5.91  105exp(109.37/RT)
728–787 K k ¼ 2.30  1021exp(320.37/RT)
Liu and Fan32 Paulownia TGA 455–571 K k ¼ 7.64  1011exp(149.0/RT)
571–631 K k ¼ 1.44  1018exp(215.21/RT)
631–671 K k ¼ 3.90  1020exp(287.32/RT)
671–775 K k ¼ 7.42  1048exp(645.17/RT)
Thurner and Mann33 Oak sawdust Isothermal 573–673 K kg1 ¼ 8.607  105exp(88.6/RT)
kt ¼ 2.475  108exp(112.7/RT)
kc1 ¼ 4.426  107exp(106.5/RT)
kg1 þ kt ¼ 1.039  108exp(106.5/RT)
k ¼ 1.481  108exp(106.5/RT)
Di Blasi and Beech – 573–708 K kg1 þ kt ¼ 1.5  1010exp(149/RT)
Branca34 kc1 ¼ 3.3  106exp(112/RT)
kg1 ¼ 4.4  109exp(153/RT)
kt ¼ 1.1  1010exp(148/RT)
Gorton and Knight34 Hardwood Isothermal 677–822 K k ¼ 1.483  106exp(89.52/RT)
Ward and Brashlaw34 Wild cherry Isothermal 538–593 K k ¼ 1.19  1012exp(173.7/RT)
Nunn et al.35 Sweet gum Non-iso 600–1400 K kg1 þ kt ¼ 3.338  105exp(69/RT)
Font et al.34 Almond shell – 733–878 K kc1 ¼ 2.89  103exp(73/RT)
kt ¼ 5.85  106exp(119/RT)
kg1 ¼ 1.52  107exp(139/RT)
k ¼ 1.885  106exp(92.1/RT)
Swann et al.36 Maple plywood TGA 353–823 K k ¼ (2.0  0.33)1013exp[(170  23)/RT]
DSC k ¼ (1.33  0.83)1011exp[(146  3)/RT]
Liu and Fan32 Willow TGA 446–595 K k ¼ 2.54  108exp(118.73/RT)
595–658 K k ¼ 2.53  1024exp(296.93/RT)
658–699 K k ¼ 8.13  1014exp(226.56/RT)
699–768 K k ¼ 4.41  1051exp(711.36/RT)
Note: This table shows only the first-order pyrolysis reaction.
Shi and Chew 13

Table 4. A summary of experimental kinetic data of timber components.

References Component Experimental conditions Temp. range Kinetic constants

Moghtaderi 37
Cellulose – 600–850 K k ¼ 1.2  106exp(100.5/RT)
– 450–700 K k ¼ 6.79  103exp(71/RT)
– 520–1270 K k ¼ 6.79  109exp(139.6/RT)
– 520–1270 K k ¼ 3.9  1011exp(166.4/RT)
Dollimore 38 Cellulose Isothermal 481–513 K k ¼ 1.26  1014exp(150/RT)
Ozturk and Merklin 39
Cellulose Non-isothermal – k ¼ 7.4  107exp(130.524.7/RT)
Varhegyi et al. 40 Hemicellulose DTG (10 K/min)a – k ¼ 1.0  1017exp(187/RT)
DTG (80 K/min)a – k ¼ 1.0  1013exp(148/RT)
Cellulose DTG (10 K/min)a – k ¼ 2.0  1015exp(213/RT)
DTG (80 K/min)a – k ¼ 5.0  1013exp(195/RT)
Chan and Krieger 41
Lignin Non-isothermal 433–953 K k ¼ 7.83exp(25.12/RT)
Non-isothermal 683–2163 K k ¼ 1.5  101exp(30.56/RT)
Tang 41
Lignin – 553–617 K k ¼ 1.65  104exp(87.9/RT)
– 617–708 K k ¼ 9.3  102exp(37.7/RT)
Hirata 41
Lignin – 553–573 K k ¼ 7.17  1010exp(145.7/RT)
a
Those values in brackets are the heating rates during experimental tests.

Thermodynamic properties Effective heat of combustion

Ignition properties
Critical heat flux (qcr) represents the lowest heat flux
per unit area capable of initiating a combustion reac-
tion on a material. It reflects the difficulty of igniting a
material. Ignition temperature (Tig) is the surface tem-
perature of a material when it is ignited. In fire model-
ling, the material is considered to be ignited when its
surface reaches the ignition temperature.
Table 5 shows the ignition temperature and critical
heat flux of typical timber.15,23,42–44 The ignition tem-
peratures of hardwoods (e.g. red oak, Victoria ash,
blackbutt and maple) are within 423–613 K, where
the ignition temperatures of those softwoods (e.g.
Chinese scholartree, redwood, western red cedar, pine
and Douglas fir) are between 531 and 755 K. The aver-
age ignition temperature of those softwoods is about
12.9% higher than those of hardwoods. In the studies
undertaken by Wang et al.,42 different altitudes repre-
sent the environment with various oxygen concentra-
tions and pressure, so the study addressed the impacts
of oxygen concentration and pressure on the ignition
properties.
The different ignition behaviours of softwood and
the hardwood may be due to their chemical compo-
nents. Table 6 shows the temperature ranges of the
three timber components decompose and release gas
volatiles.45 They show quite different thermal degrada-
tion characteristics. Among these three components,
lignin has a higher temperature range for degradation.
Softwood has a higher fraction of lignin, which
explains why those softwoods’ ignition temperatures
are higher than those of hardwoods.
Effective heat of combustion is the released energy
when a material goes through burning processes.
Although the effective heat of combustion may fluctu-
ate as temperature rises, researchers would prefer to
consider that they are temperature independent. In
1917, Thornton46 found that for many organic liquids
and gases, under complete combustion, a more or less
fixed net amount of heat is released per unit mass of
consumed oxygen. Later, Huggett47 confirmed this and
obtained a constant for this, namely 13.1 kJ/g. This is
the basic theory for measuring the heat release rate
under standard conditions by ISO 9705.48,49
Table 7 shows the effective heat of combustion of
typical timber.45,50,51 From Table 7, the values for soft-
woods are between 11.3 and 14.2 kJ/g, and for the
hardwood they are between 10.6 and 13.2 kJ/g. The
average effective heat of combustion of softwoods is
9.5% higher than those of hardwoods.
Thermal conductivity
The thermal conductivity (k) of material reflects its
ability of heat conduction. Figure 2 shows the thermal
conductivity of timber dependent on temperature. In
1970, Wenzl52 addressed a relationship between ther-
mal conductivity and temperature. The empirical
model gained by him shows an increasing trend of ther-
mal conductivity along with the temperature. Later in
1986, Parker53 indicated that the thermal conductivity
of timber is related to temperature also mass retention
fraction.
For a better comparison between these two models,
a mass retention fraction was assumed in Parker’s
14 Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)

Table 5. Ignition temperature (Tig) and critical heat flux (qcr) of typical timber.

Type Timber Conditions Tig (K)d qcr (kW/m2)c

Softwood Chinese scholar tree42 a

20.8 kW/m2, altitude 3650 mb, in house apparatus 755e –
26.2 kW/m2, altitude 3650 m 704e –
31.6 kW/m2, altitude 3650 m 694e –
37 kW/m2, altitude 3650 m 645e –
Chinese scholar tree42 20.8 kW/m2, altitude 50 m, in house apparatus No ignitione –
26.2 kW/m2, altitude 50 m No ignitione –
31.6 kW/m2, altitude 50 m 683e –
37 kW/m2, altitude 50 m 584e –
Redwood43 21 kW/m2, cone calorimeter 723f –
30 kW/m2 663f –
42 kW/m2 653f –
54 kW/m2 703f –
Western red cedar23 Lateral ignition and flame spread test (LIFT) 613–649f 11.9–15.7
Redwood23 LIFT 623–646f 12.6–15.5
Pine23 LIFT 608–639f 11.6–15.0
Douglas fir23 LIFT 609–643f 11.6–15.2
Redwood43,44 Along grain, cone calorimeter 648f 15.5
Across grain 577f 5.9
Douglas fir23,44 Along grain, cone calorimeter 657f 16.0
Across grain 531f 8.4
Pine15 Dry, along grain, cone calorimeter 587–752e –
Wet, along grain 580–831e –
Hardwood Red oak43 27 kW/m2, cone calorimeter 568f –
52 kW/m2 623f –
76 kW/m2 553f –
Victoria ash23 LIFT 570–613f 9.3–13.1
Blackbutt23 LIFT 559–610f 8.7–12.8
Red oak44 Along grain, cone calorimeter 677f 10.8
Across grain 548f 9.2
Maple44 Along grain, cone calorimeter 627f 13.9
Across grain 423 3.8
Beech15 Dry, along grain, cone calorimeter 540–714e –
Wet, along grain 544–777e –
Cherry15 Dry, along grain, cone calorimeter 562–799e –
Wet, along grain 608–817e –
Oak15 Dry, along grain, cone calorimeter 586–729e –
Wet, along grain 627–785e –
Maple15 Dry, along grain, cone calorimeter 588–738e –
Wet, along grain 606–764e –
Ash15 Dry, along grain, cone calorimeter 555–712e –
Wet, along grain 538–761e –
a
It represents the external heat flux.
b
Altitude means the place where experiments took place.
c
It represents the critical heat flux under the piloted ignition conditions.
d
The surface temperature of the sample measured at ignition was considered as the ignition temperature.
e
The ignition temperatures were obtained under autoignition conditions.
f
The ignition temperatures were obtained under piloted ignition.15

model to obtain the same value with Wenzl’s prediction Table 6. Timber components release volatiles over different
temperature ranges. 45
at 250 K. As shown in this Figure 2, the increasing rate
of thermal conductivity from Wenzl’s model is bigger Components Temperature ranges (K)
than that of Parker’s model. The data in Eurocode 554
seem to be non-linear. These values are between Parker’s Cellulose 513–623
Hemicellulose 473–533
and Wenzl’s predictions except those values between
Lignin 553–773
523 and 873 K. Those values from Gupta et al.55
Shi and Chew 15

Table 7. The effective heat of combustion of common timbers.

Type Timber h (kJ/g) Type Timber h (kJ/g)

Softwood Japanese red pine50 13.1 Hardwood Japanese walnut50 10.6

Douglas fir51 12.4 Zelkova50 11.0
Sugar pine51 11.5 Japanese oak50 10.6
Western red cedar45 13.1 Red oak51 13.2
Redwood45 12.6 Victorian ash45 11.7
Radiate pine45 11.9 Blackbutt45 10.6
Douglas fir45 12.0 Poulownia50 12.3
Japan cedar50 13.0 Japanese beech50 11.3
Hiba abor-vitae50 14.2 50

Japanese larch50 11.3

Poulownia50 12.3

Figure 2. Thermal conductivity of timber dependent on temperature.52–56 Softwood in Gupta et al. 55 is composed of balsam
fir, white spruce, and black spruce.

are smaller than those from Parker’s model. From
Suuberg et al.,56 three lines in the figure reflect the
thermal conductivity of cellulose with different initial
densities. Cellulose with a high density shows a larger
thermal conductivity. The detailed empirical models
mentioned above are also shown in Table 8.
Figure 3 shows the thermal conductivity of timber
dependent on moisture content. Similarly, for a better
comparison, the mass retention fraction in Parker’s
model57 and the density of Dry wood in Tenwolde
et al.’s model59 are assumed to gain the same thermal
conductivity under zero moisture content. As can be
seen, values gained by Park’s57 and Tenwolde
et al.’s59 models are very close. However, for pines
from Alves and Figueiredo’s model,59 thermal conduc-
tivity is higher than the other two types of timber, when
they have the same moisture content. Figure 3 suggests
that the thermal conductivity of softwood may increase
faster than those of the hardwood when moisture con-
tent rises.
Figure 4 shows the temperature-dependent thermal
conductivity of various types of char. As can be seen,
the thermal conductivity of timber char increases as
temperature rises, observed from most of the models’
predictions. Differently in Koufopanos et al.’s model,60
the thermal conductivity decreases when the
16 Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)

Table 8. A summary of empirical models to predict the thermal conductivity of timber and timber char.

References Material Empirical model (W/mK) Effective region

Wenzl52 Timber k ¼ 0.13 þ 3  10-4 (T-273) –

Parker53 Douglas fir k ¼ 0.124(0.35 þ 0.65Z)[1 þ 6.8(T-T0) 104] –
Suuberg et al.56 Cellulose k¼0.0222 þ 3.13  104T a
q ¼ 0.928 g/cm3, T ¼ [459, 562] K
k¼0.0162 þ 2.29  104T a
q ¼ 0.678 g/cm3, T ¼ [459, 562] K
k¼0.011 þ 1.55  104T a
q ¼ 0.458 g/cm3, T ¼ [459, 562] K
Parker57 Douglas fir k ¼ 0.0273 þ 0.2S(1 þ 0.02M) S ¼ [0.3, 0.8], M ¼ [0, 40]%
Alves and Figueiredo58 Pine k ¼ 0.166 þ 0.00396M –
Tenwolde et al.59 Timber k ¼ 0.001qD(0.1941 þ 0.00406M)þ0.01864 M ¼ [0, 40]%
Koufopanos et al.60 Timber char k ¼ 0.08-(T-273) 104 –
Alves and Figueiredo58 Pine char k ¼ 0.091 þ 8.2  105T –
Suuberg et al.56 Cellulose char k¼0.0993 þ 4.29  104T-1.89  107T2 a
q ¼ 0.41 g/cm3, T ¼ [447, 533] K
k¼0.117 þ 5.03  104T-2.65  107T2 a
q ¼ 0.52 g/cm3, T ¼ [422, 530] K
k¼0.0612 þ 2.67  104T-1.80  107T2 a
q ¼ 0.18 g/cm3, T ¼ [423, 522] K
k¼0.235 þ 1.02  103T-7.77  107T2 a
q ¼ 0.33 g/cm3, T ¼ [423, 548] K
a
The density is obtained under ambient temperature. T is the temperature, and all the temperatures in this table are described by Kelvin; Z is
the mass retention fraction of timber, T0 is ambient temperature, K; S is the specific gravity of timber; and M is the moisture content of timber.

Figure 3. Thermal conductivity of timber dependent on moisture.57–59 Timber in Tenwolde et al.’s59 represents plywood,
fiberboard, and several types of particleboard.

Specific heat capacity

temperature rises. The trend for the cellulose char is not
the same as those of cellulose.56 The 0.701 g/cm3 cellu-
lose char shows the highest thermal conductivity when
they are at the same temperature. Then it goes to 0.934,
0.944 and 0.682 g/cm3, respectively. Thermal conduc-
tivities from 0.934 and 0.944 g/cm3 cellulose char are
very close, which overlap in this figure. The detailed
empirical models for timber char are listed in Table 8
as well.
Figure 5 shows the temperature-dependent specific
heat capacity of timber. From Figure 5, values from
Wenzl,52 Koch,61 Volberhr,62 Gupta et al.,55 Eurocode
554 and Dunlap65 are very close. These experimental
tests took within different temperature regions, as
shown in Table 9. Gronli and Melaaen’ model63
shows a relatively lower increasing rate than those of
the other models. However, it shows a relatively higher
Shi and Chew 17

Figure 4. Thermal conductivity of timber char dependent on temperature.55,56,58,60 The densities from Suuberg et al.56 are the
initial cellulose char densities under the ambient environment. The two lines with initial cellulose char densities of 0.934 and
0.944 g/cm3 overlap in this figure, with different applied temperature ranges. Softwood in Gupta et al.55 is composed of balsam
fir, white spruce and black spruce.

Figure 5. Temperature-dependent specific heat capacity of timber.52,54,55,61–64 Softwood in Gupta et al.55 is composed of
balsam fir, white spruce, and black spruce. Dry wood in Gronli and Melaaen63 includes Norwegian birch, pine and spruce.
18 Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)

Table 9. A summary of empirical models to predict the specific heat capacity of timber and timber char.

References Material Empirical model (kJ/kgK) Effective region

Wenzl52 Timber Cp ¼ 1.112 þ 0.00485(T-273) –

Koch61 Spruce pine Cp ¼ 0.0366 þ 0.0042T T ¼ [333, 413] K
Gupta et al.55 Softwood Cp ¼ 0.52477 þ 0.00546T T ¼ [313, 413] K
Dunlap65 Dry wood Cp ¼ 0.212 þ 0.00485T T ¼ [293, 379] K
Volbehr62 Timber Cp ¼ 0.297 þ 0.00506T M ¼ [0, 27]%
Gronli and Melaaen63 Dry wood Cp ¼ 1.5 þ 103T –
Perry and Green66 Timber char Cp ¼ 1.0032 þ 0.00209(T-273) –
Parker57 Douglas fir Cp ¼ 1.43 þ 3.55  104T-7.32  104/T2 –
Stull67 Timber char Cp ¼ 1.39 þ 0.00036T T ¼ [700, 2000] K
Gronli and Melaaen63 Timber char Cp ¼ 4.2  10-4þ2.09  106T þ 6.85  106T2 –
Gupta et al.55 Softwood char Cp ¼ 0.79528 þ 5.98  103T-3.8  106T2 –
Suuberg et al.56 Cellulose char Cp ¼ 0.960 þ 2.02  103T-33505/T2 a
q ¼ 0.41 g/cm3
T ¼ [423, 823] K
Cp ¼ 0.922 þ 2.04  103T-40036/T2 a
q ¼ 0.52 g/cm3
T ¼ [398, 548] K
Cp ¼ 1.19 þ 1.49  103T-49626/T2 a
q ¼ 0.18 g/cm3
T ¼ [423, 823] K
Cp ¼ 2.08  1.11  104T-77136/T2 a
q ¼ 0.33 g/cm3
T ¼ [423, 548] K
a
The density is obtained under ambient temperature. T is the temperature, and all the temperatures in this table are in Kelvin.

value when the temperature is less than 450 K. Ragland
and Aerts64 obtained four groups of data with moisture
contents of 0, 5%, 12% and 20%. The higher moisture
content of timber shows the biggest specific heat capac-
ity. Also, the data with zero moisture content are close
to the data from Wenzl,52 Koch,61 Volberhr,62 Gupta
et al.,55 Eurocode 5 54 and Dunlap.65
Figure 6 shows the specific heat capacity of timber
char dependent on temperature. Data from Parker57
and Stull67 are very close. Stull67 addressed a relationship
between the specific heat capacity and temperature within
700–2000 K. Effective region was not mentioned in
Parker’s study.57 For Gronli and Melaaen’s model,63
the specific heat capacity increases drastically as temper-
ature rises. Also, Suubery et al.56 indicated that the influ-
ence of density of cellulose on the specific heat capacity is
limited. The related empirical models for timber char are
listed in Table 9. Perry and Green’s model66 has a similar
increasing rate with Suubery et al.’s model56 and Gupta’s
model.55 Those predicted specific heat capacities from
Parker’s model57 seem to be much stable than others.
Moisture content also has an influence on the spe-
cific heat capacity. Tenwolde et al.59 took a large
number of experimental tests on various species of
timber, and developed a model for the specific heat
capacity with different temperatures and moisture con-
tents, as shown in equation (5)
CDp þ 0:01MCp
W
Cp ¼
1 þ 0:01M
þ ð0:0002355T  0:0001326M  0:06191ÞM
(5)
where CD p is the specific heat capacity of dry wood,
KJ/kg.K; Cwp is the specific heat capacity of water,
4.186 kJ/kgK; and M is the moisture content of
timber, %.
Thermal diffusivity
Thermal diffusivity indicates the heat flow rate through
a material. It is usually used together with the other
thermal properties to quantify the cooling time of an
object. A bigger thermal diffusivity of a material indi-
cates a lower temperature gradient inside the material
under the same heat conditions. The thermal diffusivity
is usually defined in equation (6)
k
D¼ (6)
qCp
where D is the thermal diffusivity of a material, m2/s;
and q is the density of a material, kg/m3.
Figure 7 shows the thermal diffusivity of cellulose
dependent on temperature. Suuberg et al.56 found that
the cellulose’s thermal diffusivity keeps constant within
389–562 K. The thermal diffusivity of cellulose char
increases as temperature rises. The thermal diffusivity
is the highest when the density of the cellulose char
is 0.33 g/cm3. Then it is followed by 0.41, 0.18 and
0.52 g/cm3 cellulose char, respectively. A summary of
empirical models for cellulose and its char are listed in
Table 10.56
Shi and Chew 19

Figure 6. Specific heat capacity of timber char dependent on temperature.55–57,63,66,67 Softwood in Gupta et al.55 is composed
of balsam fir, white spruce, and black spruce. Dry wood in Gronli and Melaaen63 includes Norwegian birch, pine, and spruce.

Figure 7. Thermal diffusivity of timber dependent on temperature.

20 Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)

Table 10. A summary of empirical models to predict the thermal diffusivity of cellulose and its char.

Material Empirical models (m2/s) Effective regiona

Cellulose D ¼ 0.806  0.174 q ¼ 0.928 g/cm3, T ¼ [389, 562] K

D ¼ 0.806  0.174
D ¼ 0.806  0.174
Cellulose char D ¼ 1.57 þ 7.95  103T-5.97  106T2
D ¼ 1.51 þ 7.50  103T-5.99  106T2
D ¼ 2.27 þ 1.09  102T-9.21  106T2
D ¼ 4.47 þ 2.02  102T-1.68  105T2
a
The density is obtained under ambient temperature.
q ¼ 0.678 g/cm3, T ¼ [389, 562] K
q ¼ 0.458 g/cm3, T ¼ [389, 562] K
q ¼ 0.41 g/cm3, T ¼ [447, 533] K
q ¼ 0.52 g/cm3, T ¼ [422, 530] K
q ¼ 0.18 g/cm3, T ¼ [410, 522] K
q ¼ 0.33 g/cm3, T ¼ [403, 580] K

Table 11. Temperature independent thermal conductivity of timber.

Type Timber k (W/mK) Type Timber k (W/mK)

Softwood Norway spruce 0.10 Hardwood Birch 0.350

Spruce 0.109 Red oak 0.44
Douglas fir 0.11 Maple 0.35
Redwood 0.19 Birch 0.214–0.25
Douglas fir 0.23
Fir 0.138

Recommendation and thermal conductivities of softwoods, in which the mass

implementation
There are thousands of species of timber available
worldwide. It is impossible to place each one of them
in experiments to measure their temperature-dependent
thermal properties. The above sections list the main
thermal properties of typical timber in our daily lives.
However, until now, there is still a huge gap in timber’s
thermal properties. It is significant to summarize these
data to guide their appropriate uses in the practical fire
modelling or relevant implementation.
From Table 7, the range of the effective heat of
combustion for softwood is 11.3–14.2 kJ/g, and for
hardwood is 10.6–13.2 kJ/g. The average value for soft-
wood in Table 7 is 12.49 kJ/g, and for hardwood is
11.41 kJ/g. Therefore, if the timber species is not avail-
able in Table 7, the effective heat of combustion for
softwood and hardwood is recommended as 12.49 and
11.41 kJ/g, respectively.
Table 11 shows a summary of timber’s thermal con-
ductivity, which are temperature independent.44,56 The
range of softwood is 0.10–0.23 W/mK, and for hard-
wood it is 0.214–0.44 W/mK. The thermal conductiv-
ities of hardwoods are averagely 134.7% higher than
those of softwoods. Most of the obtained thermal con-
ductivities from the literature are between the predic-
tions of Parker’s model53 and Wenzl’s model.52 The
increasing rate from Wenzl’s model52 is higher than
that of Parker’s model.53 As softwoods’ thermal con-
ductivities are normally lower than those of the hard-
woods, Parker’s model53 is recommended to predict the
retention fraction can be considered as 1, namely virgin
timber. For hardwoods, thermal conductivity predic-
tions are recommended to be based on Wenzl’s
model.52
For timber char’s thermal conductivity, the differ-
ence between softwood and hardwood is limited. In
Figure 4, except Koufopanos et al.’s model,60 the ther-
mal conductivity of char rises under a higher tempera-
ture. Those data from Gupta et al.55 are close to those
from Alves and Figueiredo’s model.59 So Alves and
Figueiredo’s model59 is recommended for predicting
the thermal conductivity of timber char under elevated
temperatures.
Figure 5 shows the specific heat capacity of timber.
From Figure 5, the data from Wenzl,52 Kouch,61
Gupta et al.,55 Dunlap65 and Volbehr62 are close to
each other. Experimental data for dry timber from
Ragland and Aerts64 are close to the other models’
data. So, this group of models could be adopted to
predict the specific heat capacity of dry wood. In addi-
tion, moisture content is known to have a great impact
on the specific heat capacity. Therefore, after combin-
ing Wenzl’s model52 (in Table 9) and Tenwolde et al.’s
model59 (equation (5)), equation (7) is gained
0:00485T þ 0:04186M0:21205
Cp ¼
1 þ 0:01M (7)
þ ð0:0002355T  0:0001326M  0:0691ÞM
In equation (7), the specific heat capacity of water is
considered as temperature independent. Figure 8 shows
Shi and Chew 21

Figure 8. A comparison of specific heat capacity between equation (7) and experimental data for timber.

Table 12. Recommended thermal properties of softwood, hardwood and char.

Thermal property Timber Items

Kinetic properties Softwood See Table 3

Hardwood See Table 3
Cellulose See Table 4
Hemicellulose See Table 4
Lignin See Table 4
Ignition properties Softwood See Table 5
Hardwood See Table 5
Effective heat of combustion(kJ/g) Softwood If not seen in Table 7, recommend 12.75.
Hardwood If not seen in Table 7, recommend 11.9.
Thermal conductivity (W/mK) Hardwood k ¼ 0.13 þ 3  104 (T-273)
Softwood k ¼ 0.124 þ 0.8432  104(T-293)
Char k ¼ 0.091 þ 8.2  105T
0:00485T þ 0:04186M0:21205
Specific heat capacity (kJ/kgK) Timber Cp ¼
1 þ 0:01M
þ ð0:0002355T  0:0001326M  0:0691ÞM
Char Cp ¼1.0032 þ 0.00209(T-273)
Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) Timber D ¼ qCk p
Char
Note: T is the temperature, and all the temperatures in this table are in Kelvin; and the above suggestions are for the conditions when the
specific timber species are not found in the above tables.

that equation (7) and experimental data from Ragland
and Aerts64 are in good agreement. So, equation (7) is
recommended for predicting the specific heat capacity
of timber dependent on both temperature and moisture
content.
Similarly, for char’s specific heat capacity, it is
assumed that there is no difference between softwood
and hardwood. Figure 6 shows that the data from
Gronli’s model68 increase drastically as temperature
rises. Data from Suubery et al.56 and Gupta et al.55
22
increase smoothly along with the temperature. Data
from Perry and Green’s model66 are between them.
So, Perry and Green’s model66 is recommended for
predicting timber char’s specific heat capacity for
both the softwood and hardwood.
Few studies are found to measure the thermal diffu-
sivity for timber and char directly. Maybe it is because
the thermal diffusivity can be calculated by equation
(6). So, equation (6) is recommended for predicting the
thermal diffusivity of timber and timber char. Those
above recommended thermal properties of softwood,
hardwood and char are summarized in Table 12.
Conclusions
Thermal properties (especially those temperature-
dependent or moisture-dependent) of softwood, hard-
wood and char are reviewed and summarized in this
study, including kinetic properties, ignition properties,
thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, effective
heat of combustion and thermal diffusivity. The related
data and empirical models are also collected. The fol-
lowing main conclusions can be obtained:
• Timber usually includes hardwood and softwood.
Both show a similar mass percentage in cellulose,
while softwood shows a relatively higher and lower
mass percentage, respectively, in lignin and hemicel-
lulose. The pyrolysis behaviours of these chemical
components then result in different pyrolysis behav-
iours at elevated temperatures;
• Among these three components, lignin has a higher
temperature range for degradation. Softwood shows
a higher fraction of lignin, which explains why the
ignition temperatures of those softwoods are higher
than those of hardwoods. The average effective heat
of combustion of softwoods is 9.5% higher than
those of hardwoods;
• The thermal conductivities of softwoods increase
faster than those of hardwood when moisture con-
tent rises. The thermal conductivity of timber char
increases as temperature rises, observed from most
of the previous models. Cellulose with a high density
shows larger thermal conductivity, but its influences
on the specific heat capacity are limited; and
• Recommended models to predict the temperature-
dependent thermal properties of the hardwood, soft-
wood, and char are summarized through this study.
A model was also recommended to predict the ther-
mal diffusivity of timber and timber char, including
those at elevated temperatures.
Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)
Authors’ contribution
Long Shi: Writing – original draft, methodology, formal
analysis; Michael Yit Lin Chew: Conceptualization, writing
– review and editing, supervision, project administration.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Long Shi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0763-7293
References
1. Szasz A, Hlavicka V, Lubloy E and Biro A. Numerical
modelling of the fire resistance of double sheared steel-to-
timber connections. J Build Eng 2021; 37: 102150.
2. Barber D. Tall timber buildings: what’s next in fire
safety? Fire Technol 2015; 51: 1279–1284.
3. Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities
Council Limited. Fire safety principles for massive
timber building systems. Melbourne: Australasian Fire
and Emergency Service Authorities Council, 2018.
4. Shi L and Chew MYL. Experimental study of woods
under external heat flux by autoignition: ignition time
and mass loss rate. J Therm Anal Calorim 2013; 111:
1399–1407.
5. Fawaz M, Lautenberger C and Bond TC. Prediction of
organic aerosol precursor emission from the pyrolysis of
thermally thick wood. Fuel 2020; 269: 117333.
6. Leventon IT, Korver KT and Stoliarov SI. A generalized
model of flame to surface heat feedback for laminar wall
flames. Combust Flame 2017; 179: 338–353.
7. Shi L, Chew MYL, Novozhilov V and Joseph P.
Modelling the pyrolysis and combustion behaviours of
non-charring and intumescent-protected polymers using
‘FiresCone. Polymers 2015; 7: 1979–1997.
8. Shi L, Chew MYL, Liu XY, Cheng XD, Wang B and
Zhang GM. An experimental and numerical study on fire
behaviors of charring materials frequently used in build-
ings. Energy Build 2017; 138: 140–153.
9. Lautenberger C and Fernandex-Pello AC. Optimization
algorithms for material pyrolysis property estimation.
Fire Saf Sci 2011; 10: 751–764.
10. Shen YL, Schneider J, Tesfamariam S, Stiemer SF and
Chen ZW. Cyclic behavior of bracket connections for
cross-laminated timber (CLT): assessment and compari-
son of experimental and numerical models studies.
J Build Eng 2021; 39: 102197.
11. Langer AM and Morse RG. The world trade center
catastrophe: was the type of spray fire proofing a factor
in the collapse of the twin towers? Indoor Built Environ
2010; 10: 350–360.
Shi and Chew
12. Siddique R and Noumowe AN. An overview of the prop-
erties of high-strength concrete subjected to elevated tem-
peratures. Indoor Built Environ 2010; 19: 612–622.
13. Huang DM, Wang CY, Shen YM, Lin P and Shi L. Fire
behaviors of vertical and horizontal polymethylmetha-
crylate slabs under autoignition conditions. Proc Safety
Prog 2019; 39: e12109.
14. Klippel M. Fire safety of bonded structural timber ele-
ments. Zürich: ETH Zurich, 2014.
15. Shi L and Chew MYL. Influence of moisture on auto-
ignition of woods in cone calorimeter. J Fire Sci 2012; 30:
158–169.
16. Gong JH, Stoliarov SI, Shi L, Li J, Zhu SB, Zhou Y and
Wang ZR. Analytical prediction of pyrolysis and ignition
time of translucent fuel considering both time-dependent
heat flux and in-depth absorption. Fuel 2019; 235: 913–922.
17. Shi L and Chew MYL. A review of fire processes model-
ing of combustible materials under external heat flux.
Fuel 2013; 106: 30–50.
18. Gruyter D. A novel approach to determine charring of
wood in natural fire implemented in a coupled heat-
mass-pyrolysis model. Holzforschung 2020; 75: 148–158.
19. Structural Timber Association. Fire safety in timber build-
ings. Alloa: Structural Timber Association, 2015.
20. Gales J, Chorlton B and Jeanneret C. The historical nar-
rative of the standard temperature – time heating curve
for structures. Fire Technol 2021; 57: 529–558.
21. Verma N and Salem O. Comparitive study on the flexural
behaviour of glulam built-up beams based on ambient
and standard fire tests. Eng Struct 2021; 233: 111759.
22. Popescu CM, Singurel G, Popescu MC, Vasile C,
Argyropoulos DS and Willfor S. Vibrational spectrosco-
py and X-ray diffraction methods to establish the differ-
ences between hardwood and softwood. Carbohyd Polym
2009; 77: 851–857.
23. Janssens M. Fundamental thermophysical characteristics
of wood and their role in enclosure fire growth. PhD
Thesis, University of Gent, Ghent, 1991.
24. White RH and Dietenberger MA. Wood products ther-
mal degradation and fire. In: Buschow KHJ, Cahn RW,
Flemings MC, Ilschner B, Kramer EJ, Mahajan S,
Veyssiere P (eds) Encyclopedia of materials: science and
technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001, pp.9712–9716.
25. Di Blasi C. Combustion and gasification rates of lignocel-
lulosic chars. Progr Energy Combust Sci 2009; 35: 121–140.
26. Shi L, Chew MYL, Xie QY, Zhang RF, Li LM and Xu
CM. Experimental study on fire characteristics of PC
monitors – part I: combustion properties and pyrolysis
characteristics. J Appl Fire Sci 2010; 19: 23–39.
27. Basan S and Guven O. A comparison of various isother-
mal thermogravimetric methods applied to the degrada-
tion of PVC. Thermochimica Acta 1986; 106: 169–178.
28. Dollimore D, Evans TA, Lee YF and Wilburn FW.
Calculation of activation energy and pre-exponential fac-
tors from rising temperature data and the generation of
TG and DTG curves from A and E values.
Thermochimica Acta 1991; 188: 77–85.
29. Samolada MC and Vasalos IA. A kinetic approach to the
flash pyrolysis of biomass in a fluidized bed reactor. Fuel
1991; 70: 883–889.
23
30. Wagenaar BM, Prins W and Van Swaaij WPM. Flash
pyrolysis kinetics of pine wood. Fuel Process Technol
1993; 36: 291–298.
31. Chan WCR, Kelbon M and Krieger BB. Modelling and
experimental verification of physical and chemical pro-
cesses during pyrolysis of a large biomass particle. Fuel
1985; 64: 1505–1513.
32. Liu NA and Fan WC. Modelling the thermal decompo-
sitions of wood and leaves under a nitrogen atmosphere.
Fire Mater 1998; 22: 103–108.
33. Thurner F and Mann U. Kinetic investigation of wood
pyrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev 1981; 20: 482–488.
34. Di Blasi C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of
wood and biomass pyrolysis. Progr Energy Combust Sci
2008; 34: 47–90.
35. Nunn TR, Howard JB, Longwell JP and Peters WA.
Product compositions and kinetics in the rapid pyrolysis
of sweet gum hardwood. Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev
1985; 24: 836–844.
36. Swann J, Hartman J and Beyler C. Study of radiant smol-
dering ignition of plywood subjected to prolonged heat-
ing using the cone calorimeter, TGA, and DSC. In: The
9th international symposium on fire safety science, Baden-
Württemberg, Germany, September 21–26 2008: 98–102.
Karlsruhe: University of Karlsruhe.
37. Moghtaderi B. The state-of-the-art in pyrolysis modelling
of lignocellulosic solid fuels. Fire Mater 2006; 30: 1–34.
38. Dollimore D. The kinetics of the oxidative degradation of
cellulose and cellulose doped with chlorides. Thermochim
Acta 1987; 121: 273–282.
39. Ozturk Z and Merklin JF. Fast pyrolysis of cellulose in a
single pulse shock tube. Biomass Bioenergy 1993; 5:
437–444.
40. Varhegyi G, Antal MJ, Szekely T and Szabo P. Kinetics
of the thermal decomposition of cellulose, hemicellulose,
and sugarcane bagasse. Energy Fuels 1989; 3: 329–335.
41. Chan RWC and Krieger BB. Kinetics of dielectric-loss
microwave degradation of polymers: lignin. J Appl Polym
Sci 1981; 26: 1533–1553.
42. Spearpoint MJ and Quintiere JG. Predicting the burning
of wood using an integral model. Combust Flame 2000;
123: 308–324.
43. Wang YF, Yang LZ, Zhou XD, Dai JK, Zhou YP and
Deng ZH. Experiment study of the altitude effects on
spontaneous ignition characteristics of wood. Fuel 2010;
89: 1029–1034.
44. Hopkins DJ. Predicting the ignition time and burning rate
of thermoplastics in the cone calorimeter. Gaithersburg:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1995.
45. Janssens M and Douglas B. Wood and wood products.
In: Harper CA (ed) Handbook of building materials for
fire protection, chapter 7. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004,
pp.7.1–7.58.
46. Thornton W. The relation of oxygen to the heat of com-
bustion of organic compounds. Philosoph Mag J Sci
1917; 33: 196–203.
47. Huggett C. Estimation of the rate of heat release by
means of oxygen consumption measurement. Fire
Mater 1980; 4: 61–65.
24
48. ISO 9705:2016. Reaction-to-fire tests - full-scale room
tests for surface products - Part 2: technical background
and guidance. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization, 2016.
49. Shi L and Chew MYL. Fire behaviors of polymers under
autoignition conditions in a cone calorimeter. Fire Safety
J 2013; 61: 243–253.
50. Harada T. Time to ignition, heat release rate and fire
endurance time of wood in cone calorimeter test. Fire
Mater 2001; 25: 161–167.
51. Heskestad G. Heat of combution in spreading wood crib
fires with application to ceiling jets. Fire Safety J 2006;
41: 343–348.
52. Wenzl H. The chemical technology of wood. New York:
Academic Press, 1970.
53. Parker WJ. Prediction of the heat release rate of wood.
Fire Saf Sci. 1986; 207–216.
54. BS EN 1995-1-2:2004. Eurocode 5. Design of timber struc-
tures – part 1-2: general – structural fire design. London:
British Standards Institution, 2004.
55. Gupta M, Yang J and Roy C. Specific heat and thermal
conductivity of softwood bark and softwood char par-
ticles. Fuel 2003; 82: 919–927.
56. Suuberg EM, Milosavijevic I and Lilly WD. Behavior of
charring materials in simulated fire environments.
Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), 1994.
57. Parker WJ. Prediction of the heat release rate of Douglas
fir. In: The second international symposium on fire safety
science, Tokyo, June 13–17 1988: 337–346.
Indoor and Built Environment 32(1)
58. Alves SS and Figueiredo JL. A model for pyrolysis of wet
wood. Chem Eng Sci 1989; 44: 2861–2869.
59. TenWolde A, McNatt JD and Krahn L. Thermal proper-
ties of wood and wood panel products for use in buildings.
Madison: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1988.
60. Koufopanos CA, Papayannakos N, Maschio G and
Lucchesi A. Modelling of the pyrolysis of biomass par-
ticles: studies on kinetics, thermal and heat transfer
effects. Can J Chem Eng 1991; 69: 907–915.
61. Koch P. Specific heat of ovendry spruce pine wood and
bark. Wood Sci 1968; 1: 203–214.
62. Volbehr B. Swelling of wood fibers. PhD Thesis,
University of Kiel, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein,
Germany, 1896.
63. Gronli MG and Melaaen MC. Mathematical model for
wood pyrolysis – comparison of experimental measure-
ments with model predictions. Energy Fuels 2000; 14:
791–800.
64. Ragland KW and Aerts DJ. Properties of wood for com-
bustion analysis. Biores Technol 1991; 37: 161–168.
65. Dunlap F. The specific heat of wood. Washington D.C. U.
S. Department of Agriculture, 1912.
66. Perry RH and Green D. Perry’s chemical engineers’ hand-
book. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
67. Stull DR. JANAF thermochemical tables. Washington, D.
C.: US Government Printing Office, 1971.
68. Gronli MG. A theoretical and experimental study of the
thermal degradation of biomass. PhD Thesis, The
Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Ålesund, Gjøvik, Norway, 1996.