Next Article in Journal
Aluminum Diethylphosphinate-Incorporated Flame-Retardant Polyacrylonitrile Separators for Safety of Lithium-Ion Batteries
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Sunlight on the Change in Color of Unsteamed and Steamed Beech Wood with Water Steam
Previous Article in Journal
Polymeric Biomass Derived Adsorbents for Co(II) Remediation, Recycling and Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Openings’ Size and Location on Selected Dynamical Properties of Typical Wood Frame Walls
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Particle Board Ignition by Radiant Heat Flux

by
Ivana Tureková
1,
Martina Ivanovičová
1,
Jozef Harangózo
1,
Stanislava Gašpercová
2 and
Iveta Marková
2,*
1
Department of Technology and Information Technologies, Faculty of Education, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia
2
Department of Fire Engineering, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2022, 14(9), 1648; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091648
Submission received: 18 March 2022 / Revised: 12 April 2022 / Accepted: 14 April 2022 / Published: 19 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Challenges in Wood and Wood-Based Materials II)

Abstract

:
Particleboards are used in the manufacturing of furniture and are often part of the interior of buildings. In the event of a fire, particleboards are a substantial part of the fuel in many building fires. The aim of the article is to monitor the effect of radiant heat on the surface of particle board according to the modified procedure ISO 5657: 1997. The significance of the influence of heat flux density and particle board properties on its thermal resistance (time to ignition) was monitored. Experimental samples were used particle board without surface treatment, with thicknesses of 12, 15, and 18 mm. The samples were exposed to a heat flux from 40 to 50 kW·m−2. The experimental results are the initiation characteristics such as of the ignition temperature and the weight loss. The determined factors influencing the time to ignition and weight loss were the thickness and density of the plate material, the density of the radiant heat flux and the distance of the particle board from the radiant source (20, 40, and 60 mm). The obtained results show a significant dependence of the time to ignition on the thickness of the sample and on the heat flux density. The weight loss is significantly dependent on the thickness of the particle board. Monitoring the influence of time to ignition from sample distance confirmed a statistically significant dependence. As the distance of the sample from the source increased, the time to ignition decreased linearly. As the distance of the sample from the source increased, the time to ignition increased.

1. Introduction

Sheet board materials are among the most important wood products [1]. Their production encompasses utilization of wood of lower quality classes and obtaining suitable materials with improved physical and mechanical properties [2].
This product group contains wood-based boards for the use in building interiors, such as boards without surface treatment (raw) or with surface treatment (particleboards), plywood, fiberboard, and edge-glued wood panels [3,4].
Particleboard can be defined according to STN EN 309:2005 [4] as a molded wood material, produced by heat pressing of small wood particles (e.g., chips, shavings, sawdust, lamellas, etc.) or other lignocellulosic particles (e.g., flax shives, hemp shives, bagasse, etc.) with adhesives.
The processing wood of all woody plants occurring in Central Europe is used as a source of wood in the production of particleboards. These are less valuable forest assortments, industrial and residual waste, recycled wood, and other lignocellulosic materials [5].
Particleboards belong to a product group of board materials, but they are considered an input material in the furniture and construction industries [6]. In terms of quality assessment, particleboards have only few disadvantages, and flammability is among them [7,8,9,10,11].
The current state of technology and production techniques in particleboard production allow processing of practically all types of wood occurring in Central Europe using a suitable mixture [12,13,14].
Wood and sheet board materials represent a substantial part of the fuel in many building fires [15].
The assumption of a fire hazard requires an appropriate description of the fire ignition and fire development [16,17]. The initial process is ignition [18]. Flammability can be defined as the ability of materials to ignite when heated to elevated temperatures. It depends on many factors, mainly the critical heat flux and the thermal properties of materials. Currently, there are several methods for determining the flammability, fire-technical, and physical material properties, which are defined by relevant standards [19,20].
The aim of this article is to analyze the influence of heat flux density and particle board properties (thickness of 12 mm, 15 mm, 18 mm and board material density) on their thermal resistance (time to ignition) and ignition characteristics (ignition temperatures and weight loss). This dependence was also monitored when the distance of the sample from the radiant heat source changed, which represents an important safety factor in the ignition phase of real fires.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples

Particleboard research is part of improving their properties [21,22,23,24]. Separate attention is paid to the research of the physical and mechanical properties of the particleboards [25,26,27,28].
Particleboards with thicknesses of 12, 15, and 18 mm were used for experiments due to their practical applicability and popularity in practice (Figure 1). Selected materials are among the most widely used materials nowadays in the furniture and construction industry [29,30]. Particleboard samples were sourced from the company BUČINA DDD, Zvolen, Slovakia [31,32] under product name Particleboard raw unsanded (Table 1). Particleboards contain coniferous softwood chips, mainly spruce and urea-formaldehyde adhesive mixture.
Large-size wood materials form the largest percentage of wood material in timber houses which means they can be directly exposed to fire [33].
Selected thicknesses of board materials are used in the construction and insulation of houses, in the construction of ceilings, soffits, partitions, etc.
Figure 1. Example of experimental samples. (a) Particleboard; (b) sample prepared for measurements in accordance with ISO 5657 [34].
Figure 1. Example of experimental samples. (a) Particleboard; (b) sample prepared for measurements in accordance with ISO 5657 [34].
Polymers 14 01648 g001
Particleboard samples were cut to specific dimensions (165 × 165) mm according to STN 5657: 1997 [34]. Selected board materials were kept at a specific temperature (23 °C ± 2 °C) and relative humidity (50 ± 5%).

2.2. Methodology

The density of the particleboards was determined according to STN EN 323: 1996 [35]. The time to ignition and weight loss depending on the selected level of heat flux density and thickness of board materials and the distance of selected board materials from the ignition source was determined according to the modified procedure ISO 5657: 1997 [34]. A detailed description of the modification and the course of the experiment is described in Tureková et al. [36].
The heating cone ensures heat flow in the range of 10 to 70 kW·m−2. The heat acts in the center of the hole in the masking plate where the test sample is placed (Figure 2).
The heating cone temperatures were verified by a thermocouple that is in close and constant contact with the heating element tube, and the heat fluxes were determined on the basis of a calibration curve [36].
The samples were placed horizontally and exposed to a heat flux of 43 to 50 kW·m−2 by an electrically heated conical radiator. Orientation experiments determined the minimum heat flux required to maintain flame combustion.
The horizontally placed sample under the thermal cone is exposed to the selected heat flux and gradually thermally degrades. During the experiment, the course of degradation is monitored, which is manifested by weight loss. At the same time, time to ignition is monitored. Time to ignition was recordedwhile considering only the permanent ignition of the surface of the analyzed sample when exposed to a selected level of heat flux density.
Thermal inertia, which is closely related to the time to ignition, was calculated for each selected board material [37]. The higher the thermal inertia value, the slower the temperature rise on the surface of the board material and the later the ignition [38,39,40]. Thermal inertia was calculated according to Schieldge et al. [41]:
I = λ ·ρ· c·[J2·m−4·s−1·K−2]
where λ [W·m−1·K−1] is the thermal conductivity, ρ [kg·m−3] is the board material density, and c [J·kg−1·K−1] is heat capacity.
The influence of the ignition source distance on the time to ignition of the board materials was monitored on particleboards with a thickness of 12 mm. The choice of thickness was made from a practical point of view. Particleboards with a thickness of 12 mm are the most commonly used materials in the construction industry in thermal insulation, timber houses, construction of ceilings and soffits [42].
The experiments were performed with the radiant heat fluxes of 44, 46, 48, and 50 kW·m−2. The distance between the cone calorimeter and the particleboard was 20, 40, and 60 mm. The choice of distance was determined based on orientation experiments and changes in times to ignition were monitored even in case of minimal changes in distance from the ignition source. A preparation consisting of cement cubes measuring 20 × 20 × 20 mm was used to change the distance of the board material from the ignition source. The experiments were repeated five times.
Specific factors affecting time to ignition and weight loss are:
  • Thickness and density of the board material;
  • Radiant heat flux density;
  • Distance of particleboards from the radiant heat source.

2.3. Mathematical and Statistical Processing of Data and Evaluation of Results

To evaluate the influence of the above-mentioned factors on the ignition temperature and weight loss, the obtained results were subjected to a statistical analysis. The obtained results of the ignition and weight loss temperatures were statistically evaluated by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the least significant difference (LSD) test (95%, 99% detectability level), (STATGRAPHICS software version 18/19 (Statgraphics Technologies, Inc., The Plains, VA, USA), with the following influence factors: board material thickness (12, 15 and 18 mm), radiant heat flux density (from 43 to 50 kW·m−2), and distance of board materials from the ignition source (20, 40 a 60 mm).

3. Results and Discussion

The course of the experiment (Figure 3) according to ISO 5657: 1997 [34] confirmed the verified behavior of the material in terms of the classification “reaction to fire (D-s1, d0)” [43,44,45] (Figure 4). The priority of the experiment is to monitor the critical parameters of the ignition based on the change in board thickness (Figure 3 and Table 2).

3.1. Determination of Ignition Temperature and Weight Loss

The ability of the material surface to generate volatile gases when exposed to radiant heat as well as the ability of selected board materials to ignite when exposed to radiant heat fluxes caused by an ignition source were confirmed.
The density of samples ranged from 640 to 720 kg·m−3. This range corresponds to the usual density of particleboards [46].
By comparing the calculated thermal inertia with the reported thermal inertia by Babrauskas [47,48], very similar results were confirmed. The thermal inertia values ranged from 0.31 to 0.33 kJ2·m−4·s−1·K−2. The difference was around 0.02 kJ2·m−4·s−1·K−2 in specific particleboards.
In this case, it is not possible to look for the dependence of inertia on other parameters, as the ANOVA results show in Table 3.
Figure 5 shows a statistically significant dependence of the time to ignition on the sample thickness. This dependence was made for heat fluxes of 43–48 kW·m−2.
The ANOVA table (Table 3) decomposes the variability of Col_4 (Time to ignition) into contributions due to various factors. Since Type III sums of squares (the default) have been chosen, the contribution of each factor is measured having removed the effects of all other factors. The p-values test the statistical significance of each of the factors. Since one p-value is less than 0.05, this factor has a statistically significant effect on Col_4 at the 95.0% confidence level. Dependence of the decrease in time to ignition on the increase in heat flux and the increase in the particleboard thickness was confirmed (Figure 6).
These dependencies are statistically significant (Table 4). The p-values test the statistical significance of each of the factors. Since 2 p-values are less than 0.05, these factors have a statistically significant effect on Col_3 at the 95.0% confidence level (Figure 7).
Figure 8 describes the weight loss in selected particleboard thicknesses when exposed to radiant heat flux (40–50 kW·m−2). As the heat flux density increases, the value of the weight loss in the particleboard samples of the selected thicknesses increases on average by 0.4% (absolute % number) for a change of the heat flux of 1 kW·m−2. The largest weight loss values were recorded in particleboards with a thickness of 12 mm.
The course of the increase in weight loss as a function of increasing radiant heat flux is statistically significant. This statement is based on a statistical analysis of the STATGRAPHICS Software Program version 18/19. The ANOVA method was used (Table 5, Figure 8), where the p-values test the statistical significance of each of the factors. Since 2 p-values are less than 0.05, these factors have a statistically significant effect on Col_3 at the 95.0% confidence level (ANOVA). confidence level (Figure 9).
Valcheva and Savov [49] also presented scientific experiments covering characteristic features and the effect of different thicknesses of boards. The regression models describing the effect of thicknesses on main properties of medium-density particleboard are deduced and analyzed from the output data.

3.2. Monitoring the Effect of the Distance of Board Material from the Ignition Source

The distance of the particleboard from the radiant heat source (Figure 10 and Figure 11) has influence on the time to ignition (Table 5). Particle boards were ignited at higher heat fluxes from 44 kW·m−2 at a distance of 40 mm (Figure 10a) particleboards were ignited only if the heat flux was at least 44 kW·m−2; for 60 mm the lowest heat flux for ignition was 48 kW·m−2 (Figure 10d). The higher the heat flux, the shorter the time to ignition. Particleboards accumulated sufficient heat to allow the subsequent combustion without the action of an ignition source on the upper surface of the board material.
The obtained time to ignition has a decreasing character with a linear dependence. At the distance of 60 mm and heat fluxes of 44 and 46 kW·m−2, ignition did not occur. However, the imaginary line through two points showing the ignition temperature values at the distance of 60 mm shows a different tendency. Ignition temperatures doubled. It can be assumed that with the increasing distance of the radiant heat source from the sample, the increase in time to ignition multiplies geometrically. Time to ignition is significantly dependent on the heat flux and sample thickness (Table 6, Figure 12), as confirmed by multifactor analysis (ANOVA).
Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant influence of factors such as distance of the heat-stressed sample (Figure 11) and heat flux (Figure 6) on the time to ignition under the action of radiant heat flux on the surface of particleboards.
Also, statistical analysis ANOVA showed effect of distance on time to ignition (Figure 12). The abbreviations Col_4–distance and Col_6–time to ignition, were used in the graphical representation of statistical results (Figure 12).

4. Conclusions

Based on the conducted experiments, the following results were obtained:
  • It was statistically confirmed that the time to ignition is significantly dependent on the thickness of the particleboard sample and the heat flux value. It was also possible to calculate the thermal inertia based on the measurements. The obtained results of the calculated inertia were very similar to the published values reported by Babrauskas [48];
  • It was confirmed that the weight loss was significantly dependent on the thickness of the particleboard. Selected thicknesses of particleboards which were exposed to radiant heat flux of 40–50 kW·m−2 recorded on average by 0.4% (absolute % number) of weight loss with increasing heat flux density (for a change of the heat flux of 1 kW·m−2). The largest weight loss values were recorded in particleboards with a thickness of 12 mm;
  • Statistically significant dependence was confirmed by monitoring the time to ignition and the distance of a sample with a thickness of 12 mm from the radiant heat source. At a distance of 60 mm and heat fluxes of 44 and 46 kW·m−2, the particleboards with a thickness of 12 mm did not ignite.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.T. and M.I.; methodology, I.T.; software, I.M.; validation, I.T., M.I. and J.H.; formal analysis, I.M.; investigation, I.T.; resources, I.T., J.H. and M.I.; data curation, M.I.; writing—original draft preparation, I.T.; writing—review and editing, I.M.; S.G.; project administration, S.G.; funding acquisition, I.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article was supported by the Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic on the basis of the project KEGA 0014UKF-4/2020 Innovative learning e-modules for safety in dual education and Institute Grant of University of Žilina No 12716.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This article was supported by the Project KEGA 0014UKF-4/2020 Innovative learning e-modules for safety in dual educationand Institute Grant of University of Žilina No 12716.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ramage, M.H.; Burridge, H.; Busse-Wicher, M.; Fereday, G.; Reynolds, T.; Shaha, D.U.; Wu, G.; Yu, L.; Fleming, P.; Densley-Tingley, D.; et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 333–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Antov, P.; Kristak, L.; Reh, R.; Savov, V.; Papadopoulos, A.N. Eco-Friendly Fiberboard Panels from Recycled Fibers Bonded with Calcium Lignosulfonate. Polymers 2021, 13, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Langova, N.; Reh, R.; Igaz, R.; Kristak, L.; Hitka, M.; Joscak, P. Construction of Wood-Based Lamella for Increased Load on Seating Furniture. Forests 2019, 10, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. STN EN 309; Particleboards. Definition and Classification. Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2005.
  5. Antov, P.; Savov, V.; Krišťák, L.; Réh, R.; Mantanis, G.I. Eco-Friendly, High-Density Fiberboards Bonded with Urea-Formaldehyde and Ammonium Lignosulfonate. Polymers 2021, 13, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wang, M.G.; Tian, Y. Furniture of Environmental Protection Materials. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 727, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hoffman, A.; Muehlnikel, R. Experimental and numerical investigation of fire development in areal fire in a five-storey apartment building. Fire Mater. 2011, 35, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Krišťák, L.; Igaz, R.; Brozman, D.; Réh, R.; Šiagiová, P.; Stebila, J.; Očkajová, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Timber Formwork: Case Study. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1001, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Galla, Š. A analysis of a fire in a storehouse of fibreboards from the fire investigation point of view—Case study. Košická Bezpeč. Rev. 2015, 1, 26–31. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  10. Kubjatko, T.; Gortz, M.; Macurova, L.; Ballay, M. Synergy of Forensic and Security Engineering in Relation to the Model of Deformation Energies on Vehicles After Traffic Accidents. In Proceedings of the Transport Means—Proceedings of the International Conference, Trakai, Lithuania, 3–5 October 2018; pp. 1342–1348. [Google Scholar]
  11. Iringová, A. Impact of fire protection on the design of energy-efficient and eco-friendly building envelopes in timber structures. In Proceedings of the Fire Protection, Safety and Security, Zvolen, Slovakia, 3–5 May 2017; pp. 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Očkajová, A.; Kučerka, M. Materials and Technologies 1. Wood Technology, 1st ed.; UMB: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2011; ISBN 978-80-557-0262-9. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  13. Warguła, Ł.; Dziechciarz, A.; Kaczmarzyk, P. The assessment of fire risk of non-road mobile wood chopping machines. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2019, 64, 58–64. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sydor, M.; Mirski, R.; Stuper-Szablewska, K.; Rogozinski, T. Efficiency of Machine Sanding of Wood. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jin, C.D.; Li, J.; Zheng, R.X. Thermal and Combustion Characteristics of Binderless Fiberboard. Adv. Mater. Res. 2010, 113, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marková, I.; Hroncova, E.; Tomaskin, J.; Turekova, I. Thermal analysis of granulometry selected wood dust particles. BioResources 2018, 13, 8041–8060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Szabová, Z.; Pastier, M.; Harangózo, J.; Chrebet, T. Determination of characteristics predicting the ignition of organic dusts. In Occupational Safety and Hygiene II: 10th Annual Congress of the Portuguese Society of Occupational Safety and Hygiene on Occupational Safety an Hygiene (SPOSHO) Guimaraes, Portugal, 13–14 February 2014; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 143–145. ISBN 978-1-315-77352-0. [Google Scholar]
  18. Turekova, I.; Markova, I. Ignition of Deposited Wood Dust Layer by Selected Sources. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vandličková, M.; Markova, I.; Osvaldová, L.M.; Gašpercová, S.; Svetlík, J. Evaluation of African padauk (Pterocarpus soyauxii) explosion dust. BioResources 2020, 15, 401–414. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lišková, Z.; Olbřímek, J. Comparison of Requirements in Slovak and Selected Foreign Legislation on the Issue of Safe Distance of the Wooden Building Structures from the Flue. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2016, 820, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pedzik, M.; Auriga, R.; Kristak, L.; Antov, P.; Rogozinski, T. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Particleboard Produced with Addition of Walnut (Juglans regia L.) Wood Residues. Materials 2022, 15, 1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kristak, L.; Kubovsky, I.; Reh, R. New Challenges in Wood and Wood-Based Materials. Polymers 2021, 13, 2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bekhta, P.; Noshchenko, G.; Reh, R.; Kristak, L.; Sedliacik, J.; Antov, P.; Mirski, R.; Savov, V. Properties of Eco-Friendly Particleboards Bonded with Lignosulfonate-Urea-Formaldehyde Adhesives and pMDI as a Crosslinker. Materials 2021, 14, 4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Krist’ak, L.; Reh, R. Application of Wood Composites. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Baskaran, M.; Azmi, N.A.C.H.; Hashim, R.; Sulaiman, O. Addition of Urea Formaldehyde Made from Oil Palm Trunk Waste. J. Phys. Sci. 2017, 28, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Lee, C.L.; Chin, K.L.; H’ng, P.S.; Chuah, A.L.; Khoo, P.S. Enhanced properties of single-layer particleboard made from oil palm empty fruit bunch fibre with additional water-soluble additives. BioResources 2021, 16, 6159–6173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mirindi, D.; Onchiri, R.O.; Thuo, J. Physico-Mechanical Properties of Particleboards Produced from Macadamia Nutshell and Gum Arabic. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bardak, S.; Nemli, G.; Bardak, T. The quality comparison of particleboards produced from heartwood and sapwood of European larch. Maderas. Cienc. Y Tecnol. 2019, 21, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Grigorieva, L.; Oleinik, P. Recycling Waste Wood of Construction. Mater. Sci. Forum 2016, 871, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Iringová, A.; Vandlíčková, D. Analysis of a Fire in an Apartment of Timber Building Depending on the Ventilation Parameter. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2021, 17, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Safety Data Sheet Particleboard, Raw un-Sanded; Bučina DDD: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2019.
  32. List of technical data. In Particleboard Pressed Flat, un-Sanded, without Surface Treatment; Bučina DDD: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2019.
  33. Osvald, A. Evaluation velocity of the facade fire-based wood. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, Rajec, Slovakia, 10 November 2017; Volume 1, pp. 197–215. (In Slovak). [Google Scholar]
  34. ISO 5657; Reaction to Fire Tests. Ignitability of Building Products Using Radiant Heat Source. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
  35. STN EN 323; Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Density. Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1996.
  36. Tureková, I.; Marková, I.; Ivanovičová, M.; Harangozo, J. Experimental Study of Oriented Strand Board Ignition by Radiant Heat Fluxes. Polymers 2021, 13, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morozov, M.; Strizhak, P.A. Researches of Advanced Thermal Insulating Materials for Improving the Building Energy Efficiency. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 683, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mitrenga, P.; Vandlíčková, M.; Dušková, M. Evaluation of the new fire retardants on wood by proposed testing method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Science and Production Management (ESPM), Tatranská Štrba, Slovakia, 16–17 April 2015; pp. 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. MakovickáOsvaldová, L.; Janigová, I.; Rychlý, J. Non-Isothermal Thermogravimetry of Selected Tropical Woods and Their Degradation under Fire Using Cone Calorimetry. Polymers 2021, 13, 708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, Z.H.; Zhao, Y.S.; Hu, Y.M. Research on Improved Thermal Inertia Model for Retrieving Soil Moisture. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 295, 2075–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schieldge, J.P.; Kahle, A.B.; Alley, R.E.; Gillespie, A.R. Use of thermal-inertia properties for material indetification. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 1980, 238, 350–357. [Google Scholar]
  42. Shulga, G.; Neiberte, B.; Verovkins, A.; Jaunslavietis, J.; Shakels, V.; Vitolina, S.; Sedliačik, J. Eco-Friendly Constituents for Making Wood-Polymer Composites. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 688, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Östman, B.A.L.; Mikkola, E. European Classes for the Reaction to Fire Performance of Wood Products. Holz Roh Werkstoff 2006, 64, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. STN EN 13501-2; Fire Classification of Construction Products and Building Elements. Part 1: Classification Using Data from Reaction to fire tests. European Committe for Standartion: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
  45. STN EN ISO 11925-2; Reaction to Fire Tests—Ignitability of Building Products Subjected to Direct Impingement of Flame—Part 2: Single-Flame Source Test. Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2021.
  46. Valarmathi, T.N.; Palanikumar, K.; Sekar, S. Thrust Force Studies in Drilling of Medium Density Fiberboard Panels. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 622, 1285–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Babrauskas, V. Ignition Handbook, 1st ed.; Fire Science Publishers: Issaquah, WA, USA, 2003; ISBN 0-9728111-3-3. [Google Scholar]
  48. Babrauskas, V. Ignition of wood: A Review of the State of the Art. J. Fire Eng. 2002, 12, 163–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Valcheva, L.; Savov, V. The Effect of Thickness of Medium Density Fiberboard Produced of Hardwood Tree Species on their Selected Physical and Mechanical Properties. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 688, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2. Scheme of the equipment for determination of flammability of materials at a heat flux of radiant heat of 10–50 kW·m−2 according to ISO 5657: 1997 [34]. Legend: 1-heating cone, 2-board for sample, 3-movable arm, 4-connection point for recording experimental data.
Figure 2. Scheme of the equipment for determination of flammability of materials at a heat flux of radiant heat of 10–50 kW·m−2 according to ISO 5657: 1997 [34]. Legend: 1-heating cone, 2-board for sample, 3-movable arm, 4-connection point for recording experimental data.
Polymers 14 01648 g002
Figure 3. Course of measurement of time to ignition and weight loss for a particleboard sample with a thickness of 15 mm, heat flux intensity 45 kW·m−2. Legend: (a) sample ignition (time to ignition 84 s); (b) burning of the sample in 100 s; and (c) burning of the sample in 120 s.
Figure 3. Course of measurement of time to ignition and weight loss for a particleboard sample with a thickness of 15 mm, heat flux intensity 45 kW·m−2. Legend: (a) sample ignition (time to ignition 84 s); (b) burning of the sample in 100 s; and (c) burning of the sample in 120 s.
Polymers 14 01648 g003
Figure 4. Combustion process of particleboards after their ignition by radiant heat (a) top view for sample with 15 mm thickness immediately after experiment; (b) side view for sample with 15 mm thickness immediately after ignition; (c) sample with 15 mm thickness taken out from the measuring device, placed at a distance of 20 mm after the end of the experiment; (d) cooled sample 10 min after the experiment, sample thickness of 18 mm.
Figure 4. Combustion process of particleboards after their ignition by radiant heat (a) top view for sample with 15 mm thickness immediately after experiment; (b) side view for sample with 15 mm thickness immediately after ignition; (c) sample with 15 mm thickness taken out from the measuring device, placed at a distance of 20 mm after the end of the experiment; (d) cooled sample 10 min after the experiment, sample thickness of 18 mm.
Polymers 14 01648 g004
Figure 5. Graphical dependence of the ignition temperature on the thickness of the particleboard. Legend: axis “y”-Col_4 istime to ignition, axis “x”-Col_2 is thickness for heat flux interval <43,48> kW·m−2. The values are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Figure 5. Graphical dependence of the ignition temperature on the thickness of the particleboard. Legend: axis “y”-Col_4 istime to ignition, axis “x”-Col_2 is thickness for heat flux interval <43,48> kW·m−2. The values are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Polymers 14 01648 g005
Figure 6. Graphical dependence of the time to ignition on the heat flux and thickness of the particleboard. Legend: black point-12 mm thickness; blue point-15 mm thickness; red point-18 mm thickness.
Figure 6. Graphical dependence of the time to ignition on the heat flux and thickness of the particleboard. Legend: black point-12 mm thickness; blue point-15 mm thickness; red point-18 mm thickness.
Polymers 14 01648 g006
Figure 7. Graphical representation of the statistical evaluation-the influence of the sample thickness and heat flux on the time to ignition under the action of the radiant heat source on the particleboard. Legend: Col_1-heat flux; Col_2-thickness of particleboard samples as the variance of the values shown in blue; Col_3-Time to ignition. The values are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Figure 7. Graphical representation of the statistical evaluation-the influence of the sample thickness and heat flux on the time to ignition under the action of the radiant heat source on the particleboard. Legend: Col_1-heat flux; Col_2-thickness of particleboard samples as the variance of the values shown in blue; Col_3-Time to ignition. The values are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Polymers 14 01648 g007
Figure 8. Graphical dependence of average values of weight loss on heat flux and particleboard thickness. Legend: black point-12 mm thickness; blue point-15 mm thickness; red point-18 mm thickness.
Figure 8. Graphical dependence of average values of weight loss on heat flux and particleboard thickness. Legend: black point-12 mm thickness; blue point-15 mm thickness; red point-18 mm thickness.
Polymers 14 01648 g008
Figure 9. Graphical ANOVA for mass loss (Col_3). Legends: Col_1 is heat flux; Col_2 is thickness of particleboard samples as the variance of the values shown in blue. The values are statistically sig-nificant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Figure 9. Graphical ANOVA for mass loss (Col_3). Legends: Col_1 is heat flux; Col_2 is thickness of particleboard samples as the variance of the values shown in blue. The values are statistically sig-nificant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Polymers 14 01648 g009
Figure 10. Measurements of time to ignition and weight loss of particleboards with thickness of 12 mm at (ac) 40 mm from the ignition source; (df) 60 mm from the ignition source.
Figure 10. Measurements of time to ignition and weight loss of particleboards with thickness of 12 mm at (ac) 40 mm from the ignition source; (df) 60 mm from the ignition source.
Polymers 14 01648 g010aPolymers 14 01648 g010b
Figure 11. Graphical dependence of the time to ignition on the heat flux (44, 46, 48 and 50 kW·m−2) and the distance of the particleboard with thickness of 12 mm from the ignition source. Legend: blue-20 mm; red-40 mm and green-60 mm.
Figure 11. Graphical dependence of the time to ignition on the heat flux (44, 46, 48 and 50 kW·m−2) and the distance of the particleboard with thickness of 12 mm from the ignition source. Legend: blue-20 mm; red-40 mm and green-60 mm.
Polymers 14 01648 g011
Figure 12. Graphical representation of the statistical evaluation-the influence of the sample position and heat flux on the time to ignition source on the particleboards. Legend: Col_4-position of the sample i.e., distance of the sample from the source; Col_6-time to ignition. The values are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Figure 12. Graphical representation of the statistical evaluation-the influence of the sample position and heat flux on the time to ignition source on the particleboards. Legend: Col_4-position of the sample i.e., distance of the sample from the source; Col_6-time to ignition. The values are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05 according to LSD ANOVA.
Polymers 14 01648 g012
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties and fire-technical characteristics of particleboards in thicknesses of 12–18 mm [31,32].
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties and fire-technical characteristics of particleboards in thicknesses of 12–18 mm [31,32].
ParametersThickness of Particleboard Sample (mm)
121518
Density (kg·m−3) (average)690713644
Moisture (%)5.055.255.45
Bending strength (N·mm−2)13.212.512
Modulus of elasticity (N·mm−2)250024502750
Swelling after 24 h (%)3.53.53.5
Thermal conductivity (W·m−2·K−1)0.10–0.140.10–0.140.10–0.14
Free formaldehyde content (mg·100 g−1) (Emission class E1)6.56.56.5
Reaction to fireD-s1, d0
Table 2. Time to ignition and mass loss in samples with different thickness using heat fluxes of 40 to 50 kW·m−2 at adistance of 20 mm.
Table 2. Time to ignition and mass loss in samples with different thickness using heat fluxes of 40 to 50 kW·m−2 at adistance of 20 mm.
Radiant Heat Flux (kW·m−2)Thickness (mm)Density (kg·m−3)Thermal Inertia (kJ2·m−4·s−1·K−2)Time to
Ignition (s)
Weight
Loss (%)
4012689 ± 100.32 ± 0.002130.6 ± 3.4416.3 ± 0.3
15711 ± 100.31 ± 0.026118.6 ± 3.8313.5 ± 0.3
18644 ± 60.27 ± 0.080139.0 ± 3.1611.9 ± 0.2
4112689 ± 90.32 ± 0.002114.0 ± 3.5216.7 ± 0.29
15714 ± 110.33 ± 0.002113.4 ± 4.0313.8 ± 0.33
18644 ± 70.27 ± 0.082131.2 ± 2.9912.5 ± 0.21
4212688 ± 90.32 ± 0.00295.2 ± 6.8217.3 ± 0.39
15714 ± 100.33 ± 0.002105.8 ± 3.0614.3 ± 0.32
18645 ± 60.31 ± 0.001122.4 ± 1.9612.7 ± 0.18
4312691 ± 100.32 ± 0.00289.0 ± 5.21517.1 ± 0.52
15716 ± 110.33 ± 0.00292.6 ± 3.44114.6 ± 0.37
18642 ± 70.31 ± 0.008117.0 ± 5.51313.2 ± 0.17
4412691 ± 100.32 ± 0.00280.0 ± 5.3717.6 ± 0.41
15715 ± 100.33 ± 0.00286.4 ± 4.8815.4 ± 0.35
18643 ± 70.31 ± 0.002102.8 ± 4.3113.7 ± 0.24
4512691 ± 90.321 ± 0.00278.2 ± 0.74817.9 ± 0.30
15714 ± 110.327 ± 0.00284.4 ± 2.05715.3 ± 0.29
18645 ± 70.311 ± 0.00292.2 ± 2.48113.9 ± 0.29
4612690 ± 110.32 ± 0.00271.6 ± 1.6218.4 ± 0.52
15711 ± 90.33 ± 0.00276.0 ± 2.2815.7 ± 0.29
18644 ± 80.31 ± 0.00189.0 ± 7.9713.8 ± 0.56
4712690 ± 110.32 ± 0.00266.4 ± 2.8718.9 ± 0.29
15715 ± 100.33 ± 0.00273.8 ± 0.8016.2 ± 0.36
18645 ± 80.31 ± 0.00275.6 ± 3.7214.5 ± 0.34
4812689 ± 100.32 ± 0.00264.4 ± 1.4919.1 ± 0.34
15710 ± 80.33 ± 0.00169.4 ± 1.9616.3 ± 0.37
18644 ± 70.31 ± 0.00175.0 ± 2.0014.6 ± 0.22
4912692 ± 110.32 ± 0.00260.6 ± 2.2419.7 ± 0.44
15713 ± 100.33 ± 0.00266.0 ± 2.2816.6 ± 0.33
18644 ± 110.31 ± 0.00267.2 ± 1.1715.2 ± 0.13
5012689 ± 80.32 ± 0.00159.8 ± 2.6419.9 ± 0.41
15713 ± 110.33 ± 0.00264.4 ± 2.5016.5 ± 0.33
18643 ± 70.31 ± 0.00166.8 ± 2.0915.9 ± 0.94
Table 3. Analysis of variance for Col_4 Time to ignition-type III sums of squares.
Table 3. Analysis of variance for Col_4 Time to ignition-type III sums of squares.
SourceSum of SquaresDfMean SquareF-Ratiop-Value
Covariates
Col_3 Thermal interaction664.1251664.1251.340.2481
Main Effects
Col_2 Board thickness4018.0622009.034.060.0190
Residual79,573.2161494.244
Total87,085.1164
All F-ratios are based on the residual mean square error.
Table 4. Analysis of variance for Col_3 time toignition-type III sums of squares.
Table 4. Analysis of variance for Col_3 time toignition-type III sums of squares.
SourceSum of SquaresDfMean SquareF-Ratiop-Value
Main Effects
Col_1 Heat flux15,376.7101537.6758.290.0000
Col_2 Board thickness1405.322702.65826.640.0000
Residual527.5642026.3782
Total17,309.632
All F-ratios are based on the residual mean square error.
Table 5. Analysis of variance for Col_3 (mass loss)-type III sums of squares.
Table 5. Analysis of variance for Col_3 (mass loss)-type III sums of squares.
SourceSum of SquaresDfMean SquareF-Ratiop-Value
Main Effects
Col_1 Heat flux40.2861104.02876.040.0000
Col_2 Board thickness103.654251.826978.280.0000
Residual1.05955200.0529
Total144.99932
All F-ratios are based on the residual mean square error.
Table 6. Analysis of variance for Col_6 (time to ignition)-type III sums of squares depending on sample thickness and distance from the source.
Table 6. Analysis of variance for Col_6 (time to ignition)-type III sums of squares depending on sample thickness and distance from the source.
SourceSum of SquaresDfMean SquareF-Ratiop-Value
Main Effects
Col_4 Distance from the source47,980.0223,990.0534.730.0000
Col_5 Heat flux6798.8332266.2850.510.0000
Residual1974.024444.8642
Total52,250.349
All F-ratios are based on the residual mean square error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tureková, I.; Ivanovičová, M.; Harangózo, J.; Gašpercová, S.; Marková, I. Experimental Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Particle Board Ignition by Radiant Heat Flux. Polymers 2022, 14, 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091648

AMA Style

Tureková I, Ivanovičová M, Harangózo J, Gašpercová S, Marková I. Experimental Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Particle Board Ignition by Radiant Heat Flux. Polymers. 2022; 14(9):1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091648

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tureková, Ivana, Martina Ivanovičová, Jozef Harangózo, Stanislava Gašpercová, and Iveta Marková. 2022. "Experimental Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Particle Board Ignition by Radiant Heat Flux" Polymers 14, no. 9: 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091648

APA Style

Tureková, I., Ivanovičová, M., Harangózo, J., Gašpercová, S., & Marková, I. (2022). Experimental Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Particle Board Ignition by Radiant Heat Flux. Polymers, 14(9), 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091648

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop