Why Test Criteria for Play Structures Above 10-ft?

12/26/2022

We are reviewing a proposed indoor play structure that is taller than 10-ft in height.

Do these structures need to be tested in accordance with ASTM E1354 and NFPA 701?

This project is under the California Building Code. Within CBC Section 424 - Children's play structures,

Play structures installed inside all occupancies covered by this code that exceed 10 feet (3048 mm) in height or 150 square feet (14 m2) in area shall comply with Sections 424.2 through 424.5.
424.2 Play structures shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or of combustible materials that comply with the following:...
424.2 (6) Plastic materials used to construct rigid components of soft-contained play equipment structures (such as tubes, windows, panels, junction boxes, pipes, slides and decks) exhibiting a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 400 kW/ m2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E1354 at an incident heat flux of 50 kW/m2 in the horizontal orientation at a thickness of 6 mm.

The consultant proposes the following:

All of the combustible materials are “consumer grade” and carry test certificates stating compliance with NFPA 701 “Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films” as well as ASTM E84, “Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials”. The materials are not classified as “fire resistant” but are manufactured to the same fire safety standards as household products such as mattresses, plastic furniture, upholstery, and carpet. Unlike synthetic fibers (which contain trapped air), molded/extruded plastics and films are solid and have higher auto-ignition temperatures. The polyurethane foam is classified as “fire retardant”, and this material is likely the easiest of all the materials in this assembly to involve in a fire, however, this installation is located in a building where there are few – if any – potential sources of heat and ignition that would be robust enough to involve it in a fire.

I don't see this proposed structure being compliant with ASTM E1354.

Is there a significant increase in fire-hazard for playground areas and structures when they are above 10-ft in height, which requires the plastics to be compliant to E1354 (and textiles and plastic foams to NFPA 701)?

Thank you all very much for your time and technical input.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

6 Comments

Franck

12/26/2022 03:14:40 pm

I won’t speak about regulations and standards. But it seems quite critical to ensure that the structure will not burn with severe consequences in terms of heat release and potential toxic smoke release. Having a structure higher that 10 ft makes it much more difficult and complex to control a fire, limit the smoke release, and above all, ensure a safe evacuation of children inside the structure.
To my knowledge, polyurethane can be “treated” to be fire retardant up to a certain level, but as it is added chemical compounds that can deteriorate/evaporate over time, the combustibility may increase with product aging. For example, polyisocyanurate (PIR) - a derivative from PUR/polyurethane- is often commercially sold as less flammable end even self extinguishing product, which is true under some circumstances, but will anyway release very toxic smoke (including cyanide) when exposed to a fire… Always to be used with caution…

Alex

12/27/2022 06:27:01 am

I would have to presume the 10' mark comes from testing or fire modeling. The fire load increases with height as more material is required to construct the playground.

Based on what the consultant stated, I would agree that the playground does not appear to meet ASTM E1354.
It is worth asking the manufacture to see if there were any heat release tests completed.

Thanks

sean

12/31/2022 08:50:12 pm

I would put it at simple risk / hazard

structures under 10 feet are easier to egress from and get away from and poses less cost to builders/owners

DAVE

12/27/2022 11:02:29 am

Following.

Jon

12/28/2022 01:32:54 pm

As a mentor of mine used to say: "The Devil is in the details". The tests cited (ASTM E1354, ASTM E84, and NFPA 701) each serve a different purpose and are not interchangeable. The bottom line is that the test criteria in ASTM E1354 are difficult to pass - especially for plastic materials. ASTM E1354 is also known as a "cone calorimeter" test and measures heat release, O2 consumption, flashover, etc. It is a much more robust test than NFPA 701 or ASTM E84 ("Steiner Tunnel Test").

During the manufacture of some plastics, it is possible to add chemicals that make the plastic more difficult to burn or ignite. This is usually done by adding a chemical from the halogenated group of the periodic table (such as fluorine, chlorine, or bromine).

The purpose of the NFPA 701 test is to assess the propagation of flame for textiles, fabrics, and films beyond the area exposed to the ignition source. It is meant to see if the product self-extinguishes from a relatively small ignition source.

Don't let someone try to confuse you with the terminologies or tests. The applicable one here is ASTM E1354, not ASTM E84 or NFPA 701.

12/31/2022 08:51:03 pm

the consultants are bull shitting their way around the requirement

Why Test Criteria for Play Structures Above 10-ft?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES