4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Fire safety of FACADES with polystyrene foam insulation

期刊

FIRE AND MATERIALS
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 466-474

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fam.2662

关键词

experimental investigations; facades; fire safety; insulation; numerical investigations; polystyrene

资金

  1. Deutsches Institut fur Bautechnik Kolonnenstr Berlin DEUTSCHLAND (DIBt)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of energy-efficient renovations or for the construction of new buildings often external thermal insulation composite (ETIC) are used. In 2015, in Germany almost 37 million square meters were installed. But several fires involving ETIC systems with polystyrene foam (EPS) insulation in Germany led to an extensive discussion about fire safety of such systems. A collection initiated by the Frankfurt fire service of facade fires which include polystyrene insulation foam shows that more than two thirds of all reported fires started in front of buildings. In half of these fires burning waste containers were the first burning objects. Consequently, German building authorities called for tests of existing approved ETIC systems with EPS insulation in a fire scenario representing a burning waste container. As these tests revealed weaknesses in the existing ETIC systems measures were introduced to enhance the systems. However, the recently introduced German test standard DIN 4102-20 does not take these changes into account. The DIN test represents a fire where flames emerge an opening but is downscaled regarding the size of the fire load and therefore does not represent a fully developed fire in a room. In ETIC systems with EPS insulation, the render is an important factor for the fire performance of these systems as collapse of the render usually leads to very rapid fire development. Intermediate scale tests with ETICs specimens indicate that mechanical damages of the render weaken the system significantly. Challenges and possible measures to enhance fire safety of ETIC systems are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据