NUREG/CR-4112US 75-2Vol. 2

Investigation of Cable and

Cable System Fire Test Parameters

Task B: Firestop Test Method

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Prepared forU.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission

NUREG/CR-4112US 75-2Vol. 2RP

Investigation of Cable andCable System Fire Test Parameters

Task B: Firestop Test Method

Manuscript Completed: December 1984Date Published: January 1985

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062

Prepared forDivision of Engineering TechnologyOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555NRC FIN B6197

NOTTCE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the UnitedStates Government nor Underwriters Laboratories Inc. nor any oftheir employees nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, ortheir employees make any warranty, express or implied, or assumeany legal liability or responsibility for damages arising out ofor in connection with the interpretation, application or use ofor inability to use any information, apparatus, product, orprocesses disclosed, or represents that its use would notinfringe on privately owned rights. This report may not be usedin any way to infer or to indicate acceptability for Listing,Classification, Recognition or Certificate Service byUnderwriters Laboratories Inc. for any product or system.

ABSTPACT

An experimental investigation was conducted to provide dataconcerning the effects that changes in pressure differential,fire exposure and sample construction have on firestopperformance when exposed to a standard fire test. Fifty-one firetest experiments were conducted using pressure differentialsbetween -12 to +120 Pa, different sample constructions and twofire exposure conditions. Findings were that small changes inpressure differential did not have a significant effect onfirestop materials that did not have cracks or through openingsto allow passage of gases during fire exposure. if the materialsallowed passage for gases through cracks or holes, such as thoseleft open after pulling a cable, changing the pressuredifferential affected the firestop performance. Also, it wasdemonstrated that changing the size of the opening; size,location and type of the penetrating items installed through theopening; and severity of fire exposure affected the performanceof the firestop.

-iii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ei11List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viiList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1. .introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1.2 Objectives, Scope and Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Experimental Procedure ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .52.1 Samples . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 52.2 Firestop Sample Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.3 Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62.4 Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.5 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Results and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93. oenera ..3.2 Pressure Differential Experiments.. . . . . . . . . .93.3 Fire Exposure Experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . .113.4 Sample Construction Fxperiments. . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Findings . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154.1 Differential Pressure. . . . . . .... ................ 154.2 Fire Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.3 Sample Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 0 . 0 . 0 . 18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Description Page

1 Floor Slabs 422 Small-Scale Furnace 433 Enclosure 444 Pressure Probe Locations 455 Furnace Temperature Curves 466 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 1, 47

3, 5, 7 and 97 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 2, 48

4, 6, 8 and 108 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 23 49

and 249 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps 23 50

and 2410 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 23 51

and 2511 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 23 52

and 2512 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 26, 53

and 4913 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 35 54

39 and 4114 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps 38, 55

40 and 4215 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 35 56

and 3716 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 36 57

and 3817 Conductor Temperatures; Exps. 31, 32 33, 58

34 and 3918 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 43 59

and 4419 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 45 60

and 4820 Unexposed Surface Temperatures; Exps. 49 61

and 50

-vii-

LIS T OF TABLES

Table Description Page

1 Pressure Differential Experiments 192 Pressure Differential Experiments - Cracks 20

and Holes3 Fire Exposure Experiments 214 Sample Experiments - Conductor & Size 225 Sample Experiments - Cable Construction 236 Sample Experiments - Conduit or Pipe Type 24

and Size7 Sample Experiments - Cable Loading 258 Sample Experiments - Size 269 Cable Constructions 27

10 Conduit and Pipes 2811 Pressure Differential Samples 2912 Pressure Differential Samples - Cracks 30

and Holes13 Fire Exposure Samples 3114 Samples Constructions - Conductor Type 32

and Size15 Sample Constructions - Conduit or Pipe 3316 Sample Constructions - Cable Loading 3417 Sample Constructions - Opening Sizes 3518 Slab Humidities 3619 Thermocouple Locations 3720 Pressure Experiments - Flame Occurrence 38

Times21 Flame Occurrence Times and Pressures - 39

Exp. 5122 Time to Flaming - Exps. 24, 25 and 26 4023 Time to Flaming 41

-ix-

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission through its office ofNuclear Regulatory Research maintains an ongoing fire protectionresearch program. The program is intended to obtain data insupport of current regulatory guides and standards for fireprotection and control in light water reactor power plants and toestablish an improved technical basis for modifying these guidesand standards where appropriate. The investigation described inthis Report is one task of an element of this program.

This investigation was conducted at Underwriters Laboratories'facility in Northbrook, IL. The authors wish to thank thetechnical and engineering staff members, especially Tom Plens,Chris Johnson, Stan Lesiak and Sandi Hansen, for their effort inconducting the experiments and preparing the data.

Respectfully submitted:

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

L. J. PRZYBYLAEngineering Group LeaderFire Protection Department

Reviewed by:

J. R. BEYREISManaging EngineerFire Protection Department

W. J. CHRISTIANManagerResearch and Technology Development

-Xi-

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND:

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), through its Office ofNuclear Regulatojy Research (RES), initiated fire protectionresearch in 1975f with an investigation of a limited cable trayseparation verification program to obtaig data for evaluatingsome guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.75 . After the BrownsFerry fire and following recommendations made by the SpecialReview Group, RES established an expanded fire protectionresearch program to augment the cable separation studies and toinvestigate other fire protection concerns.

One fire protection concern is the qualification of penetrationfirestops. Materials and devices are installed to fill openingsin fire resistive floors and walls that are provided for thepassage of items, such as cables and pipes. These materials anddevices are installed in the openings to retard the spread offirer between compartments. A firestop is the specificconstruction consisting of the materials that fill the openingtogether with the penetrating items such as cables, cable traysand pipes.

Some of the NRC guidelines for qualification testing of firestopsare containeg in App. A to Branch Technical PositionAPCSB 9.5-1. . These guidelines recommend that firestops shouldgive protection at least equivalent to that of the fire resistivefloor or wall and that fi estops at least comply with therequirements of ASTM E119 which is the standard used to evaluatefire resistive assemblies.

Within the past few years, test methods have been developedspecifically for investigating firestops. One test that has beenused to evaluate the performance of firestops 7 installed innuclear power plants is described in IEEE 634 . This standarddescribes the test procedure and criteria for acceptance. Thetest procedure consists of subjecting the sample firestop to afire exposure in accordance with ASTM E119. Tmmediately afterfire exposure, the sample is subjected to a water spray (hosestream test). The firestop is acceptable if it withstands thefire test without passage of flame or gases hot enought to ignitecable on the nonfire side, and if it limits the temperature onthe nonfire side to less than 700 0 F. Also, the sample mustwithstand the hose stream test without developing an openingwhich allows the passage of a water stream. This test methodprovides a means of determining the ability of a particularfirestop design to resist the passage of flame when exposed to a"standard" fire. Accordingly, fire stop designs can be ratedaccording to their duration of fire exposure as expressed inhours or fractions of hours. However, the ratings are notabsolute values. It is intended that the test method obtain

-1-

results that provide a degree of correlation to the fireperformance of firestops in a nuclear power plant during a fire.The test method was not intended to obtain the performance offirestops under all possible fire conditions that could beencountered.

However, there has been some concern about the effects onperformance of the test specimen when certain test parameters arechanged. These are 1) the pressure differential (the pressure atone side of the firestop with respect to the other side), 2)firestop construction and 3) fire exposure.

Pressure Differentials - Pressure differentials exist in theplant under normal operation. These pressure differentials aredynamic, changing with the ventilation system operation. Also,they may change during a fire. IEEE 634 discusses this problemand recommends that it be studied as a future task, but does notrequire that one specific differential be applied during thetest.

Firestop Construction - Sample selection for testing is tobe representative of the firestop installed in the plant. Tofacilitate selection, suggested guidelines are provided inIEEE 634 for size of opening and types and sizes of cables, butdata substantiating the selection are not referenced. Theeffects of varying the sample construction could be significant,and a method to determine quantitatively the effect of changes insample construction would be advantageous.

Fire Exposure - The fire exposure for the sample is thestandard time-temperature curve cdescribed in ASTMHE119. However,the heat released during a real fire in a plant may have asignificantly different temperature-time relationship. Data onthe effects of different temperature-time exposures could beuseful.

1.2 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND PLAN:

The objective of this investigation was to develop data to beused in evaluating the effects of changes in 1) pressuredifferential, 2) fire exposure and 3) firestop construction.

In connection with this overall objective, specific objeptiveswere

1. To develop data on the following when the pressuredifferential is changed:

A. Unexposed surface temperatures

-2-

P. Time at which flaming occurs on the unexposed sideC. Formation of cracks in the firestop materialD. Structural failure of the firestop materials

2. To explore changes in pressure differential regardingflaming on the unexposed side when there are holes inthe firestop material or concrete floor slab.

3. To develop data on the following when the fire exposureis changed:

A. The time when flaming occurs on the unexposed sideB. Unexposed side temperature.

4. To explore the affect that changes in firestopconstruction parameters have on the following:

A. The surrounding material temperature on theunexposed side when the cable conductor size ischanged

B. The temperature of the surrounding firestopmaterial when aluminum conductors are used insteadof copper

C. The conductor temperatures and the observedperformance when cables are used with differentjacket/insulation materials

D. The interface temperature between the pipe and theunexposed surface of the firestop material whenthe pipe size is changed

E. The interface temperature between the conduit andthe unexposed surface of the firestop materialwhen the conduit size and type is changed

F. The unexposed surface of the firestop materialnear the cable group when the number of cables ina group is changed

G. The cracking and deflection of the firestopmaterial when different size openings are used

The investigation consisted of fifty-one fire test experimentsthat were conducted on firestops installed in concrete floorslabs. Each test was conducted in general accordance withIEFE 634 with the data obtained being the physical performance(cracks and flaming) and the temperature measurements at variouslocations within and on the unexposed surface of the firestopmaterial and on the penetrating items.

-3-

The plan of the investigation consisted of the following:

1. Experiments

2. Comparative Analysis

3. Findings

The experiments were organized into groups to simplify datacomparisons and are identified in Tables 1-8. To consolidateexperimentation, some fire tests consisted of two firestopsamples, each considered a separate experiment.

-4-

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

2.1 SAMPLES:

The firestops that were tested were designed and installed toobtain data on the effects that changes in certain testparameters have on performance. They were not intended to obtaina 3 h or any other specific rating.

Floor Slabs

The normal weight concrete slabs, except for Experiment 51, were36 by 36 by 6 in. thick (0.915 by 0.915 by 0.15 m thick). Theslabs were cast with either 2 in. (0.05 m), 6 in. (0.15 m), 9 in.(0.229 m) or 12 in. (0.305 m) diameter holes or with a 12 in.(0.305 m) square opening, as shown in Fig. 1. The mix was onepart Type I Portland cement, 2.13 parts sand and 3.45 partsgravel by bulk volume and mixed with about 7 gal (0.027 M 3 ) ofwater per bag of cement. The concrete strength, as determinedfrom standard 6 in. (0.35 m) by 12 in. (0.305 m) cylinders thatwere aged 28 days at room temperature, ranged from 3290 to 3430psi (22.68 to 23.65 MPa) and averaged 3350 psi (23.10 MPa). The28 day unit weight was 147 lb/ft3 (2.35 Mg/m3).

The slab for Experiment 51 was 36 by 36 by 2 in. thick (0.915 by0.915 by 0.051 m thick). Four holes, 6 in. (152 mm), 3 in.(76 mm), 0.75 in. (19 mm) and 0.50 in. (12 mm) in diameter weredrilled in the slab located as shown in Fig. 1.

Penetrating Items

Each penetrating item was cut from the nominal lengths suppliedby the manufacturer into 54 in. (1.37 m) long pieces.

Cables - Eight different constructions were used asdescribed in Table 9.

Conduits - Steel and aluminum rigid conduits were used in 1and 3 in. trade sizes (Table 10).

Pipes - Schedule 40 steel pipes were used in 1 and 3 in.trade sizes (Table 10).

Cable Tray - The open ladder type tray was made from0.065 in. (0.65 mm) thick galvanized steel. The side rails were3.375 in. (86 mm) deep with 0.75 in. (19 mm) flanges. The rungswere ventilating type, 4 in. (0.102 mm) wide and spaced 9 in.(0.229 m). The loading depth was 3.0 in. (75 mm).

-5-

Firestop Materials

The materials used were proprietary products. Investigation ofother similar firestop materials was not conducted.

Silicone Foam - A two component, room temperature vulcanizedfoam was used. Part A and Part B were hand mixed in accordancewith the manufacturer's installation instructions. The free risedensities were between 27.5-32.0 lb/ft 3 (0.44-0.51 Mg/m3).

Silicone Elastomer - A two component, room temperaturevulcanized elastomer was used. Part A and Part B were hand mixedin accordance with the manufacfurer's installation instructions.The free rise densities were between 86.0-89.0 lb/ft

3

(1.38-1.43 Mg/m 3 ).

Device - The device consisted of three components. Steelpressure discs, 0.365 in. (9 mm) thick, were located one at thetop and one at the bottom. Between the steel discs were twolayers of 1 in. ('5 mm) thick intumescent material with a singlelayer of 3 in. (25 mm) thick neoprene grommet at the center. Thedevices were installed by tightening screws until the grommetmaterial squeezed around the cables and inside of the opening.When cables were used, holes for the cables were drilled toproper size and location at the factory.

2.2 FIRESTOP SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION:

Typically, the test samples were constructed by installingpenetrating items through the hole in the slab and theninstalling the firestop material or device. The penetratingitems were installed so that 12 in. (0.305 m) was below the slaband 36 in. (0.915 m) was above the slab. Cables were fastened toa rack on the unexposed side for support. The firestop materialswere prepared and installed into the hole in accordance with theinstructions from the manufacturer. The type of slab, type offirestop material and the number and type of penetrating itemsused for each experiment are described in Tables 11-17.

2.3 EQUIPMENT:

Furnaces

The small-scale floor furnace of ULI (Fig. 2) was used to providethe fire exposure condition. Natural gas was used for fuel. Thegas entered the furnace through multi-jet burners and togetherwith castable refractory baffles produced luminous and welldistributed flames within the furnace. The furnace chamber wasexhausted with an induced-draft fan.

-6-

The furnace was located within a test building which was heated,if needed, to increase the initial temperature of the samples andthe surrounding air to at least 60OF (166C).

Enclosure

in some experiments, to obtain the desired pressure differential,an enclosure (Fig. 3) was placed on the unexposed side of thesample with the air within the enclosure exhausted as needed.

Air flowed continuously through the enclosure through holes inthe sides. The inlet hole was dampered to provide the desiredpressure across the firestop. Flow through the inlet hole wasdiverted toward the walls of the enclosure away from the sampleand penetrating items to minimize convection cooling.

2.4 INSTRUMENTATION:

Unexposed Surface Temperatures

Temperatures on the unexposed surface of the firestop weremeasured with No. 28 gauge chromel-alumel thermocouples. Eachthermocouple bead was held against the surface and covered withan 0.75 by 0.75 by 0.156 in. (19 by 19 by 4 mm) asbestos pad.

Firestop Material Temperatures

Temperatures within the silicone elastomer and silicone foammaterials were measured with No. 28 gauge chromel-alumelthermocouples with an 0.062 in. (1.6 mm) diameter inconel shield.Temperatures between layers of the device were measured withunshielded No. 28 gauge chromel-alumel thermocouples.

Furnace Temperatures

Furnace temperatures were measured with No. 14 AWG chromel-alumelthermocouples within a 3/4 in. (19 mm) steel pipe. Thethermocouples were located 12 in. (305 mm) from the exposedsurface of the slab'and symmetrically distributed within thefurnace chamber.

Pressure Differential

The pressure differential at the exposed surrace with respect tothe unexposed surface was measured with probes connected to amanometer or electron pressure gauge. The probes were located asshown in Fig. 4.

-7-

Data Acquisition System

Voltage outputs from the thermocouples were connected to anAccurex Autodata 9 data logger. Readings from the manometers andelectronic pressure gauge were recorded manually.

PhotographyExperiments were recorded on 35 mm color slides. The camera wasan Olympus OM-2 with a 50 mm f 1.8 lens.

2.5 METHOD:

The fire experiments were conducted in accordance with IEEE 634,except for certain procedure details under investigation.

The relative humidity of the concrete slabs at a depth of 3 in.(wettest section) prior to experiment are given in Table 18. Theinstallation of the firestop materials was completed at least18 h prior to the start of the experiment.

Throughout each experiment, observations were made of thecharacter of the fire and its control, the conditions of theunexposed surface, temperatures within the firestop materials andpenetrating items, temperatures on the unexposed side and thepressure differential between the exposed and unexposed surfaces.

-8-

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 GENERAL:

During each fire experiment, the furnace fire was luminous andwell-distributed, and the furnace temperatures followed theStandard Time-Temperature Curve, except for Experiments 24-26 inwhich the furnace temperatures were controlled to a predeterminedcurve as shown in Fig. 5.

Each sample was subjected to the prescribed fire exposure untileither flaming occurred on the exposed side or the desiredinformation was obtained. The temperatures recorded during eachfire experiment were extensive. Only those portions of datanece.ssary for the specific objectives are discussed here. Thelocations of these thermocouples are described in Table 19.

3.2 PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIMENTS:

Discussion

In the interest of safety and convenience, organizations may beoperating their furnaces used for testing firestops at a slightnegative differential pressure. This condition of operationallows controlled exhaust of smoke and gases through the furnacestack while reducing the amount of smoke that escapes from thefurnace and into the laboratory. This also reduces the smoke inthe furnace so as to permit observations of the exposed side ofthe sample.

However, questions have been raised about the effect of operatingfurnaces at a negative pressure differential. The conjecture isthat operating a furnace at a slight negative pressuredifferential provides a means for cool air from the laboratory toleak into the furnace through cracks or other openings in thefurnace or sample. To limit these conditions, some have proposedthat a positive pressure differential be used. They contend thatthis would be appropriate since it would better evaluate thefirestop by providing a more severe fire condition with respectto the following:

A. Unexposed surface temperaturesB. Time at which flaming occurred on the unexposed sideC. Formation of cracks in the firestop materialD. Structural failure.

-9-

Additionally, if openings are present, the positive pressuredifferential would allow flames to penetrate through the holes.

To provide the data with respect to these questions, 24experiments were conducted with the differential pressure rangingfrom -0.05 in. H 0 (-12 Pa) to +0.50 in. H 0 (+125 Pa). Thesilicone foam, silicone elastomer and the device wereinvestigated with and without cables. Some samples wereconstructed with through holes in them in the form of cracks orholes in the firestop materials, or as empty holes in theconcrete slab.

Results

Unexposed Surface Temperatures - For comparison, thetemperatures of the unexposed surface at the center of thefirestop material were plotted versus time for Experiments 1, 3,5, 7 and 9 (Fig. 6) and for Experiments 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10(Fig. 7).

The temperatures were about the same for each group ofexperiments, except for Experiment 9. This experiment is suspectas shown by the comparatively long duration (215 min vs. 117 forExperiment 3) without flame occurrence on the unexposed side.

Flame Occurrence - The times when flaming was observed areshown in Table 20. For Experiments 3, 5 and 7, the times whenflaming occurred were about the same. The physical performanceduring Experiments 1 and 9 were significantly different than theother experiments (3, 5 and 7). In Experiment 1, the char layerthat formed at the exposed surface of the silicone materialquickly passed through the material while in Experiment 9, thechar layer formed, but remained at the exposed surface. This mayhave been caused by variances in the air cell structure of thematerial that developed during installation and cure or due toother differences in material properties that developed duringinstallation.

For Experiments 20 and 23, the time when flaming occurred wasabout the same (154 min and 153 min, respectively), even thoughExperiment 20 was at -0.05 in. H2 0 (-12 Pa) and Experiment 23 at+0.01 in. H 0 (+2 Pa). However, the way flaming occurred inExperiment 30 was different. In Experiment 23, the materialcracked and collapsed with the unexposed surface then igniting.In Experiment 20, the material cracked and collapsed, but sincethe flames from the furnace were being drawn downward due to thenegative pressure, the unexposed surface of the material did notignite. However, the radiant energy from the furnace ignited thecables on the unexposed side of the sample.

-10-

Flaming did not occur on the unexposed side during any of theexperiments with the silicone elastomer and device.

Crack Formation and Structural integrity - The same patternof crack formation and structural collapse of the siliconematerial were observed in Experiments 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 19 and 23where flaming occurred. In all these experiments, propagation ofa crack through the material was rapid, usually occurring within5 min after crack formation. Collapse of the material occurredimmediately after the crack had propagated through the material.

Openings/Flaming - Experiments 21 and 22 were conducted withtwo nominal 0.50 in. (12 mm) diameter holes in the siliconematerial created by pulling cables from the firestop after thematerial had been installed and cured. Experiment 21 wasconducted at 0.01 in. H 0 (+2 Pa) pressure differential, whileExperiment 22 was conducted at -0.05 in. H 0 (-12 Pa). DuringExperiment 21, smoke and hot gases issued ?hrough the holes, butflames were not seen. After about 15 min, the cablejacket/insulation materials surrounding the holes were seenmelting. The gases that issued through the holes were rich inunburned fuel and could be ignited by a match. During Experiment22, smoke and hot gases were not observed as in Experiment 21.However, after 27 min, the cable-jacket/insulation materialsurrounding the holes began to melt, probably due to the radiantheat from the furnace, which produced smoke on the unexposedside.

In Experiment 51, there were four holes in the concrete slabwhich were left unfilled. During the experiment, flames wereseen issuing from each hole, but the time when they firstappeared was different for each hole size. The times and thedifferential pressure at the observed flaming times are given inTable 21.

3.3 FIRE EXPOSURE:

Discussion

There has been interest as to the effect on firestop performance,if the firestop is exposed to a fire other than the StandardTime-Temperature Curve (ASTM E119) that is used in investigatingfire resistance ratings for building assemblies. The StandardTime-Temperature Curve was developed during the early 1900's andwas based upon temperatures found in the various stages of growthof actual fires in buildings. Typically, the fuel load for thesefires would have wood furniture and paper with windows thatprovided ventilation for the fire. This exposure may not beapplicable for fires in nuclear power plants since the fuel loadin the plants usually consist of synthetic combustibles and theventilation is limited.

-11-

To provide data, Experiments 24-26 were conducted using atime-temperature curve less than the Standard Time-TemperatureCurve defined in ASTM E119 (Fig. 5).

Results

Unexposed Surface Temperatures - The temperatures of theunexposed surface were plotted versus time for Experiments 23-26and 49 and are shown in Fig. 8-12. As shown, the temperaturesfor Experiments 24, 25 and 26 using the lessseiver' temperaturecurve were cooler than Experiments 23 and 49 using the StandardTemperature Curve.

Flame Occurrence - The times when flaming was observed areshown in Table 22. As shown, flaming occurred later inExperiments 24 and 25 as compared to Experiment 23. Nocomparison could be made between Experiment 26 and Experiment 49since flaming did not occur during the 270 min fire exposureperiod in Experiment 26.

3.4 SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTS:

Discussion

The construction parameters of firestop construction arenumerous. The opening size, the location of the penetrating itemwithin the opening and the type and number of penetrating itemsall can be different. The performance of the firestop can bedifferent for different firestop constructions.

Experiments 27-50 were conducted to provide data to quantify theeffects due to changes in firestop construction for thosematerials and penetrating items investigated. In twentyexperiments, the penetrating items differed with respect to cableconstruction (conductor type, conductor size, insulation andjacket materials), conduit type and size, pipe size and cableloading. In four experiments, the size of the opening variedfrom 2 in. (51 mm) to 11 in. (305 mm).

Results

Conductor Size - The unexposed surface temperatures near thecable were plotted versus time. For Experiments 35, 39, 41 and38, 40 and 42 were plotted versus time and are shown in Figs. 13and 14. As shown, the temperatures were greater near the 300 MCMcable as compared to the 3C/12 AWG and 7C/12 AWG cables.

-12-

Conductor Type - The unexposed surface temperatures near thecable were plotted versus time for Experiments 35-38 and areshown in Figs. 15 and 16. As shown, the temperatures weregreater near the copper conductor 300 MCM cable as compared tothe aluminum conductor 300 MCM cable.

Cable Jacket-Insulation Materials - The conductortemperatures at the unexposed surface were plotted versus timefor Experiments 31-34 and 39 are shown in Fig. 17. As shown, thetemperatures were the greatest for Cable A compared to Cables G,H and F.

Also, each cable construction performed differently as the cabletemperature on the unexposed side increased. Cable A melted anddripped with the molten material slowing coagulating into apuddle on the firestop material. Cable G swelled and crackednear the unexposed surface but did not melt. Cable H swelledlike Cable G but did not crack.

Pipe Size - The temperatures at the firestop material/pipeinterface were plotted versus time for Experiments 43 and 44 asshown in Fig. 18. These data show that the temperatures weregreater at the 3 in. (76 m) pipe as compared to the 1 in.(25 mm) pipe.

Conduit Type and Size - The temperatures at the firestopmaterial/conduit interface were plotted versus time forExperiments 45-48, as shown in Fib. 19. As shown, thetemperatures were greater at the material/conduit interface forthe 3 in. (76 mm) conduits as compared to the 1 in. (25 mm)conduits. Also, temperatures were greater at thematerial/conduit interface for the aluminum conduit than for thesteel conduit.

Cable Loading - The temperatures on the firestop materialnear the cables were plotted versus time for Experiments 49 and50, in Fig. 20. The graph indicates that the temperatures weregreater in Experiment 50 with three layers of cables as comparedto Experiment 49 with one layer of cables.

-13-

Opening Size - The times when flaming occurred are shown inTable 23. Comparing the performance of the firestop material inExperiments 27-30, it was noted that the Experiments with thelarger holes (6 in. (152 mm), 9 in. (230 mm) and 12 in.(305 mm)), the material tended to deflect downward at the centerof the opening during fire exposure. The greatest deflection wasfor the material in the 12 in. (305 mm) hole and with thedeflection being greater for the 9 in. (230 mm) hole compared tothe 6 in. (152 mm) hole. The deflection tended to affect theperformance of the material by causing cracks about the peripheryof the hole, which in turn decreased the strength of the materialand increased the deflection.

-14-

4. FINDINGS

The data and related analysis generated through thisinvestigation and presented in this Report, lead to certainfindings, substantiated by the experimental data.

4.1 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE:

For those materials that remained integral during fire exposureand did not allow a path for gas flow, the effect of changing thedifferential pressure was not significant.

(When the firestop materials remained integral, changing thedifferential pressure between -0.05 in. H 0 (-12 Pa) to+0.50 in. H 0 (+125 Pa) did not significagitly change theunexposed sarface temperatures of the firestop materials,the time when flaming occurred on the unexposed side, theformation of cracks in the firestop materials or thestructural failure of the firestop materials. SeePages 10-11.)

For those materials with pre-formed holes, positive differentialpressure provided a means for smoke and hot gases to penetratethrough to the unexposed side.

(When holes were created in the firestop material prior tothe test, positive differential pressure provided a meansfor gases to penetrate through the holes to the unexposedside. These gases were rich in unburned fuel and could beignited by a match. When a negative pressure differentialwas used, smoke and hot gases were not observed, but thecables near the holes melted and issued smoke, probably dueto the radiant heat from the furnace. See Page 11.)

With a positive pressure differential, flames penetrated throughlarger diameter holes sooner than through smaller diameter holes.

(During a test with positive pressure, the times when flameswere observed through holes in a slab were inversely relatedto hole size. See Page 11.)

4.2 FIRE EXPOSURE:

When a less severe fire exposure was used, the rate of heattransmission to the unexposed surface was less and time toflaming failure longer.

-15-

(The unexposed surface temperatures for firestop materialssubjected to a "cooler" time-temperature furnace curve wereless than for firestop materials subjected to the StandardTime-Temperature Furnace Curve. Also for the silicone foammaterial, flaming occurred later for the "cooler" curveexperiments as compared to the standard curve experiments.See Page 12.)

4.3 SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION:

Increasing the gauge (diameter) of the conductor of a cable,increased the unexposed surface temperature of the firestopmaterial near the wire or cable.

(The unexposed surface temperatures of the firestop materialwere greater near the 300 MCM conductor than the 3C/12 AWGcable. See Page 12.)

The unexposed surface temperatures near cables were greater whenthe cable conductors were copper as compared to aluminumconductors.

(The temperatures were greater near the copper conductor300 MCM cable as compared to the aluminum conductor 300 MCMcable. See Page 13.)

The conductor temperatures at the unexposed surface weredifferent for cables of the same size, but of different jacketand insulation materials.

(The conductor temperatures were the greatest for Cable A ascompared to Cables G, H and F. See Page 13.)

Each cable construction performed differently as the cabletemperature on the unexposed side increased.

(The performance of the jacket and insulation materials inresponse to increased temperatures was different for thecable constructions tested with the same conductor.size.See Page 13.)

The temperatures at the firestop material/pipe interface weregreater for larger size pipe.

(The temperatures were greater for the 3 in. (76 mm) pipe ascompared to the 1 in. (25 mm) pipe. See Page 13.)

-16-

The temperatures at the firestop material/conduit interface weregreater for larger size conduit and were greater for aluminum ascompared to steel conduit.

(The temperatures were greater for the 3 in. (76 mm)conduits as compared to the 1 in. (05 mm) conduits. Also,the temperatures were greater for the aluminum conduit ascompared to the steel conduit. See Page 13.)

The temperatures on the firestop material near a cable bundleincreased as the number of cables increased.

(The temperatures were greater near three layers of cablesas compared to a single layer bunch. See Page 13.)

The material deflection during fire exposure increased withincreasing hole size.

(The deflection was the greatest for the 12 in. (305 mm)hole as compared to the 9 in. (230 mm) and 6 3n. (152 mm)holes. See Page 14.)

-17-

5. REFERENCES

i. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Water Reactor SafetyResearch Program," USNRC Report NUREG-0006, February 1979.Available for purchase from National Technical InformationService, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

2. "Physical Independence of Electric Systems, Revision 1,"

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.75,Washington, D.C., January 1975. Available for purchase fromNational Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia22161.

3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Recommendations Relatedto Browns Ferry Fire," USNRC Report NUREG-0050, February 1976.Available for purchase from National Technical InformationService, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Guidelines for FireProtection for Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Prior to July 1,1976," Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1.Available for inspection and copying for a fee in the NRC PublicDocument Room.

5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Guidelines for FireProtection for Nuclear Power Plants," Branch Technical PositionAPCSB 9.5-1. Available for inspection and copying for a fee inthe NRC Public Document Room.

6. "Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction andMaterials," ASTM E119-82. Available for purchase from theAmerican Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,Philadelphia, PA 19103.

7. "IEEE Standard Cable Penetration Fire Stop QualificationTest," IEEE 634-1978. Available for purchase from the Instituteof Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 345 East 47thStreet, New York, NY 10017e

-18-

TABLE 1

Pressure Differential Experiments

SampleExperiment Reference*

PressureIn H.0 (Pa)

Firestop CableMaterial Construction** Number

91357

102468

12111412

1517

1618

100100100100100

100100100100100

101101101101

102102

102102

+0.01+0.05+0.05+0.05+0.50

+0.01+0.05+0.05+0.25+0.50

+0.50+0.01+0.50+0.01

(+2)(+12)(+1i)(+125)(+125)

(+2)(+12)(+12)(+62)(+125)

(+125)(+2)(+125)(+2)

SFSFSFSFSF

SFSFSFSFSF

SRSRSRSR

AAAAA

33333

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone -

AA

NoneNone

33

+0.05 (+12)+0.50 (+125)

+0.05 (+12)+0.50 (+125)

DD

DD

AA

33

NoneNone

SF = Silicone foamSR = Silicone elasta

D = Firestop Device

* = See Table 11.** = See Table 9.

ner V

-19-

TABLE 2

Pressure Differential Experiments - Cracks and Holes

Sample Pressure Firestop CableExperiment Reference* In H.0 (Pa) Material Construction** Number

23 103 +0.01 (+2) SF B 120 103 -0.05 (-12) SF B 1

19 103 +0.50 (+125) SF B 1

21 103 +0.015 (+3) SR B 3122 103 -0.05 (-12) SR B 31

SF = Silicone foamSR = Silicone elastomer

* = See Table 12.

** = See Table 9.

-20-

TABLE 3

Fire Exposure Experiments

Experiment

2425

26

SampleReference*

104104

105

FirestopMaterial

SFSF

SR

CableConstruction**

BB

A

Number

11

11

SF = Silicone foamSR = Silicone elastomer

* = See Table 13.** = See Table 9.

-21-

TABLE 4

Sample Experiments - Conductor Construction & Size

Experiment

35363738

4139

4240

SampleReference*

106106107107

109108

109108

FirestopMaterial

SRD

SRD

SRSR

DD

CableConstruction** Number

CCEE

BF

BF

1111

11

11

SR = Silicone elastomerD = Device

* = See Table 14.** = See Table 9.

-22-

TABLE 5

Sample Experiments - Cable Construction

Experiment

313334

SampleReference*

110111111

FirestopMaterial

SRSRSR

D

CableConstruction** Number

AGH

A

111

32 110

SR = Silicone elastomerD = Device

* = See Table 14.** = See Table 9.

-23-

TABLE 6

Sample Experiments - Conduit or Pipe Type & Size

Sample Firestop Cable per Item Pipe or ConduitExperiment Reference* Material Construction** Number Number Size, in. (mm)

4344

4547

4648

112112

113114

113114

SRSR

SRSR

SRSR

NoneNone

AA

AA

11

33

32

33

22

1 (25)3 (76)

1 (25)1 (25)

3 (76)3 (76)

SR = Silicone elastomer

* =See Table 15** =See Table 9

-24-

TABLF 7

Sample Experiments - Cable Loading

Experiment

4950

SampleReference*

115116

FirestopMaterial

SRSR

CableConstruction**

AA

Number

1133

SR = Silicone elastomer

* = See Table 16.** = See Table 9.

-25-

TABLE 8

Sample Experiments - Size

Sample FirestopReference* MaterialExperiment

27282930

117117118119

SFSFSFSF

HoleSize, in. (mm)

2 (51)6 (152)9 (130)

12 (305)

SF = Silicone foam

* = See Table 17.

-26-

TABLE 9

Cable Constructions

Cable CrossSection

Diameter,i n. (mm)

ApproximateConductor

Insulation/Jacket

Thickness,in. (nm))

ConductorNo./Size Type

Insulation/JacketMaterial

CableJacket Material

7/12 AWG Cu 0.785 Ethylene propylene(19.9) rubber/chloro-

sulphonated poly-ethylene

7/12 AWG Cu 0.493 Crosslinked(12.5) polyolefin/none

7/12 AWG Cu 0.602 Polyethylene/(15.3) Polyvinyl chloride

7/12 AWG Cu 0.515 Polyvinyl chloride(13.1) nylon

3/12 AWG Cu 0.445 Polyethylene/(11.3) Polyvinyl chloride

0.028/0.017 Chlorosulphonated(0.71/0.43) polyethylene

0.030/- Crossl inked

(0.76/-) polyoleffn

0.029/0.012 Polyvinyl(0.74/0.31) chloride

0.022/0.006 Polyvinyl(0.56/0.15) chloride

0.039/0.012 Polyvinyl(0.99/0.30) Chloride

ApproximateCable

JacketThickness,in. (,,m)

0.134 (3.4)

0.054 (1.4)

0.062 (1.6)

0.050 (1.3)

0.056 (1.42)

300 1C0 Cu 0.821(10.8)

300 1104 Al 0.832(21.1)

350 104 Cu 0.884(22.5)

Polyvinyl chloride

Polyvinyl chloride

Polyvinyl chloride

0.149(2.78)

0.140(3.56)

0.100(2.54)

None

None

None

None

None

None

Identification of materials was based upon the manufacturer'sproduct literature.

-27-

TABLE 10

Conduit and Pipes

Conduit

Trade Sizein. (mm)

1 (25)1 (25)3 (76)3 (76)

MaterialType

SteelAluminumSteelAluminum

Inside Diameterin. (mm)

1.049 (26.6)1.049 (26.6)3.068 (77.9)3.068 (77.9)

Wall Thicknessin. (mm)

0.133 (3.38)0.133 (3.38)0.216 (5.49)0.216 (5.49)

Pipes

Trade Size

in. (mm)

1 (25)

3 (25)

Material Inside Diameter

in. (mm)

Wall Thickness

in. (mm)

0.133 (3.38)

0.216 (5.49)

Steel

Steel

1.049 (26.6)

3.068 (77.9)

-28-

TABLE 11

Pressure Differential Samples

SampleReference

Floor SlabType No.

Firestop MaterialThickness,

Type in. (mm)

Hole 1

T•ype No.

Hole 2Cable

Type No.

100101102

* 5 SFI 2 SRI 2 D

6.0 (150)6.0 (150)3.75 (95)

AAA

333

NoneNoneNone

SF = Silicone foamSR = Silicone elastomer

D = Firestop device

-29-

TABLE 12

Pressure Differential Samples

Firestop MaterialSample Floor Slab Thickness, Cable

Reference Type No. Type in. (mm) Type No.

103 II 2 SF 6.0 (150) B 1103** II 1 SF 6.0 (150) B 1

103*** II 2 SR 2.5 (64) B 31

SF = Silicone foamSR = Silicone elastomer

** = Firestop formed with an 0.38 in. (10 mm) wide by9.5 in. (240 mm) long by 4 in. (100 mm) deep crack, asseen from the unexposed side, along one edge of theopening.

= Firestop formed with two holes caused by pulling cablesout after material had cured. Cable tray used asraceway for the cable bundle.

-30-

TABLE 13

Fire Exposure Samples

Sample

Reference

104105

Floor Slab

Type No.

II 2II 1

Firestop Material

Thickness,

Type in. (mm)

SF 6.0 (150)SR 4.0 (100)

Cable

Type No.

B 1A 11

SF = Silicone foam

SR = Silicone elastomer

-31-

TABLE 14

Sample Construction - Conductor Type & Size

Hole 1Firestop Material

Sample Floor Slab Thickness, Cable*Reference Type* No. Type In. (mm) Construction No.

Hole 2Ffrestop Material

Thickness, Cable*Type in. (mm) Construction No.

106107108109110111

111111

SRSRSR

SRSRSR

6.0 (150)6.0 (150)6.0 (150)6.0 (150)6.0 (150)6.0 (150)

CEF

111

DDDDD

SR

3.75 (95)3.75 (95)3.75 (95)3.75 (95)3.75 (95)6.0 (150)

CEFBAH

111111

B 1A 1G 1

SR = Silicone elastomerD = Firestop device

* = See Table 9

-32-

TABLE 15

Sample Construction - Conduit or Pipe

SampleReference

112

113

114

Floor Slab Penetrating Items Cable/ItemType No. Type No. Size** Construction No.

II

II

XI

1 Steel PipeSteel Pipe

1 Steel ConduitSteel Conduit

1 AL ConduitAL Conduit

32

32

32

13

13

13

NoneNone

AA

AA

13

13

Silicone elastomer, 4.0 in. (100 mm) thick, used as firestopmaterial.

** = Trade Size (in.)

-33-

TABLE 16

Sample Construction - Cable Loading

SampleReference

Floor SlabType No.

CableFirestop Material

Thickness,No. Type in. (mm)Construction

115116

I 1I 1

AA

1133

SRSR

4.0 (101)4.0 (101)

Cables installed in a 6 in. wide cable tray.

SR = Silicone elastomer

* = See Table 9

-34-

TABLE 17

Sample Constructions - Opening Sizes

Sample

Reference

117

118119

Floor Slab

Type No.

III 1

Opening

Size in. (mm)

2 (51) and6 (150)9 (230)

12 (300)

Firestop MaterialThickness,

Type in. (mm)

SF 6.0 (150)

IVV

11

SFSF

6.0 (150)6.0 (150)

All samples installed without cables.

SF = Silicone foam

-35-

TABLE 18

Slab Humidities

Slab Humidity Priorto Experiments, percentExperiments

1, 23, 45, 67, 89, 10

11, 1213, 1415, 1617, 18

1920212223242526

27, 282930

31, 3'33, 3435, 3637, 3839, 4041, 4243, 4445, 4647, 48

495051

7571757474737074746467606264616062707067736674717369666161666160

-36-

TABLE 19

Thermocouple Locations

ThermocoupleFigure No. Location

6

7

8

33

28

24

25

22

23

9

10

11

25

22

23

26

27

29

On unexposed surface ofat the centerOn unexposed surface ofat the center.On unexposed surface ofon N-S centerline 3 in.On unexposed surface ofon E-W centerline 3 in.On unexposed surface of1/2 in. from cableOn unexposed surface of3/4 in. from cableOn unexposed surface ofon N-S centerline 3 in.On unexposed surface ofon E-W centerline 3 in.On unexposed surface of1/2 in. from cableOn unexposed surface of3/4 in. from cableOn unexposed surface ofon N-S centerline 2-1/4On unexposed surface ofon E-W centerline 1-1/2On unexposed surface of1/16 in. from cableOn unexposed surface of1/16 in. from cableOn unexposed surface of1/16 in. from cableOn unexposed surface of1/16 in. from cable

firestop material

firestop material

firestop materialfrom north edge.firestop materialfrom east edge.firestop material

firestop material

firestop materialfrom north edge.firestop materialfrom east edge.firestop material

firestop material

firestop materialin. from south edge.firestop materialin. from east edge.firestop material

firestop material

firestop material

firestop material

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

83

153

1541

29

24

orororororor

292192143

In conductor at the unexposed surfac-On 1 in. pipe at the unexposed surf eOn 3 in. pipe at the unexposed sur' -eOn 1 in. conduit at the unexposed L rfaceOn 3 in. conduit at the unexposed surfaceOn unexposed surface of firestop material1 in. from cable

-37-

TABLE 20

Duration and Time to FlamingFor Pressure Differential Experiments

ExperimentExperiment

Duration (min) Time to Flaming (min)

91357

102468

21588117112113

21588117112113

270245185

155

156

106

125125

NR86116110112

208NRNRNRNR

NRNRNR

153

154

104

13, 1411, 12

15, 16, 17, 18

2320

19

2122 NR

* - After 15 min, smoke,was ignited by matchthe experiment.

which issued through hole,several times during

NR = Flaming did not occur during experiment.

-38-

TABLE 21

Flame Occurrence Time and Pressure

Experiment 51

Hole Diameter, in. (nm)

6.003.000.?50.50

Time, s

2560640780

Pressure, in. H.0 (Pa)

0.00070.00760.01230.0161

(0.18)(1.88)(3.05)(4.02)

-39-

TABLE 22

Duration and Time to Flamingfor Fire Exposure Experiments

Experiment Duration (min) Time to Flaming (min)

242526

180:! 12270

177211NR

NP = Flaming did not occur during experiment.

-40-

Experiment

35, 3637, 38

41, 3942, 40

31, 32, 33, 34

43, 44

45, 4746, 48

49, 50

27282920

TABLE 23

Duration and Time to Flamingfor Sample Experiments

Duration (min) Time to Flaming (min)

245 NR245 NR

245 NR245 NR

245 NR

270 NP

270 NR170 NR

270 NR

120 NR120 119132 131125 .124

NR = Flaming did not occur during experiment.

-41-

_____ 9

__________________ 4.

TYPE II

TYPE III

- 79"

52.2

L

TYPE IV TYPI V,

ALL SLABS - NOMINAL 36 x 36 x 6 IN. THICK

Figure 1 - Floor Slabs

-42-

OBSERVATION PORTS

Figure 2 - Furnace

-43-

cable

For positive pressure experiments of 0. 25 in water(63 Pa) or greater. the enolo'ure woe used withair exhausted from the enclosure. For negitive pressureexperiments (PB.P18). the enclosure was used withair forced into the enclosure. In the remainingexperiments, the enolosure was not used.

Figure 3 - Enclosure

-44-

911

171- 17

36"

a ~

-3b"

Figure 4 - Pressure Probe Locations

-45-

N

TBEA11E. FO

Iab

'zj

CD(JI

I!'

-S

0

CD

CD

VCD-3

CD0

.4CDCa

AMNE119

210.

m

law

law

m

1121

943

504

424

208

IQ

5~~~ 15 U 59 55 15 3 13 1M IM 1S 1W5 2M5 23 2425 2M5

TDL oin

IqbbI

0"

0

0

0.0l

TEMERATIRE. F

EXP. ICHANEL 33

EXP. 3CHANNE 33

EXP. 5CHANEL 33

EXP. 7CHANNEL 33

EXP. 9CHANN4EL 33

12SO

950

650

35w

50

5'75

593

519

425

280

175

93

75M8 9929 19t89 11349 12559

TR•A111.. I?-

9 1289 2529 3790 5040 M399

TIME. a

I

I

old

-3

0

"ISD

'-d

00

'0

TEMPERATURE. F

EXP. 2CHANEL28

EXP. 4CHANEL28

EXP. 8CHWNEL29

EXP. 8CHANEL 28

EXP'. 13CH.ANNL28

/

/!

IT RATURE, {C148

121

93

to

71 21 1 &m' II III IIa I Ii IIIpIa II I l~, m lp l lI I I I I I I I a I

1260 3783 am 6393

TIME. .

75M 982a 18 11348 12M93

.PTEMP.TUR. F AT11UM C6%9 343

cEXP. 23

00 CHANNEL 24I

___ __ 550 237

0

CHANNEL25 4EXP. 24

CHNE 24 35 178

PC4

(D121

0

0 EXP. 24 253

a 90 IBM 1879 3w6 458O3 5400 a3m 7200 91o9 g 9900 Ig86

d• ~TTLW'

179 TEWERATURE. F MDEATURE. C

1740

EXP. 23 1250

Ile, EXP. 24

I W t23

EXP. 24CHANNEL 22 5

359

23V

50

S 9m 190 270 360 4589 540 3m 723 8198 am 999 IN

TIME. e

-. TEJ'ERA1W.L F I fRAT1NM C550 287

EXP. 230 ! AMM24

04509M

'I EV.230CHANNEL 25

HANNEL 24

259 121

EXP. 25- CHANNEL 25

0O 11

9 1259 2520 379 5349 am9 7589 992 1999 11349 12M9

CATIME. a

IU!l

W

(A

I-'

CA

TEWIERATMA. F

EXP. 23OIAJOL 23

EX'. 2304ANNL 22

EXP. 25OWIEI 23

EXP. 25

1790

1559

140

125l

119

208

/I

/I

II

•~ ~ ...... .I ... .... ...- .

843

768

076

593

510

428

U33

260

178

93

IVso

I" ERATUR• . C

ý -rTrr- -------------------- AAAAAAAA"

50

9 12 2520 37a8 5948 em

TIWE. S

756 a8m 19989 11348 121

TMEATURE. F ERATI.. C 7

EXP. 20CHANEL M

439 292

EX~. 4918CHANNEL. 28

250 121

0 EXP. 49CHAIM 27

0 U 182 3240 4969 8483 91B9 9720 11349 12969 145W9 1829

jIc. .

TEWEPATUCE. F TEWPEPEAPM~ C34

CHANEL 2 459232

EXP. 41 a 7CHANNEL 29 7

250 - 121

tij 150 65

-A~

CTEWPERATURE. F TEWPERATLRIE. C

am- 343

smEE2 297

D EX. 48O4A1EI. 244523

I 3

0D Ep. 4217COq#ME 24

2M 121

CD

U 1473 2W4 4419 569 7M5 692 1929 11789 13mo 14703

bobTIP.

W

£

coCA

TOKURTIU. F T~~RPETEWERLPM'.4 C, $3ON9

OEvL2a

EXP. 37OWMM 20

450

am9

287

232

I178

I121

, I , , fl l, I, 1,ti,,11,,, , ll, 7fi ll 1 3239,,,1,,,1• .i, l 17 e5m 7 e 1029 117ag law3£ 147Mg

so

0 1470 2949 4410

TIME. .

C - 1DWERATUM~ F TEIPERTLIM C

CHAMEL 24

558 287Cm

W2 24m 450

35 . "17e

258 .121

58 la

0:J 14710 2940 4410 58m 7m58 882 IBM 11758 1mo 14700

00e'. 6

OD s~vt30

U a

TE*ERATURE. F TEMPERATURE.I C

Al

-~Ewa. 31-~ CHANNEL 8

em 343

0,0

207

r. OHMMEL 8

40 M

a asCAP.3

00 F . . . . , 1 1 t l i l lI1 1 1i t1 1 1 t a l . 11 1 i l1 1 11 i lII II I1 11 1 1

l t jL . " 1

-* 146 24 40 sm 75 a o 170 is 40

TIME.

EXP'.43Oi~flEL3 75.

EXP'.43as* CDCOIANELO

05

CA

-. EXP. 4CHANEL 21

150

0s0 12= 9240 4M8 a•48 919 g723 11343 12061 14593 16BM

TIME. .

J/

IafI

'if0:

a.

(12'10m(2,0

0

oo

TEWPERATUWe F TENF~RATUME C

EXP 2.45CAEL 3

EXP. 45

~EXP. 46

CHANEL 15

CHNEL21

454EP. 47

CHANEL. 3

A.

EXP. 47CAEL 9

343

51S

OWiEP. 48

232

176 EXP. 48OWCEL. 21

121

65

S IMO 32am 4MW 6480 811 9 1134 129M 145 1620

TINE, e

(D

0

cA* 0

(.

TEI•A•TU F1 343

EXP'. 4CHANEL 41

CHNE 43

sm

450

)87

232

176

121

I11 fl i I ofiffil Nil l [tiii~lS iiill~S S11211 ill 11111. isSllii~SI ~ ~ 1

9109 gm2 11340 12963 14593 1820

1SO

so

0 129 3249 48 "m

TIRE. *

/

NFRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (Asignedby DDC1141 NUREG/CR-4112, Vol. 2

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET US 75-24. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volume No., if eppropriete) 2. (Leave blank)

Investigation of Cable and Cable System FireTest Parameters 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.Task B: Firestop Test Method

7. AUTHOR(S) 6. DATE REPORT COMPLETEDMONTH j YEAR

DPrpmbpr 19849. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code) DATE REPORT ISSUED

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. MONTH J YEAR333 Pfingsten Rd. Thntiiry 1985Northbrook, IL 60062 6. (Leave blank)

8. (Leave blank)

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code)

Division of Engineering TechnologyOffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research 11. FINNO.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555 B6197

13. TYPE OF REPORT PERIOD COVERED (inclusive dates)

Final

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. tLeave blank)

16. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

An experimental investigation was conducted to provide dataconcerning the effects that changes in pressure differential,fire exposure and sample construction have on firestop performancewhen exposed to a standard fire test. Fifty-one fire test experi-ments were conducted using pressure differentials between -12 to+120 Pa, different sample constructions and two fire exposureconditions. Findings were that small changes in pressure differentialdid not have a significant effect on firestop materials that did nothave cracks or through openings to allow passage of gases during fireexposure. If the materials allowed passage for gases through cracksor holes, such as those left open after pulling a cable, changingthe pressure differential affected the firestop performance. Also,it was demonstrated that changing the size of the opening; size,location and type of the penetrating items installed through theopening; and severity of fire exposure affected the performance ofthe firestop.

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17a. DESCRIPTORS

Firestops, Penetrating Items, Pressure Differential, FireExposure Conditions, Sample Construction, Temperatures

17b. IDENTIFIERSIOPEN-ENOED TERMS

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY ASS (This report; 21. NO. OF PAGES

Unlimited 20. SECUJbiLASS (This Pra) 22. PRICES

NRC FORM 335 111411

4b

.1 .............. I- - -

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, 430

FOURTH CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE b FEES PAIDUSNAC

WASH. D.C.PERMIT No. 0497

co)

0z0,n0,

wrn

z

0ca

m

I-!

m

!I

m'i

CA)