MATERIALS TESTING CANADA INC.

www.na.bodycote-mt.com

August 24, 2005

** ** ** **

Attention: Mr. Re: Comparison between U.S. and Canadian Tunnel test methods. Dear Sir, This is in response to your request for a comment regarding the expected test results for a product previously tested in accordance with the American tunnel test method (ASTM E 84), if the same product was subjected to the Canadian tunnel test protocol (CAN/ULC-S102). Before we address the issue, a brief history and description of the two test methods is in order. The 25 foot tunnel, otherwise known as the "Steiner Tunnel", was originally developed in the U.S. in 1943 at Underwriter's Laboratories in Chicago. Through the years the test has become widely adopted by the various standards writing bodies in the USA and Canada. In the U.S. the test is designated as ASTM E 84 (UL 723, NFPA 255) and in Canada as CAN/ULC-S102. Both refer to a ceiling-mounted configuration. In Canada an additional floormounted configuration (CAN/ULC-S102.2) has been developed for flooring and other miscellaneous materials not appropriate for ceiling testing. The two tunnels (E 84 & S102) are identical dimensionally and are run under nominally the same operating conditions: burners at 5000 Btu/min for 10 minutes and a linear air velocity of 240 ft/min. The main structural difference lies in the method of achieving air turbulence (necessary to ensure fuel/air mixing along the tunnel). In E 84 this turbulence is achieved by placing six bricks alternately along the inside of the tunnel. In S102, the turbulence is achieved by virtue of window recesses. In other words, E 84 has six bricks and flush windows, S102 has no bricks and recessed windows. The tunnel test produces two main parameters: flame spread classification (FSC1) and smoke developed (SD). The E 84 test method uses "FSI" (flame spread index) to mean the same as "FSC1".

One of the main differences between the two tunnels is the method of calculation of FSC1 (FSI). After 1975, both tunnels adopted a total area formula for flame spread classification, although in 1979 the Americans decided to lower their indices by some 8.7%. Canada did not follow suit, so assuming equivalence in all other factors, Canadian FSC1's are 8.7% higher than U.S. FSI's. When comparing the results attained for products tested by both Canadian and U.S. tunnel test procedures, it can be expected that the E 84 and S102 indices would show reasonable agreement (except for the 8.7% calculation difference) since specimen mounting is identical and the operating conditions are virtually equivalent. We have observed this many times when testing the same samples to both test protocols. In summary, FSI/SD results attained from the ASTM E 84 test can be used to predict CAN/ULCS102 FSC1/SD results, or visa versa, with a reasonable expectation of correlation. I would like to point out that, due to the similarities of the two test methods, Canadian authorities having jurisdiction (Fire Marshals, Building Code Officials etc.) will sometimes accept ASTM E 84 results to qualify materials for Canadian applications. However, this is up to the individual and usually dependent upon whether the test results fall comfortably below the FSC/SD indices required for the specific application. I hope this discussion meets your requirements. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Best Regards,

Richard J. Lederle Manager, Fire Testing Services Bodycote Materials Testing Canada Inc.
905-822-4111 ext. 363 905-822-1451 (fax) e-mail: lederle.r@bodycote.ca www.na.bodycote-mt.com