In the Heat of the Moment: Testing Fire-Protective Covers for Mitigating Damage to Large Historic Inventories

Figures & data

Table 1. Experimental procedure.

Part 1: Manageability. Unwrap the product outside its container if it is not raining. Familiarise yourself with the product for a few minutes. Time from unwrapped condition until placed carefully over the items to be protected: 1 min. (Figure 4)

Part 2: Water experiment. The textile already covers the items on the table. Use a hydrant or set the water pressure to 3–5 bar. Flush water, approximately 4.5 m from the items, directly to textile, using 150 L/min, for 10 sec and at a 60-degree angle, with scattered water flush. Wait for 2 min before unwrapping the items. Observer: Inspect the items for water damage. Take photographs of the damage and water marks on the items. Proceed to the next step (Part 3), even if the product is wet.

Part 3: Fire experiment. Cover the items again. Fuel and bonfire = 4 wooden pallets on top of each other, placed with the width towards the items. The centre of bonfire to be placed centred to the items. Distance bonfire-items = 1.5 m (edge to edge). Fuel: 2–3 L of ethanol. Observer: Note the amount and type of fuel. Ignite using a burner (Figure 5). Burn until reaching max fire (based on the firefighter’s observations). Let it burn for 5 min. Use infrared camera to check the temperature on the surrounding surfaces and the textile surfaces. Put out the fire carefully with water, without spilling water on the textile (water on textile is limited to parts 2 and 4). When room temperature is reached, unwrap the items, and turn on a fan to extract smoke and gases. Observer: Inspect the damage on the items from heat and fire, fill out scheme for condition and damage. Take photographs of the damage.

Part 4: Water experiment after the fire. Cover the items with the same product, placing it in approximately the same way. Use a hydrant or set the water pressure to 3–5 bar. Flush water, approximately 4.5 m from the items, directly to textile, using 150 L/min, for 10 sec and at a 60-degree angle, with scattered water flush. Wait for 2 min before unwrapping the items. Observer: Inspect the items for water damage. Take photographs of damage and water marks on the items. Make final observations and comments.

Figure 4. Covering the items while the clock is ticking, where the fire personnel had one minute.

Figure 5. Igniting the stacked pallets for fire test.

Table 2. Properties of the tested materials.

Product no.	Product	Type	Weight per square metre	Decomposition temperature (approximate)	Melting point/temperature resistance
1	No name	Graphite core + silicone coating and minerals	520 g	No information	No information
2	KlevoGlass CeraBlock	E-glass + polymer-based coating on both sides	840 g	No information	No information
3	Preox-Para-Aramid fabric	Preox and Para-Aramid textile twill with aluminium transfer foil on one side	350 g	No information	500–800°C
4	Insulcloth 600 SP	Silica glass + polyurethane-based coating on one side	630 g	No information	1000°C
5	S4	E-glass filament + vulcanised silicone coating on both sides	565 g	550°C	> 800°C
6	Svetsduk EGF550 S2-60	E-glass with silicone coating	550 g	550°C	No information
7	Z-block F-407 SOC	Filament glass with polymer coating	509 g	No information	980°C

Table 3. Preliminary results, overview.

Product no.	Materials	Results	Material tests, notes
1a	Graphite core + silicone coating and minerals	Failed	Product destroyed in fire. Good handling properties. Need to adjust the position in order to conduct the water test. Good water test results; items unharmed.
1b	Graphite core + silicone coating and minerals; Insulation layer over cardboard item	Not suitable due to handling properties	Average insulation properties: product became very warm compared to the others. Below average handling properties of a two-layer structure; stiff, large. Below average water test results: wet seams on inside.
2	E-glass + polymer-based coating on both sides	Not suitable	Below average insulation properties; high temperature on inside of product but no damages on items. Average handling properties; heavy textile. Below average results of water test; wet textile after fire and water test.
3	Preox and Para-Aramid textile twill with aluminium transfer foil on one side	Suitable	Good water protection and handling properties. Below average insulation properties.
4	Silica glass + poly-urethane-based coating on one side	Not suitable for protection against water but suitable for fire	Good insulation properties. Average handling properties. Below average water test results; wet items before and after fire test.
5	E-glass filament + vulcanised silicone coating on both sides	Suitable	Good water protection and handling properties. Below average insulation properties.
6	E-glass with silicone coating	Suitable	Average insulation properties, water protection and handling properties.
7	Filament glass with polymer coating	Not suitable	Below average insulation properties; high temperature on inside of product but no damage on items. Gases emitted when the product was lifted. Average handling properties. Below average water protection; wet seams on inside.

Figure 1. Experimental set-up for the fire service, showing wooden pallet and cardboard boxes stacked on a table, along with a painted wooden chair holding the thermocouple arrangement.

Figure 2. Experimental set-up for the fire service, side view.

Figure 3. Set-up before covering the items and before igniting the fire using the wooden pallets stacked in front.

Figure 6. Example of damage after the fire test: soot on painted wooden chair. Minimal covering with gaps on the side allowed soot to get inside.

Figure 7. Example of damage after the water test: water damage on painted wooden chair. Minimal covering with gaps on the side allowed humidity to get inside and react, causing the material to swell.

Figure 8. Another example of damages caused by water on the cardboard box. The seams on some of the covers resulted in wet cardboard boxes underneath the cover.

Figure 9. Temperature development during the experiments. For product 1a, there is an apparent discrepancy in the temperature measurement compared with its performance (destroyed). This is most likely due to differences in radiant and conductive heat transfer modes (see main text).

Figure 10. Temperature development during the experiments, with key events during the experiment indicated by vertical lines. Left column are tests performed at fire station 1 (materials 1b, 3, 6, and 7); right column at fire station 2 (materials 1a, 2, 4, and 5). Fire station 3 performed pre-tests, and manageability tests with no temperature recording, and are thus not included in this overview.

Figure 11. Throwing covers over the ‘pallet tower’ representing an altar.

Figure 12. Example of ‘press marks’ on the painted surface touching the textile cover.