Comparison of Styropor and Neopor Expanded Polystyrene Foam Insulations HAI Project No. 1JJB

Transcription

1 Ms. Andrea Bernstein PDP Product Development Engineer BASF Corporation 1609 Biddle Avenue Wyandotte, MI, Re: Comparison of Styropor and Neopor Expanded Polystyrene Foam Insulations HAI Project No. 1JJB Dear Ms. Bernstein: This letter constitutes my analysis comparing two expanded polystyrene foam insulations (EPS) manufactured by the BASF Corporation (BASF). The two products are identified as Styropor EPS and Neopor EPS. BASF wishes to substitute Neopor EPS for Styropor EPS into applications and assemblies that have have been qualified via various fire tests and as part of this process, the flammability characteristics of the two EPS products were investigated to determine if they are similar or if significant differences existed between the products. In order to evaluate the fire performance characteristics of the two products, the two products were tested in a series of fire tests and these tests and their results are described below. 1.0 IGNITION TEMPERATURE TESTING Both products were tested according to ASTM D 1929 Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperature of Plastics to determine flash-ignition and self-ignition temperatures. The D 1929 testing is reported in Intertek Testing Services reports of Projects: COQ-001b, dated March 29, 2011 for the Styropor EPS and COQ-001a, dated March 29, for the Neopor EPS. The results are provided in Table I below. Formulation Table I. Ignition Temperatures Flash-Ignition Temperature (ºF) Self-Ignition Temperature (ºF) Styropor EPS Neopor EPS

2 Page 2 The results show that the two products exhibit similar flash-ignition temperatures and selfignition temperatures. 2.0 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX VALUE TESTING There exists a critical radiant heat flux, which will cause ignition of a material, and this value can be determined experimentally. Ad hoc testing using the ASTM E 1354 (cone calorimeter) was used to make this type of determination. The critical heat flux (CHF) for ignition of the two products was determined through testing conducted by Hughes Associates, Inc. in the HAI Baltimore, MD laboratory. In these tests, a 4- in. square piece of material was placed under the radiant heating element of the cone calorimeter and evaluated to determine if ignition was achieved within 20 minutes of exposure to a specific imposed radiant heat flux. If ignition did not occur, a new sample was evaluated at a higher heat flux level. This iterative process was continued until the critical flux for ignition was determined. All testing was conducted with the spark ignition on for the entire test period. Additionally, during the testing, the position of the surface of the test sample was adjusted as required to maintain a 1-inch gap between the sample surface and the lower edge of the heating element. The results of this testing showed that the CHF for the Styropor EPS was 14 kw/m 2 and the CHF for the Neopor EPS was 14 kw/m 2. Thus, there are no differences in CHF between the two products. 3.0 NFPA 259 POTENTIAL HEAT TESTING Both products were evaluated in the NFPA 259 Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials. The results for Styropor EPS are reported in United States Testing Co., Inc. Report No. IP , dated December 12, 1988 and the results for the Neopor EPS are reported in Intertek Testing Services Report Number: MID-001, dated February 29, The results showed that the potential heat value for the Styropor EPS was 15,272 Btu/lb and the potential heat value for the Neopor EPS was 16,551 Btu/lb. The results show that the potential heat value of the Neopor EPS is slightly higher than the value for Styropor EPS however, this difference in potential heat values does not represent a significant difference in the potential heat values between the two products when the overall potential heat values are considered. 4.0 UL 723 TESTING Both products were evaluated in the UL 723 Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials. These tests were conducted on various thicknesses and densities. The results for the Styropor EPS product are reported in Underwriters Laboratories Listing on File BRYX R5811, and the results for the Neopor EPS product are reported in Intertek s Report

3 Page 3 No SAT-001, dated March 12, The results of the UL 723 testing are provided in Table II. Table II. UL 723 Test Data Criteria Styropor EPS Neopor EPS Calculated Ceiling Flame Spread (ft) Calculated Flame Spread (Floor) Calculated Smoke Developed (Prior to Floor Ignition) Calculated Smoke Developed (Entire Test Duration) > The results show that there was no significant difference in the flame spread and the smokedeveloped data between the two products. 5.0 ASTM E 1354 TESTING Both the Styropor EPS and the Neopor EPS were evaluated in general accordance with the ASTM E 1354 Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. This test is commonly called the cone calorimeter. Both products were tested by Hughes Associates, Inc. at the HAI Laboratory in Baltimore, MD. This testing was conducted at an exposure of 50 kw/m 2. Additionally, during the testing, the position of the surface of the test sample was adjusted as required to maintain a 1-inch gap between the sample surface and the lower edge of the heating element. The results of the HAI ASTM E 1354 testing are provided in Table III. A comparison of the results between the two products showed some slight differences but these differences are not significant based on the test s variability. Based on a comparison of all of the test parameters, there is no difference in the fire performance characteristics between the two products. 6.0 SUMMARY Based on the testing and discussion of the results above, it is my judgment that the Neopor EPS has essentially the same flammability characteristics as the Styropor EPS. Thus, the Neopor EPS will perform in a similar manner as the Styropor EPS when exposed to a fire. Additionally, based on this data and analysis, the Neopor EPS can be substituted for the Styropor EPS into applications and assemblies that have have been qualified via various fire tests and it is not necessary to repeat full-scale fire tests when substituting the Neopor EPS for the Styropor EPS and vice versa.

4 Page 4 I hope that this analysis is of assistance and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jesse J. Beitel Senior Scientist/Principal

5 Page 5 Table III. HAI ASTM E 1354 Test Data Sample ID Incident Heat Flux Time to Ignition Flame Duration Initial Total Loss % Loss Average Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg) 60 sec 180 sec 300 sec Peak HRR Time of Peak HRR Total HRR/A (MJ/m 2 ) Neopor Neopor AVERAGE Average Specific Extinction Area (m 2 /kg) Styropor Styropor AVERAGE