You're welcome but now I am all red in the face because I reread your original post and saw all the testing I said would have had to be done was done!!! I should have stopped with "OK, what, Class II?"
Brad -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: "Fire Resistant" Foam Thanks for your response Brad, I've decided to take the conservative approach and treat it as an expanded Group A plastic commodity despite the fire resistance treatment. David -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: "Fire Resistant" Foam http://www.mail-archive.com/sprinklerforum%40lists.firesprinkler.org/msg4094 9.html David, I found the above link in the archives. There is no definitive answer but the responses got me thinking that if the use of a different commodity classification were allowed the question would then be "OK, what, Class II?" I think in order to see the effect of fire resistance treatment, the same full scale tests that quantify Quantity, Combustibility, and Heat Release Rate of the non treated commodity, for classification purposes, would have to have been done to the treated commodity. Perhaps I am all wrong but when I think 'Combustibility' I think Fire Growth Rate, for instance, if LH is a "t^2 Slow" fire then OH1 might be a "t^2 Medium" fire, etc., so 'resistance' would only make the growth rate slower, but eventually the water application rate required for control or complete extinguishment would be based on the Quantity and HRR of the non-treated commodity... or not! :) ! Sorry this is of no help, but I hate to see anyone out there flapping in the Forum Breeze. Brad -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Bitton Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: "Fire Resistant" Foam Hello, I am looking at a warehouse with rack storage of foam used for seat cushions on mass transit systems (rail and bus). To be used in such applications, the foam must be tested for smoke generation (ASTM E662), rate of heat release (ASTM E1354), horizontal burn test (DOT FVSSS 302), and vertical burn test (FAR 25.853 (2)). The product in question was tested and approved in accordance with these requirements. My question is does any of this permit the use of a commodity classification other than expanded Group A plastic? Thank you. David Bitton, ing. Les services de prévention des sinistres Quest inc. Quest Loss Control Services Inc. 5100, rue de la Savane, bureau 200 Montréal, QC H4P 1T8 (514) 341-4545 www.questlosscontrol.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
