STP344-EB/Oct.
1963
FIRE ENDURANCE TESTS OF WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
BY RICHARD W.
A very interesting review of the early
history of fire tests2 was presented at
the Fire Test Symposium sponsored by
ASTM Committee E-5 on Fire Tests of
Materials and Construction in 1961.
The concepts that underlie the present
standard method for wall and partition
assemblies are basically the same as those
that formed the foundation of the early
test methods. Over the years a number
of changes and refinements have been
incorporated, but they have not altered
the fundamental principles.
To follow the thinking involved in the
present method, we consider a typical
building under fire conditions and then
extract a representative section of the
construction to conduct the fire test.
The specimen size presently considered as
being representative for walls and parti-
tions has a minimum area of 100 sq ft
and neither dimension less than 9 ft.
The construction system must have a
reasonable degree of structural stability
in order to withstand the differential
thermal stresses even if not required for
load-carrying capacity. In addition, it
must contain thermal insulation to resist
transfer of heat. The specimen size is an
essential element of the test method.
No widely accepted theoretical means
has yet been devised to evaluate the
1
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
and Director, Building Research Laboratory,
Engineering Experiment Station, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio.
2
Harry Shoub, "Early History of Fire
Endurance Testing in the United States,"
Symposium on Fire Test Methods, ASTM
STP No. 301, Am. Soe. Testing Mats., p. 1
(1961).
Copyright" 1963 by ASTM International
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
BLETZACKER1
fire resistance of building construction,
and thus we resort to service testing as
exemplified by the fire test. In one sense
it is desirable to use a specimen as long
and high as a typical room in a building
so as to duplicate more nearly actual
conditions. Costs and practical limita-
tions on test facilities, on the other hand,
would dictate relatively small specimens.
The test requirement on specimen size
is a compromise of these considerations
and is the basis for nearly all fire re-
sistance ratings for present-day con-
structions. As a result of the extensive
use of the test method based upon the
minimum of 100 sq ft, it is important
to recognize that results from fire tests
on specimens of much smaller dimen-
sions cannot be equated directly to the
results from standard tests.
The second essential element of the
fire test, of course, is the makeup of the
fire intensity and severity. The time-
temperature curve shown in Fig. 1 de-
scribes the fire used in the standard tests.
The fire condition was arbitrarily set as
typical of some of the more severe fires
observed in the field.
It should be recognized that with the
establishment of these two essential ele-
ments of the test method, the test need
no longer be related to any actual build-
ing or any real fire. Rather, the test
gives a measure or index by which to
compare one construction system with
all other construction systems under
one standard set of fire conditions. If it
is argued that some assemblies will per-
form better than others under a more
47
www.astm.org
48
severe condition, this test will not dem-
onstrate that fact. If it is argued that the
test condition is more severe than actual
conditions and that a given assembly
will perform adequately under a real
fire, this is really immaterial, for the
basis of comparison and acceptance is
contained in this test method. Any one
of the potentially infinite number of
other conditions to which an assembly
could be exposed is extraneous. In the
broad sense, it is not important that the
2 500
2 000
I 500
a:
CL
1000
500
1 2
FIG. 1.—Standard Time-Temperature Curve.
test simulate some real condition, but
that the test be reasonable. We are secur-
ing a comparative index and are not
measuring an absolute quantity. Build-
ing code officials and others charged with
the responsibility of establishing the fire
endurance requirements of buildings for
various occupancy must bear this in
mind.
T E S T S OF W A L L AND PARTITION
ASSEMBLIES
Wall and partitions are classified as to
their function in a structure either as
load-bearing or non-load-bearing. Load-
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
F I R E T E S T METHODS
bearing walls are required to be tested
under loaded conditions. In view of this,
load-bearing wall specimens may not be
attached or restrained along their vertical
edges in the test frame. This prevents a
portion of the test load from being trans-
ferred to the exterior frame. Non-load-
bearing specimens may be attached to
the test frame along all four edges.
The one aspect of the pretest proce-
dure not yet considered is the require-
ment for conditioning the specimen. In
^ STANDARD (A S TM)Curv e
3 4 5 6
TIME, hr
order to approach a realistic condition
in the assembly before fire exposure, it
is necessary that the construction attain
a large portion of its final strength. If it
contains moisture, it should be condi-
tioned until it has reached a reasonably
air-dried state approaching that in serv-
ice. In this regard, it is presently re-
quired that the interior or dampest
section of the assembly attain an equi-
librium moisture content with air of 70
per cent relative humidity or less. This
is a rather complex condition to describe,
and Committee E-5 still has certain
aspects of this requirement under active
 BLETZACKER ON TESTS OF WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
consideration. In view of the state of
flux, this requirement will not be con-
sidered in detail here. It is sufficient to
say that in order to obtain a compatible
index of fire endurance, each of the many
variations of assemblies utilizing water
as an element of its chemical composi-
tion must be on a common base with
respect to excess moisture.
CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE—
OR E N D POINTS
Endurance Test:
The fire endurance test is continued
using the standard time-temperature
curve and these temperatures are re-
corded every 5 min. The assembly under
test is expected to contain the fire and
resist the transmission of heat. To meas-
ure the heat transfer, at least nine ther-
mocouples are mounted on the unexposed
face. When the average temperature
rise on these nine thermocouples exceeds
250 F above the initial temperature, the
endurance period for the test construc-
tion is considered ended. If one of the
thermocouples on the unexposed face
indicates a temperature rise in excess of
325 F above the initial temperature, the
endurance period is likewise ended. This
thermal transmission criterion is an
arbitrary limit intended to present ex-
cessive heat transfer through the as-
sembly. The basic thought is to prevent
ignition of any possible inflammable
material stored in an adjacent area.
In addition, the construction must
prevent passage of flame or hot gases.
Cotton waste is used to determine when
and if flames or hot gases are transmitted.
The cotton waste may also be used to
indicate excessive conducted heat at
locations not represented by the thermo-
couples. If the assembly is designed for a
load-bearing condition, the assembly
must also sustain the design load during
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
49
the fire test. The first of the limits
reached determines the endurance period.
During the progress of the test, the
deflection of the wall toward or away
from the fire is measured and recorded.
Visual observations relative to steam
and smoke emission, cracks, spalling,
and discoloring of the specimen are
likewise noted. Neither the deflection
nor the visual observations of them-
selves are cause for an end point of the
test but are recorded for information
purposes.
Hose Stream Test:
A further requirement the assembly
must meet if the indicated endurance
period is 1 hr or more is a fire and hose
stream test. Conceptually, the endurance
test determines how long the construc-
tion system will withstand an unattended
raging fire. The fire and hose stream test,
on the other hand, purports to determine
if the assembly can withstand a fire of
shorter duration followed by a hose
stream similar to that used by firemen
when they arrive to fight the fire.
A duplicate specimen of the assembly
is normally constructed for the fire and
hose stream test. The fire portion of the
test is similar to the fire endurance test;
however, no deflection data are recorded
and the thermocouples on the unexposed
surface are not used. The duration of the
fire portion has been set at one half of the
demonstrated endurance period. More
commonly, however, the time is taken as
one half of the usual classification periods
of 1 hr. If hr, or 2 hr. For constructions
that endure the fire for over 2 hr, the fire
portion of the fire and hose stream test is
set at 1 hr. The fire intensity for this test
is in accordance with the standard time-
temperature curve for the period in-
volved. At the end of the fire exposure,
the frame containing the test assembly is
moved away from the furnace and the
hot surface is hit with a hose stream from
50 F I R E T E S T METHODS

a smooth bore l|-iii. fire nozzle held nor- identifiable characteristics, a complete
mal to the face of the wall and at a dis- description of the assembly or erection
tance of 20 ft. The nozzle pressure is 30 procedure, time-temperature data both
psi for assemblies with resistance periods in the furnace and the unexposed surface,
up to 4 hr and 45 psi for assemblies of deflection data, and a chronological log
over 4 hr resistance period. The duration of the visual observations noted during
of hose stream application varies from 1 the test. In addition, it is desirable to in-
min for a 1-hr partition to 6 min for an clude details of the test facility, test pro-
8-hr assembly. The hose stream is played cedure, and criteria for acceptance.
on the construction in vertical and hori- Numerous photographs of the test assem-
zontal passes over the entire surface. bly taken at intervals throughout the
In order to qualify for classification in test are also helpful.
accordance with the endurance period, One important point should be kept in
the test construction must withstand the mind. The fire test was designed to com-
hose stream test without breakthrough of pare various construction systems under
the water stream. If the assembly is de- standardized conditions to evaluate their
signed as a load-bearing construction, it performance and ability to contain rag-
must sustain the design load throughout ing fires in a building. The test does not
the test and in addition must endure the determine the suitability of a construc-
dead load of the test construction plus tion for use after the fire, and any at-
twice the design live load within 72 hr tempt to extrapolate the salvage value
after the hose stream test without struc- should be approached with caution, if at
tural failure. all.
An alternate procedure exists for the
T E S T S OF DOOR AND W I N D O W
hose stream test wherein the submitter
ASSEMBLIES
may elect to have the fire endurance
specimen subjected to the hose stream There are two additional test methods
immediately following the fire endurance generally similar to those of walls—fire
test. All of the other aspects of the fire tests of door assemblies and fire tests of
and hose stream test are followed, how- window assemblies. Typically the door or
ever, including double loading, if applica- window assembly is constructed within a
ble. I t is obvious that the alternate pro- masonry wall and the wall furnace fa-
cedure is a more severe condition since cility is used to perform the test. Tem-
the assembly has been exposed to the fire perature transmission is not a criterion
for the full endurance period instead of or end point condition of either of these
just half of this time. A number of types tests. The integrity of the door assembly
of construction can successfully pass the is the prime consideration and limitations
alternate procedure. are set for the movement of the door
The foregoing covers the salient points from its original position or out of the
of the fire test procedure for wall and frame. For window assemblies, the speci-
partition constructions. The report of re- men must not be loosened from its fasten-
sults issued for a fire test is a very im- ings and the major portion of the glass
portant document, possibly more so than lights must remain in position through-
reports of many other types of tests be- out the hose stream test.
cause of the number and diversity of
DISCUSSION
those who must review and evaluate the
results. The major items in the report in- As noted previously, fire tests are a
clude a detailed description of the ma- type of ad hoc testing. We must resort to
terials together with their measurable or such programs due to a lack of under-

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 BLETZACKER ON TESTS OF WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
standing of the fundamental characteris-
tics of building materials to provide fire
protection and an inability to evaluate
rationally the complex behavior of com-
posite assemblies when subjected to fire
exposure. A number of approaches^* to
this problem have been taken and some
have merit as a possible solution. Most
of the methods are aimed at a specific
aspect of the fire problem, usually the
heat transfer phase. Even this is a most
complex analysis considering all of the
variables involved. As yet, very little en-
couragement has been given to research
efforts in this direction and practically no
acceptance of the proposed analyses has
been granted. Unquestionably, the tech-
niques advanced to date are limited to
simplified conditions and individual as-
' T. Z. Harmathy, "A Treatise on Theoreti-
cal Fire Endurance Rating," SSymposium on
Fire Test Methods, ASTM STP No. SOI, Am.
Soc. Testing Mats., p. 10 (1961).
* R. H. Neisel, "Prediction of Temperature
Rise in Fire Testing of Walls and Partitions,"
ASTM BULLETIN, No. 239, July, 1959, p. 66.
^A. F. Robertson and Daniel Gross, "An
Electrical-Analog Method of Transient Heat-
Flow Analysis," Journal of Research, National
Bureau of Standards, Vol. 61, p. 105 (1958).
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
51
pects of a multiphase problem, yet this is
the way we learned to walk—one step at
a time.
There is a crying need for an increased
research effort in the area of fire protec-
tion. In many aspects the building indus-
try at large and the fire safety area in
particular have not kept pace with the
rapid advancements made in other areas
of science and technology. We need to
comprehend better the fundamental con-
cepts involved from both an academic
viewpoint and a practical viewpoint.
Unfortunately, too few are interested in
understanding the basic concepts of fire
safety as a field of academic interest. It is
expensive to conduct test upon test, and
the time required to schedule test pro-
grams is severely handicapping develop-
ment of new materials and constructions.
Those of us in the research and testing
field must keep an open mind to new
avenues of attack and those in the field
of building regulations must be ready to
evaluate, accept, and utilize rational
techniques to provide eflicient and eco-
nomical fire protection in buildings.
 DISCUSSION
M R . R . C . LEVYI—The tests described
do not provide the necessary information
with regard to doors for the building
official nor for the Underwriters' Lab-
oratories on constructions presently be-
ing used as fire-resistive assemblies. In
particular we are concerned with the
lack of information with regard to fire
door installations in wallboard or metal
lath and plaster assembhes, studless
assembfies, and the many other types of
wall constructions presently in use. The
walls themselves have been thoroughly
tested, yet we have no method of assur-
ing that the frame is anchored properly
to the wall since the standard test is for
fire doors in masonry walls.
Underwriters' Laboratories, for in-
stance, cannot label a frame for other
than masonry wall installation. I n
practice, we must require a certification
from the manufacturer that the frame is
the same as a labeled frame for a masonry
wall, and then hope that the anchorage
to the other type of wall is proper. Test
procedures should be evolved for fire
door installations in the more common of
the many assemblies used in construc-
tion, and presented to the building official
in order that a satisfactory anchorage for
the fire door frame may be achieved.
M R . J. V. RYAN2 {by letter).—As
Bletzacker points out, a number of
provisions of ASTM Methods E IW
leave room for interpretation by the
' Superintendent, Bureau of Building In-
spection, City and County of San Francisco,
San Francisco, Calif.
^ Fire Research Section, National Bureau of
Standards, Wasliington, D. C.
' Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construc-
tion and Materials (E 119-61), 1961 Book of
ASTM Standards, Part 5, p. 1135.
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
laboratory personnel. There are others
in which the provisions are spelled out in
terms of a relationship to the specimen
or test conditions rather than in absolute
terms. The comments that follow will
call attention to certain basic provisions
of Methods E 119; Mr. Bletzacker ably
described their application to tests con-
ducted in the facilities at the Ohio State
University Engineering Experiment Sta-
tion.
For example, the duration of the hose
stream application is not only a function
of the fire endurance of the specimen b u t
also of the area of the wall or partition.
Whereas the Ohio State University staff
would apply the hose stream to a 1-hr
wall of 10 by 10 ft size for 1 min,
the National Bureau of Standards staff
would apply it to a 16 by 10 ft wall for
1.6 min because Methods E 119 specifies
1 min per 100 sq ft exposed area for 1-hr
walls. Either procedure would be in full
compUance with Methods E 119.
Methods E 119 does not apply the
limiting rise criteria to duplicate walls
prior to the hose-stream test, b u t neither
does it preclude the recording of unex-
posed surface temperature data. Such
temperature data must be taken in the
case of the alternate procedure whereby
Mr. the hose stream is applied to the same
specimen used for the full fire endurance
test. I agree with Mr. Bletzacker that
this alternate is a more severe test. How-
ever, Methods E 119 does not indicate
that the results obtained by one proce-
dure should be given any more weight
than those obtained by the other.
The use of cotton waste to check on
hot spots which are not associated with
52
 DISCUSSION ON WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
a crack or other opening through the
specimen is neither called for nor forbid-
den. This appears justified since the
question is whether or not heat is getting
through the wall at a sufficient rate to
cause ignition of cotton waste. The pres-
ence of a crack may provide the path for
heat transfer and greatly increase the
chances of ignition, but the possibility
of ignition without a crack should not be
ignored. There is a need for specification
of the physical properties of the cotton
waste, the duration of application to the
suspected area, and other factors that
might be expected to influence the re-
sults.
Another point of considerable impor-
tance in connection with the passage of
flames or hot gases through cracks in
the specimen is that of pressure. Many
of the recently constructed fire test
furnaces tend to operate with the pres-
sure in the combustion chamber slightly
below that of the outside atmosphere.
Under these conditions, cool air would
be drawn into the furnace through cracks
that were large enough to permit pas-
sage of flame if the pressure in the furnace
were higher than that outside. Therefore
the size of the crack should be the
governing criterion until ASTM Com-
mittee E-5 on Fire Tests of Materials
and Construction can provide a tech-
nique whereby the pressure differential
through a crack can be standardized
during cotton waste application.
MR. RICHARD G. GEWAIN* {presented
in written form).—The author has pre-
sented an interesting paper on fire en-
durance tests of walls and partitions;
however, a study of the voluminous data
developed by authorities in the fields of
fire testing and fire protection gives a
clear understanding of the purpose of the
fire test procedure.
The author states that "we consider a
* Engineer, National Board of Fire Under-
writers, New York, N. Y.
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
53
typical building under fire conditions and
then extract a representative section of
the construction to conduct the fire test."
Generally speaking, there is no typical
building. Rather what is considered in
fire tests is a portion of a building. In this
instance we are considering the walls
and partitions and their abihty to pre-
vent the spread of fire throughout the
building. The spread of fire through walls
and partitions is accomplished in two
ways: (1) by the ignition of combustible
material on the opposite side of the wall
exposed to fire or, in other words, heat
transmission through the wall; and (2) by
collapse of the wall. Therefore the fire
tests of walls and partitions determine
the effectiveness of an assembly of ma-
terials to restrict the horizontal spread of
fire in buildings.
In connection with the discussions on
the size of the test specimen, it was
found essential to use the smallest as-
sembly that would produce reahstic re-
actions of structural elements when ex-
posed to fire. Actually, it appears evident
from field experience that very good
judgment was used by our predecessors.
In certain instances larger size assemblies
would appear to be more realistic. For
example, consider the relationship of
the standard fire test to the expected
performance of fire walls. The purpose
of fire walls is to subdivide large area
buildings into reasonably smaller areas
so that each area is considered a separate
building in itself. Fire resistance ratings
as determined by the standard fire test
do not provide an adequate basis for
specifying minimum thickness of fire
walls. Briefly, the standard fire test is
made on a sample wall about 10 ft
square and must withstand the standard
exposure fire and bear its rated load, if of
load-bearing construction, for 4 hr, and
withstand the hose stream test.
It is obvious that a fire test as de-
scribed will not measure the ability of a
54
wall many times the size of the test
panel to stand up against fire exposure
over more or less its entire area. Walls
expand when heated. For example, a
brick wall 55 ft high heated to 1850 F,
the temperature at the end of a 2-hr fire
test, will expand in height approxi-
mately 5.9 in. Considering that a wall
may be and usually is exposed to this
temperature on one side only, the forces
tending to overthrow it are quite ap-
parent. In severe building fires it is com-
mon to see walls curl and fall as the re-
sult of such expansion on the heated side.
Also of considerable importance is the
ability of such walls to withstand the
impact from collapsing floors and falling
objects.
When a wall is called upon to stop a
spreading fire that is reaching or has
attained conflagration proportions, it
must have stabihty against collapse or
overturning far in excess of that pre-
sented by certain types of construction
that develop a 4-hr rating in the standard
fire test, if it is to serve its purpose.
In the absence of any test that will
actually measure the kind of performance
required in fire walls it is necessary to
specify some wall thickness on the basis
of experience and performance in actual
fires in addition to a 4-hr fire resistance
rating.
Concerning the discussion on the time-
temperature curve, it should be made
clear that the standard test fire, or time-
temperature curve as it is presently re-
ferred to, was selected after careful study
and is considered to be realistic in terms
of what can be expected in actual build-
ing fires.
On May 24, 1905, under the auspices
of the ASTM, Committee P on Fireproof-
ing Materials was organized with Ira H.
Woolson of the School of Mines, Colum-
bia University, as chairman and Rudolph
P. Miller as secretary. The report of this
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
FIRE TEST METHODS
committee at the ASTM Annual Meeting
in June 1906 included a test procedure
for fireproof floor construction. This
procedure was adopted as standard on
Sept. 1, 1907. A year later a fire test for
fireproof partition construction was out-
lined by this committee. This procedure
was adopted as standard on Aug. 16,
1909.
The activities of Committee P, which
in the meantime had become Committee
C-5, were resumed about 1917, and a
complete new standard was evolved
and adopted Aug. 26,1918 and was desig-
nated C 19 - 18, Standard Specifications
for Fire Tests of Materials and Con-
struction. The principal changes in this
new ASTM standard consisted of the
combination of the two specifications
into one, the elimination of detailed
specifications of the test structure, the
introduction of the time-temperature
curve, and the classification of results.
The procedure for fire and water tests
on partitions prior to 1918 required a
test panel 1 4 | ft long and 9J ft high
which constituted one side of the test
structure. The panel was subjected to a
continuous heat from a wood fire for at
least 1 hr, maintaining an average
temperature of at least 1700 F during
the last half hour of the test.
During the period 1905 to 1918 many
different time-temperature curves were
considered. The curve selected in 1918
as a result of study by representatives
of various technical organizations was
considered representative of conditions
encountered in fires in most ocupancies.
Beginning in 1922 the Bureau of
Standards began a study to determine
the intensity of building fires. Full-scale
fire tests involving buildings of brick
walls and wood joist floor construction
and buildings of fire-resistive construc-
tion indicated that the time-temperature
curve provided an average condition
encountered in actual building fires. Mr.
 DISCUSSION ON WALL AND PARTITION ASSEMBLIES
S. H. Ingberg reported the Bureau of
Standards investigation of the Severity
of Building Fires in Quarterly, National
Fire Protection Assn., Vol. 22, No. 1,
July, 1928. Also reference should be made
to the paper presented by R. E. Carlson*
at this session which further supports the
validity of the time-temperature curve.
MR. A. J. BARTOSIC^—Are there small-
scale wall tests? If so, what type of cor-
relation exists with the 100 sq ft test?
ME. RICHARD W . BLETZACKER (au-
thor's closure).—The author is indebted
to each of the discussers for their pointed
and pertinent comments on this paper.
The point Mr. Levy brought out is an
important and timely one. The long-
standing practice has been to conduct
fire endurance tests ou only one specimen
whether it be a wall, floor, door, or
window. A second specimen for the hose
stream test may be used where ap-
plicable. Under these circumstances it is
quite natural in the case of door as-
semblies (or window assemblies) to limit
the area of concern to the door or window
assembly alone. Therefore, these assem-
blies are usually installed in masonry
constructions. In the window test
method, ASTM Method E 163,' masonry
or reinforced concrete frames are speci-
fied. Thus, the anchorage system used in
the test might not be appropriate for
every type of construction used in the
field. The author agrees that the present
provisions of the test methods and cur-
rent practices impose serious problems
which must be considered by building
officials in the evaluation of test results.
Serious study of Mr. Levy's point should
be undertaken by ASTM Committee E-5.
Mr. Ryan elaborated on a number of
points contained in the ASTM Methods
^Seep. 121.
* Legal Department, Rohm & Haas, Phila-
delphia, Pa.
' Methods of Fire Tests of Window Assem-
blies (E 163), 1961 Book of ASTM Standards,
Part 5.
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
55
E 119 which were well taken. He pointed
out, for instance, that the hose stream
exposure specified is on the basis of time
per 100 sq ft of exposed area; therefore,
in those laboratories that have test
assemblies larger than 100 sq ft the hose
stream exposure must be extended in
time duration on the basis of the ratio
of actual area to the 100 sq ft minimum
area. At The Ohio State University the
specimen size for walls and partitions is
100 sq ft; therefore, no conversion is
required.
Mr. Gewain has taken issue with cer-
tain statements in the paper which he
feels are not supported by facts. He has
discussed a number of aspects of the test
pointing out areas of applicability as well
as areas of nonapplicability. In general,
where the author may have led a reader
to draw an impression that the test
method might not be apphcable, Mr.
Gewain has presented discussion tending
to validate the application of the test
method. And, in certain areas where
the author may have led the reader to
conclude that the test method would be
applicable, Mr. Gewain has pointed out
instances of nonapplicability. The author
sincerely appreciates the comments made
by Mr. Gewain, primarily because they
lend balance to the over-all presentation
of the subject. Uncjer a given set of
conditions Mr. Gewain's comments are
well founded. Under another set of con-
ditions, the author would contend that
his comments are equally well founded.
The question, then, is not which is correct
but rather that neither of these discus-
sions is actually based on fact but on
deduction from past experience, fire
research data, and engineering judg-
ment. The application of test results,
therefore, should consider the actual
circumstances of use of the construction
system.
Mr. Bartosic asks whether there are
small-scale wall tests and what, if any,
56 FIRE TEST METHODS

correlation exists witii the standard
ASTM fire test. This question can only
be answered in the afiirmative. Small-
scale tests and test facilities do exist.
They are not, however, in compliance
with or performed under the jurisdiction
of any test method promulgated by
ASTM Committee E-5 on Fire Tests of
Building Construction and Materials.
These small-scale tests are performed
primarily as a tool for research and
development programs. They are not
intended for use in lieu of the standard
ASTM tests for building code approval.
As to the correlation between the small-
scale tests and the standard ASTM tests,
the author is not aware of any published
or substantiating data. It is not likely
that there is a one-to-one correlation
between these tests and, further, it is
not likely that there will be a linear
proportionality between the small-scale
and ASTM tests when performed on the
wide spectrum of construction systems
presently in use.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 6XQ0DU*07

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG