COMPARISON OF FLAME SPREAD 
MEASUREMENTS USING THE ASTM E 
1321 LIFT AND A REDUCED SCALE 
ADAPTATION OF THE CONE 
CALORIMETER APPARATUS 
 
BY 
GEOFFREY MERRYWEATHER 
 
SUPERVISED BY 
MICHAEL SPEARPOINT 
 
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the  
Degree of Masters of Engineering in Fire Engineering  
at the University of Canterbury 
 
Department of Civil Engineering 
University of Canterbury 
Private Bag 4800 
Christchurch, New Zealand 
Phone: +64 3 364 2250 
Fax: +64 3 364 2758 
March 2006 

 iii
Abstract  
A full-scale ASTM E 1321 Lateral ignition and Flame Transport (LIFT) apparatus 
was constructed and compared with a Reduced scale Ignition and Flame spread Test 
apparatus (RIFT) adaptation of the cone calorimeter in the vertical position. The 
objective was to find a low cost and simple alternative to the LIFT apparatus for 
measuring opposed flow flame spread. 
 
Ignition tests were conducted using the LIFT, RIFT and ISO 5657 ignitability 
apparatus and flame spread experiments were conducted in the LIFT and RIFT. Nine 
different types of timber based products were tested for ignition and flame spread, and 
Quintiere?s flame spread model was applied to the results to obtain material 
properties, such as thermal inertia, flame spread parameter and the minimum heat flux 
required for flame spread. These materials included plywood, medium density 
fibreboard (MDF), hardboard, particle board flooring, Melamine (Melteca) covered 
MDF, New Zealand Rimu, and Beech and New Zealand grown Macrocarpa and 
Radiata (Monterey) Pine. Further limited tests were conducted on Melteca covered 
particle board, and a second brand of particle board. The materials in the RIFT were 
tried with and without preheating to equilibrium. In addition, a view factor for the 
RIFT was developed, based on earlier work for the cone calorimeter element. The 
view factor equation was experimentally tested against measured values, and the 
calculated value was consistently lower than the experimental values, with similar 
flux profile. 
 
The standard procedure is for the material to be preheated before ignition, so that the 
surface is at equilibrium. The spread of the flame front past points on the sample 
surface after ignition is recorded, and from the flame front velocity and the model by 
Quintiere, material specific properties can be derived. The lack of preheating was 
found to affect the final results, by reducing the flame spread velocity and increasing 
the scatter in the experimental results. 
 
The RIFT gives comparable results to the same materials tested in the LIFT and to the 
published literature. The results the flame spread parameter and the minimum flux for 
flame spread are usually higher for the RIFT against the same material in the LIFT. 
 iv
There proved to be an effective limit on suitable materials able to be successfully 
tested in the RIFT to those that have a minimum flux for flame spread of less than 
7kW/m
2
, with this limitation is dictated by the flux profile along the sample, and the 
lower resolution dictated by the smaller size. It is approximately equivalent to a 
minimum ignition flux of 18kW/m
2
. 
 v
Contents 
Abstract.........................................................................................................................iii 
Contents .........................................................................................................................v 
Mathematical symbols ................................................................................................xvi 
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................xviii 
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1 
1.1 The history of flame spread testing................................................................1 
1.2 Research objectives........................................................................................2 
1.3 Materials chosen ............................................................................................4 
2 The theory of flame spread......................................................................................8 
2.1 Ignition...........................................................................................................9 
2.1.1 Definition of ignition results....................................................................10 
2.1.2 Effect of sample orientation on ignition ..................................................13 
2.1.3 Effect of sample size................................................................................14 
2.1.4 Effect of pilot ignition source ..................................................................15 
2.1.5 Effect of moisture content on ignition .....................................................15 
2.1.6 Effect of Sample thickness.......................................................................17 
2.2 Theories of ignition......................................................................................19 
2.2.1 Quintiere, Harkleroad and Walton (1983) and Quintiere and Harkleroad 
(1984) ..................................................................................................................20 
2.2.2 Janssens....................................................................................................24 
2.3 Opposed flow (lateral) flame spread............................................................26 
2.3.1 Principles of opposed flow flame spread .................................................26 
3 The ASTM E1321-97a Lateral ignition and flame transport (LIFT) test apparatus .
 ...............................................................................................................................32 
3.1 History..........................................................................................................32 
3.2 Requirements of the ASTM E 1321-97a LIFT apparatus............................32 
3.3 The University of Canterbury LIFT apparatus ............................................35 
3.3.1 Apparatus description ..............................................................................35 
3.3.2 Fuel and air supply...................................................................................37 
3.3.3 Flux measurement and calibration ...........................................................40 
3.3.4 Heat flux from the pilot flame .................................................................44 
3.4 LIFT Operating Procedure...........................................................................44 
 vi
3.4.1 Ignition test ..............................................................................................44 
3.4.2 Analysis of the ignition test .....................................................................47 
3.4.3 Flame spread test......................................................................................49 
3.4.4 Analysis of flame spread results ..............................................................50 
4 The cone calorimeter.............................................................................................52 
5 ISO 5657-1987 Ignition test..................................................................................55 
6 Reduced Scale ignition and flame test (RIFT) method .........................................57 
6.1 Comparison between RIFT and LIFT..........................................................58 
6.2 Procedure for using RIFT ............................................................................59 
6.2.1 Setup of RIFT ..........................................................................................59 
6.2.2 Sample preparation ..................................................................................60 
6.2.3 Flux measurement....................................................................................61 
6.3 Heat flux and sample angle in the RIFT ......................................................63 
6.4 The effect of different element temperatures...............................................63 
6.5 The effect of changing the sample angle .....................................................64 
6.6 The effect of increasing the separation distance between the sample and 
element......................................................................................................................66 
6.7 Optimum angle of sample in RIFT ..............................................................67 
6.8 RIFT test methods........................................................................................69 
6.8.1 Ignition test ..............................................................................................69 
6.8.2 Flame spread test......................................................................................71 
6.9 Calculation of the view factor for the reduced scale LIFT test (RIFT) .......72 
6.9.1 Wilson et al, 2002 ....................................................................................72 
7 Literature on the LIFT, RIFT and lateral flame spread.........................................77 
7.1 LIFT literature..............................................................................................77 
7.1.1 Quintiere, J. A simplified theory for generalizing the results from a 
radiant panel rate of flame spread apparatus. 1981...............................................77 
7.1.2 Quintiere, J. Harkleroad, M, Walton D. Measurement of material flame 
spread properties. 1983 .........................................................................................77 
7.1.3 Quintiere, J. Harkleroad, M. New concepts for Measuring flame Spread 
Properties, 1984.....................................................................................................78 
7.1.4 Fowell, A. Interlaboratory test program on ASTM E 1321: Standard test 
method for measuring material ignition and flame spread properties. Second 
edition, November 1994........................................................................................78 
 vii
7.1.5 Dietenberger, M. Experimental and analytical protocol for ignitability of 
common materials. 1995 .......................................................................................79 
7.1.6 Dietenberger, M. Ignitability of siding materials using a modified 
protocol for LIFT apparatus. 1995 ........................................................................80 
7.1.7 Dietenberger, M. Ignitability analysis using the LIFT apparatus and cone 
calorimeter. 1995...................................................................................................80 
7.1.8 Jianmen, Q. Prediction of flame spread test results using the test data 
from the cone calorimeter. 1990 ...........................................................................81 
7.1.9 Goransson U. Using the cone calorimeter to predict flame spread, 199181 
7.1.10 Persson G. Predicting lateral flame spread with cone calorimeter, 1993
 ..............................................................................................................81 
7.1.11 Babrauskas, V. Wetterlund, I. Comparative data from LIFT and cone 
calorimeter tests for 6 materials, including flame flux measurements. 1999........82 
7.1.12 Nisted, T. Flame spread experiments in bench scale; project 5 of the 
EUREFIC research program. 1991 .......................................................................83 
7.2 RIFT literature .............................................................................................84 
7.2.1 Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. Ignition and opposed flow flame 
spread using a reduced scale attachment to the cone calorimeter. 1998 ...............84 
7.2.2 Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. Combustibility parameters for 
enclosure lining materials obtained during surface flame spread using reduced 
scale ignition and flame spread technique. 1998...................................................84 
7.2.3 Huynh, VCM. Flame spread measurements of New Zealand timber using 
an adaptation of the cone calorimeter apparatus. 2003 .........................................84 
8 Material test results for manufactured boards .......................................................86 
8.1 Medium density fibreboard..........................................................................86 
8.1.1 Ignition of MDF.......................................................................................87 
8.1.2 Flame spread of MDF ..............................................................................90 
8.2 Particle Board (Chipboard)..........................................................................96 
8.2.1 Ignition of particle board .........................................................................96 
8.2.2 Flame spread for particle board .............................................................102 
8.3 Plywood .....................................................................................................108 
8.3.1 Ignition of plywood................................................................................108 
8.3.2 Flame spread of plywood.......................................................................110 
8.4 Hardboard ..................................................................................................115 
 viii
8.4.1 Ignition of hardboard .............................................................................115 
8.4.2 Flame spread of hardboard.....................................................................117 
8.4.3 Melteca...................................................................................................121 
8.4.4 Ignition of Melteca faced boards ...........................................................122 
8.4.5 Flame spread of Melteca........................................................................125 
9 Material test results for natural timbers...............................................................131 
9.1 New Zealand Beech ...................................................................................131 
9.1.1 Ignition of Beech....................................................................................131 
9.1.2 Flame spread of Beech...........................................................................133 
9.2 Macrocarpa ................................................................................................139 
9.2.1 Ignition of Macrocarpa ..........................................................................139 
9.2.2 Flame spread of Macrocarpa..................................................................141 
9.3 Radiata Pine ...............................................................................................146 
9.3.1 Ignition of Radiata Pine .........................................................................146 
9.3.2 Flame spread of Radiata Pine ................................................................148 
9.4 Rimu...........................................................................................................153 
9.4.1 Ignition of Rimu.....................................................................................153 
9.4.2 Flame spread of Rimu............................................................................155 
10 Discussion of results ......................................................................................159 
10.1 Equipment specific issues ..........................................................................159 
10.1.1 LIFT ...................................................................................................159 
10.1.2 RIFT...................................................................................................161 
10.2 Comparison of LIFT, ISO 5657 and RIFT ignition results .......................163 
10.2.1 The effect of data reduction of ignition data......................................164 
10.2.2 Time to ignition..................................................................................164 
10.2.3 Thermal inertia k?c............................................................................168 
10.2.4 Minimum ignition flux.......................................................................168 
10.2.5
 Comparison of correlation values and measured minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q  ............................................................................................................169 
10.2.6 Apparatus and flame spread...............................................................172 
10.2.7 Comparison of ignition parameter ?b?...............................................173 
10.2.8 Flame spread parameter ?.................................................................174 
 ix
10.2.9 Minimum heat flux for flame spread .................................................176 
10.3 Material and operational differences .........................................................178 
10.3.1 Effect of preheating............................................................................178 
10.3.2 Effect of substrates on Melteca and facings on boards......................180 
10.3.3 Effect of thickness..............................................................................180 
10.4 Proposal for improved apparatus ...............................................................182 
11 Comparison of data with published literature................................................184 
11.1 Comparison of Ignition results with published literature ..........................185 
11.1.1 Thermal inertia (k?c) .........................................................................185 
11.2 Comparison of published flame spread results ..........................................190 
11.2.1 Flame spread parameter .....................................................................190 
12 Conclusions....................................................................................................193 
Appendix 1:     Procedure for operating University of Canterbury LIFT..................205 
Appendix 2:   Electrical power and current requirements for an electric LIFT 
radiant panel ........................................................................................................207 
Appendix 3:  Results of material tests ....................................................................210 
Appendix 4  Flame spread results..........................................................................222 
12.1 Summary of flame spread results...............................................................222 
12.2 Flame spread data and correlation results..................................................228 
Appendix 5   Comparison with published results in the literature ........................357 
 
 x
List of figures 
Figure 1: Lateral flame spread .......................................................................................8 
Figure 2: Minimum ignition flux .................................................................................11 
Figure 3: Critical heat flux...........................................................................................12 
Figure 4: Effect of moisture content on ignition time for redwood in LIFT and cone 
calorimeter. Adapted from Dietenberger (1996) .........................................................16 
Figure 5: Heat flux vs. ignition temperature for Radiata Pine. From Moghtaderi et. al 
(2005)...........................................................................................................................16 
Figure 6: Control volume for ignition..........................................................................20 
Figure 7:  Ignition data plot to find preheating time t
*
 (from Cleary, 1992) ...............23 
Figure 8: Opposed flow flame spread..........................................................................27 
Figure 9: Main components of LIFT apparatus ...........................................................33 
Figure 10: Schematic of LIFT apparatus .....................................................................34 
Figure 11: LIFT showing angled gas radiant panel (left) and sample holder (right)...34 
Figure 12: Standard ASTM E 1321 LIFT heat flux distribution for calibration .........35 
Figure 13: University of Canterbury LIFT apparatus with measuring template in 
sample holder...............................................................................................................36 
Figure 14: UC LIFT burner position adjustment showing rails and leadscrew...........37 
Figure 15: Heat flux variation without preloaded air regulator ...................................39 
Figure 16: Effect of preloading air regulator to minimum of 8psi on heat flux variation
......................................................................................................................................40 
Figure 17: Flux gauge and template.............................................................................41 
Figure 18: LIFT calibration profile..............................................................................42 
Figure 19: Comparison to UC LIFT calibration flux to ASTM E 1321 standard........43 
Figure 20: Variation from standard for calibration of LIFT........................................43 
Figure 21: Ignition test of particle board in LIFT........................................................46 
Figure 22: Flame spread test........................................................................................49 
Figure 23: Flame spread correlation graph ..................................................................51 
Figure 24: Cone calorimeter (reproduced from Babrauskas, 2002) ............................53 
Figure 25: ISO 5657 ignition apparatus.......................................................................56 
Figure 26: Australasian RIFT test, showing location of sample to the cone 
(reproduced from Huynh, 2003) ..................................................................................57 
Figure 27: Heat flux for LIFT vs. RIFT (both at 15 degree angle)..............................58 
 xi
Figure 28: RIFT setup ? plan view ..............................................................................60 
Figure 29: RIFT with flux measurement template.......................................................62 
Figure 30: RIFT sample holder from rear....................................................................62 
Figure 31: RIFT irradiance curve for a sample separation of 45mm, 850?C element 
temperature and 60? sample angle ...............................................................................63 
Figure 32: Effect of changing cone element temperature on received heat flux (70mm 
separation, 30 degree sample angle) ............................................................................64 
Figure 33: Irradiance for a constant 850? element temperature, 70mm separation and 
changing sample angle.................................................................................................65 
Figure 34: Irradiance with constant peak heat flux of 35kW/m
2
 and 70mm sample 
separation .....................................................................................................................66 
Figure 35: Change in heat flux with constant element temperature and angle............67 
Figure 36: Limitations for flame spread measurement ................................................67 
Figure 37: Rift used for ignition testing - rear view ....................................................69 
Figure 38: RIFT used for ignition testing ....................................................................70 
Figure 39: Flame spread along sample ........................................................................71 
Figure 40: Cone calorimeter view factor geometry (from Wilson, 2002) ...................73 
Figure 41:  RIFT geometry ..........................................................................................74 
Figure 42: Comparison of theoretical heat flux ? Equation (38) vs. measured ...........75 
Figure 43: Time to ignition for MDF...........................................................................87 
Figure 44:  Comparison of time to ignition of MDF in ISO 5657 apparatus with Ngu 
(2002)...........................................................................................................................88 
Figure 45: Critical flux for 18mm MDF......................................................................89 
Figure 46: Ignition parameters from ASTM e1321-97a for MDF...............................90 
Figure 47: LIFT heat flux profile for MDF flame spread test. ....................................91 
Figure 48: Flame spread of 18mm MDF in RIFT........................................................92 
Figure 49: Flame spread parameter for 18mm MDF in RIFT using ISO ignition data 
and 40s preheat ............................................................................................................93 
Figure 50: Flame spread correlation for 18mm MDF in RIFT and LIFT....................94 
Figure 51: Flame spread for 9mm and 18mm MDF in RIFT with low (60s) preheating 
time ..............................................................................................................................95 
Figure 52: Ignition time for 2 brands of particle board in ISO 5657 apparatus...........96 
Figure 53: Comparison of ignition times for particle board ........................................97 
 xii
Figure 54: Time to ignition for Pynefloor particle board ............................................98 
Figure 55: Time to ignition for Superflake particle board...........................................98 
Figure 56:  Ignition parameter for Pynefloor particle board........................................99 
Figure 57: Ignition parameter for Superflake particle board .......................................99 
Figure 58: Critical ignition flux for Pynefloor particle board....................................100 
Figure 59: Critical ignition flux for Superflake particle board..................................100 
Figure 60: Janssen's critical ignition flux for Pynefloor particle board.....................101 
Figure 61: Janssen's critical ignition flux for Superflake particle board ...................102 
Figure 62: Comparison of flame spread of 2 brands of particle board ? low preheat 
time ............................................................................................................................103 
Figure 63: Comparison of flame spread for 2 brands of particle board - full preheat 
time ............................................................................................................................103 
Figure 64: Flame spread parameter for Superflake and Pynefloor particle board in 
RIFT with a 80s preheat time.....................................................................................104 
Figure 65: Flame spread correlation for 20mm Particle board in RIFT with full pre-
heating time................................................................................................................105 
Figure 66: Heat flux profile for LIFT flame spread tests on particle board...............106 
Figure 67: Flame spread in LIFT for Pynefloor particle board .................................106 
Figure 68: Flame spread correlation for 20mm Pynefloor particle board in LIFT and 
RIFT...........................................................................................................................107 
Figure 69: Time to ignition for 17mm plywood ........................................................108 
Figure 70: Critical ignition flux for plywood ............................................................109 
Figure 71: Ignition parameter for plywood................................................................110 
Figure 72: Flame spread of 17mm plywood in RIFT ................................................111 
Figure 73: Comparison of flame spread with different thicknesses of plywood .......112 
Figure 74: Flame spread correlation for 17mm plywood in RIFT.............................112 
Figure 75: LIFT heat flux profile for plywood and hardboard flame spread tests ....113 
Figure 76: Flame spread for 17mm plywood in LIFT ...............................................113 
Figure 77: Flame spread correlation for 17mm plywood in RIFT and LIFT ............114 
Figure 78: Flame spread correlation for plywood in LIFT........................................114 
Figure 79: Time to ignition of hardboard ..................................................................115 
Figure 80: Critical heat flux for hardboard................................................................116 
Figure 81: Ignition parameters for hardboard............................................................116 
Figure 82: Cracking behind the flame front on hardboard ........................................118 
 xiii
Figure 83: Flame spread of hardboard in RIFT ? full preheat time...........................118 
Figure 84: Flame spread for hardboard in RIFT ? low preheat time .........................119 
Figure 85: Flame spread correlation for hardboard in RIFT......................................119 
Figure 86: Flame spread of hardboard in LIFT .........................................................120 
Figure 87: Flame spread correlation for hardboard in RIFT and LIFT .....................120 
Figure 88: Flame spread behaviour of Melteca faced board......................................122 
Figure 89: Time to ignition vs. heat flux of Melteca/MDF board .............................123 
Figure 90: Time to ignition for Melteca faced particle board....................................123 
Figure 91: Critical ignition flux for Melteca faced MDF ..........................................124 
Figure 92: Ignition parameter for Melteca/ MDF board............................................124 
Figure 93: Time to ignition vs. heat flux for Melteca faced boards ..........................125 
Figure 94: Flame spread of Melteca faced boards in RIFT .......................................126 
Figure 95: Comparison of flame spread time to point for MDF vs. particle board, with 
and without Melteca facing in RIFT..........................................................................127 
Figure 96: Flame spread correlation for Melteca faced board in RIFT .....................128 
Figure 97: Flame spread correlation for Melteca/ MDF............................................128 
Figure 98: Flame spread correlation for Melteca-MDF with a low preheating period
....................................................................................................................................129 
Figure 99: LIFT heat flux profile for Melteca faced MDF flame spread test............130 
Figure 100: Flame spread correlation for Melteca-MDF in LIFT .............................130 
Figure 101: Time to ignition vs. heat flux for NZ Beech ..........................................131 
Figure 102: Ignition parameter for Beech..................................................................132 
Figure 103: Critical ignition flux for NZ Beech ........................................................133 
Figure 104: Flame spread of Beech in RIFT with 55 second preheating period .......134 
Figure 105: Flame spread for Beech in RIFT with full preheat.................................135 
Figure 106: Flame spread correlation for NZ Beech in RIFT - low preheat time .....135 
Figure 107: Heat flux profile for LIFT tests for NZ Beech .......................................136 
Figure 108: Flame spread for NZ Beech in LIFT ......................................................137 
Figure 109: Flame spread correlation for NZ Beech in LIFT....................................137 
Figure 110: Flame spread correlation of Beech in RIFT and LIFT...........................138 
Figure 111: Time to ignition for Macrocarpa ............................................................139 
Figure 112: Ignition parameter for Macrocarpa.........................................................140 
Figure 113: Critical heat flux for Macrocarpa ...........................................................140 
Figure 114: Flame spread of Macrocarpa in RIFT with low (40s) preheat time .......141 
 xiv
Figure 115: Flame spread of Macrocarpa in RIFT ? full preheat of 436 seconds .....142 
Figure 116: Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa in RIFT.................................142 
Figure 117: Flame spread for Macrocarpa in LIFT ...................................................143 
Figure 118: Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa in LIFT.................................144 
Figure 119: Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa ..............................................145 
Figure 120: Time to ignition of Radiata Pine ............................................................146 
Figure 121: Critical ignition flux for Radiata Pine ....................................................147 
Figure 122: Ignition parameter for Radiata Pine .......................................................147 
Figure 123: Flame spread for Radiata Pine in RIFT ? low (40s) preheat..................148 
Figure 124: Flame spread for Radiata Pine in RIFT - full preheat ............................149 
Figure 125: Comparison of flame spread of Radiata Pine.........................................149 
Figure 126: Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT ? low preheat time.150 
Figure 127: Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT - full preheat..........150 
Figure 128: Flame spread of Radiata Pine in LIFT ...................................................151 
Figure 129: Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in LIFT................................151 
Figure 130: Flame spread correlation for RIFT and LIFT.........................................152 
Figure 131: Time to ignition of Rimu........................................................................153 
Figure 132: Critical ignition flux for Rimu................................................................154 
Figure 133: Ignition parameter of Rimu ....................................................................154 
Figure 134: Flame spread along NZ Rimu in RIFT with a low preheat time of 67-80 
seconds.......................................................................................................................155 
Figure 135: Flux profile of LIFT flame spread test for Rimu and Radiata Pine .......156 
Figure 136: Flame spread for Rimu in LIFT .............................................................157 
Figure 137: Flame spread correlation for Rimu in RIFT with ISO 5657 ignition ?b? 
value ? 67-90 seconds preheat time ...........................................................................157 
Figure 138: Flame spread correlation for Rimu in LIFT ...........................................158 
Figure 139: Marker pins in RIFT...............................................................................163 
Figure 140: Comparison of time to ignition for ISO 5657 and LIFT ignition test ....165 
Figure 141: Comparison of time to ignition for tests in RIFT and LIFT...................166 
Figure 142: Comparison of time to ignition for tests in RIFT and ISO 5657 ignition 
apparatus ....................................................................................................................167 
Figure 143: Comparison of thermal inertia (k?c) in LIFT, ISO 5657 and RIFT.......168 
Figure 144: Comparison of minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q ........................................169 
 xv
Figure 145: Comparison of RIFT flame spread correlation and ISO 5657 ignition test 
results for minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q ...................................................................170 
Figure 146: Comparison of LIFT correlation and LIFT ignition test results for 
minimum ignition flux ...............................................................................................171 
Figure 147: RIFT irradiance curve ............................................................................172 
Figure 148: Comparison of ignition parameter "b" in ISO 5657 and LIFT...............174 
Figure 149: Comparison between flame spread parameter for LIFT and RIFT (using 
ISO 5657 ign data for RIFT)......................................................................................175 
Figure 150: Comparison of flame spread parameter for LIFT and RIFT (using RIFT 
ignition data) ..............................................................................................................176 
Figure 151: Comparison of minimum flux for flame spread 
"
s
q in LIFT and RIFT ..177 
Figure 152: Minimum ignition flux from ISO 5657 test vs. minimum flux for spread 
for RIFT .....................................................................................................................178 
Figure 153: Effect of preheating on the flame spread correlation for Pynefloor in RIFT
....................................................................................................................................180 
Figure 154: Comparison of ignition times for plywood in RIFT test ........................181 
Figure 155: Comparison of thermal inertia of plywood ............................................185 
Figure 156: Comparison of thermal inertia of particle board ....................................186 
Figure 157: Comparison of thermal inertia of MDF..................................................187 
Figure 158: Comparison of thermal inertia of hardboard ..........................................188 
Figure 159: Comparison of thermal inertia of Radiata (Monterey) Pine...................189 
Figure 160: Comparison of thermal inertial of Macrocarpa and NZ Rimu ...............189 
Figure 161: Flame spread parameter for plywood.....................................................190 
Figure 162: Comparison of flame spread parameter for MDF ..................................191 
Figure 163: Flame spread parameter for particle board.............................................192 
Figure 164: Regulator and ball valve.........................................................................206 
Figure 165: LIFT settings ..........................................................................................206 
 
 xvi
List of tables 
Table 1: Materials tested................................................................................................5 
Table 2: Pilot flame flux to sample..............................................................................44 
Table 3: RIFT setup dimensions ..................................................................................60 
Table 4: RIFT polynomial coefficients........................................................................61 
 
 
Mathematical symbols 
Symbol Name Units 
b Ignition parameter s
-?
 
Bi Biot number - 
c Specific heat J/kgK 
C Flame spread modulus m
3/2
/kWs
?
 
D Thermal penetration depth m 
Fo Fourier number - 
h Heat transfer coefficient kW/m?K 
k Thermal conductivity kW/mK 
k?c Thermal inertia (kW/m?K)?s 
"
.
q  
Heat flux kW/m
2
 
t Time s 
t
*
 Time for thermal equilibrium s 
T Temperature ?C
 
V Velocity m/s
x Distance along sample mm 
   
? Thermal absorptivity - 
? Length heated in front of flame m 
? Emissivity - 
? Flame spread parameter kW
2
/m
3
 
? Density kg/m
3
 
? Stefan- Boltzmann constant 5.67x10
-8
 
kW/m?K
4
 
 xvii
? Angle between sample and 
element 
?
 
   
 
Subscripts  
crit Critical ignition value 
c Convective 
e Incident on surface 
f Flame 
ig At ignition  
min Minimum value 
r Radiative
peak Peak value 
s Required for flame spread 
surf Surface 
t At t seconds 
xmm Measured at the x mm position on the sample 
  
? Ambient  
 
 xviii
Acknowledgements 
 
There are a large number of people who have made this project and the completion of 
the Masters possible. 
In particular, I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and 
support in helping me to complete this project: 
 
? My parents, Beth and David Merryweather, without their support I could not 
have done the Masters. 
? My wife, Stephanie, who kept the home together by herself while I was away 
for 2 years. 
? Michael Spearpoint, my supervisor, for his help and support over the course of 
the Masters and particularly this thesis. 
? The New Zealand Fire Service Commission who provided a much needed 
scholarship, and for their ongoing support of the M.E. Fire program. 
? The technicians at the University of for their help in various ways and for 
letting me have use of the workshop for building the LIFT, with particular 
thanks to the Fire Engineering technicians -  Grant and Bob. 
? Elizabeth Young and Pauline Anderson, for help, food and coffee. 
 
This report is dedicated to my son Robert. 
 
 
 1
1 Introduction 
1.1  The history of flame spread testing 
The study of flame spread along the surface of materials is a key part to fire modelling 
and prediction of fire behaviour. It forms the underlying basis for many predictions of 
flashover and room fire growth (Cleary and Quintiere, 1991).  
It has long been recognised that the rate of flame spread on the surface is an indication 
of how quickly conditions in a compartment become hazardous. As a result, most 
building codes require building surfaces to meet minimum flame spread requirements, 
and the failure to do so has resulted in tragic fires in the past. A well known example 
is the Stardust Disco fire in Dublin in 1981, which killed 48 people. The wall linings 
of an alcove were lined with flammable carpet tiles, and the fire rapidly spread once 
they ignited. (Rasbash, et al 2004). Most of the code requirements are based on an 
index figure, based on the performance in a test. The formulation of the index, and 
what is considered to be ?acceptable? performance is largely arbitrary and of little use 
for further modelling or comparison to other standards. A typical example of this is 
the ASTM E 84 ?tunnel test? where the flame spread over a surface is given an index 
value depending on the performance of the material compared with red oak (Janssens, 
2005). Such a result allows ranking compared with other materials tested in the same 
manner, but cannot be easily compared with results from other jurisdictions which 
have different test methods, and the results cannot also be further developed to give an 
estimate of the fire behaviour when the material is in use. The wide variety of 
standards increases the cost and space required in the laboratory, and this is made 
worse by the fact that many of the tests are similar, but specific to certain materials 
and situations.   
There has been a focus on moving to standardised tests, which achieve the objectives 
of previous test standards, but which can provide data for modelling fire behaviour. 
This has largely arisen since the development of the ASTM E 1354 cone calorimeter, 
which has allowed the development of equivalency correlations to previous test 
methods.  
 
The research in this report is specifically on the study of lateral flame spread. This is 
also known as creeping or opposed flow flame spread, and covers the case where the 
 2
flame front is moving perpendicularly or against the airflow direction, so that the 
flame front does not extend over the unburnt material. The airflow is generally 
buoyancy driven flow, driven by the heat from the fire. The flame spread in this 
direction is typically in the order of 100 times slower than the case where the flame 
front is moving in the direction of the fire (Quintiere, 2002) , and hence is less of a 
concern to life safety in the early stages of fire growth.  
 
The protocol which is covered by this research is the Lateral Ignition and Flame 
Transport (LIFT) test, adopted as the ASTM E 1321 standard. It gives apparent 
material properties which can be used in modelling fire growth on a surface (Cleary 
and Quintiere, 1991). These properties include: 
? Thermal inertia  k?c; 
? The minimum heat flux for ignition 
"
min,ig
q  and the resulting minimum surface 
temperature for ignition, T
ig
  
? The minimum heat flux for flame spread 
.
"
s
q and the resulting minimum 
surface temperature for flame spread, T
s
  
? A material property called the flame spread parameter ? which will allow the 
calculation of the flame spread rate for a material, if the incident heat flux and 
material properties are known.  
 
1.2 Research objectives 
The LIFT apparatus, which forms the basis of the lateral flame spread measurements 
in the ASTM E 1321-97a standard is bulky, with a footprint of approximately 
1.7x0.9m, and requires a gas and compressed air supply for a radiant gas panel.. The 
numbers of LIFT testing facilities in the world is limited, due to the limited scope of 
the test. In comparison, the ASTM E 1354 cone calorimeter is the cornerstone of 
modern fire testing, forming the basis of much of the research into material properties, 
and hence many of the legislative requirements for materials. Within 10 years of the 
cone calorimeter being available commercially, nearly 100 were in worldwide service 
(Babrauskas, 1995). There are at least 3 cone calorimeters in New Zealand, at the 
University of Canterbury, Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) 
 3
and Canesis - formerly the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand (WRONZ). 
By comparison, Babrauskas (1995) put the number LIFT testing facilities in the world 
at 20 in 1995.  
In addition, the time for ignition testing in the cone calorimeter is significantly less 
than that of the LIFT, with the test duration approximately half as long (Babrauskas, 
1999). The thermocouple control of the cone element also give more consistent 
performance than is achievable than the gas panel used in the LIFT. 
Finally, the RIFT and cone calorimeter use smaller sample sizes than the LIFT, 
allowing more tests to be conducted with a given amount of material. 
The cone calorimeter has been shown to give good predictions of fire and test 
performance for materials, electrical cabling, compartment flashover and a wide 
variety of other parameters. Efforts to apply cone calorimeter data to modelling lateral 
flame spread have had limited success (Gorranson, 1992). 
 
Initial research at FireSERT at the University of Ulster developed the Reduced scale 
Ignition and Flame spread (RIFT) apparatus, which showed some success. This used 
the cone calorimeter as the heat source for flame spread testing, in the same manner as 
the LIFT. Application of the flame spread procedures and theory, developed by 
Quintiere (1981, 1983, 1984) in the ASTM E 1321 standard gave the flame spread 
parameter ?, not otherwise obtainable from cone calorimeter data. Further work at the 
University of Newcastle by Pease (2001) and Huynh (2003) was inconclusive due to 
the experimental apparatus. In all cases, the RIFT results were compared with data 
previously published in the literature, and not directly against LIFT tests of the same 
material. 
 
The objectives of this report can be summarised as 
? To manufacture and calibrate a full scale LIFT apparatus at the University of 
Canterbury for the use in this report, and to identify improvements for future 
research. 
? To manufacture and calibrate a RIFT attachment for the cone calorimeter and 
apply the flame spread theory developed for the LIFT by Quintiere to the 
results. 
 4
? To directly compare the results from the RIFT with the same materials tested 
in the LIFT, to eliminate a variable in the results. If the research is successful 
then this will allow laboratories with only the cone calorimeter to derive flame 
spread properties without new equipment. 
? As part of the RIFT research, the development of a view factor for the RIFT, 
previously developed by Huynh (2003), is to be continued to see if the 
shortcomings identified in the earlier research can be corrected. 
 
The results that will be compared between the two testing methods include: 
? The minimum ignition flux 
min,
.
"
ig
q  for ignition tests in the LIFT, RIFT and 
ISO 5657 ignitability apparatus 
? The thermal inertia value, k?c from the ignition results  
? The minimum flux for flame spread 
"
.
s
q  for LIFT and RIFT tests 
? The flame spread parameter, ?  
Where information in the literature is known, then the values will be compared with 
previously published data.  
 
1.3 Materials chosen  
Nine wood based materials were used in the series of tests conducted for this report, 
with some limited tests conducted on variations of these materials. Most New Zealand 
manufactured timber based products are Radiata Pine based, as this is the most 
common species grown in New Zealand. The materials chosen for the tests in this 
report were based on the availability of previously published data, particularly Huynh 
(2003) and Azhakesan et al (1998). A secondary objective was to provide some 
information on New Zealand materials which was otherwise not available.  
The thickness of the natural timbers used in the RIFT was less than the samples used 
in the LIFT due to difficulties in inserting the thicker samples into the sample holder.  
 
 5
 
Material Manufacturer  
and trade name 
Description Thickness 
(mm) 
Density of 
tested 
samples 
(kg/m
3
) 
Plywood IPL ?Tuffply? C/D grade untreated 
radiate Pine 
17 487 
Particle board 
(chipboard) 
Laminex Corp 
(Fletcher Wood 
Panels) 
?Pynefloor? 
 
Laminex Corp 
(Fletcher Wood 
Panels) 
?Superflake? 
Radiata Pine based 
flooring particle 
board.  
 
 
Radiata Pine based 
particle board.  
20 
 
 
 
20 
745 
 
 
 
673 
Medium 
density 
fibreboard 
(MDF) 
Fletcher Wood 
Panels 
?Customwood? 
 
Radiata Pine based 
standard MDF.  
18 620 
Melteca faced 
medium 
density 
fibreboard 
 
Melteca faced 
particle board 
Laminex Corp 
(Fletcher Wood 
Panels)  Melteca 
 
 
 ?Regal? pre -
finished 
shelving 
White Melamine 
faced MDF 
 
 
White Melamine pre 
- finished and 
clashed shelving 
from builders 
merchants 
18 
 
 
 
18 
681 
 
 
 
661 
Hardboard Unbranded Hardboard 
fibreboard   
5 819 
NZ Radiata 
Pine  
(Monterey 
Pine) 
 Clear grade, kiln 
dried and untreated  
16 (RIFT) 
20  (LIFT) 
425 
NZ 
Macrocarpa 
 Clear grade, 16 (RIFT) 
20  (LIFT) 
514 
NZ Rimu  Heart grade 16 (RIFT) 
20 (LIFT) 
660 
NZ Beech   16 (RIFT) 
22  (LIFT) 
489 
Table 1: Materials tested 
 
Particle board is made from wood chips held together with a pressure cured adhesive. 
It is commonly used for flooring and as a substrate for kitset furniture.  
 6
Two boards of the same nominal type were tested. Both boards are made by the same 
company ? the Laminex division of Fletcher Wood Panels and are Radiata Pine based, 
with the Pynefloor having a higher density than the Superflake board used in these 
tests. According the Material Safety Data Sheets provided for both materials, as the 
flooring material is expected to be exposed to the weather during construction, a 
different adhesive is used. The Pynefloor uses a polymerised urea formaldehyde 
adhesive (up to 15% of the board content) (MSDS Pynefloor 2004), to give weather 
resistance for up to 8 weeks of exposure, whereas Superflake uses a melamine urea 
formaldehyde adhesive (up to 13% of the board content (MSDS Superflake, 2004)), 
and is for internal use only 
 
Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) is a panel product frequently used for cabinetry. 
It is made from wood fibre, which is exploded with steam before being compressed 
with a pressure cured adhesive to form a flat, stable wood panel (Youngquist, 1999). 
The term ?fibreboard?, used in the literature is often poorly defined and the density 
and properties of fibreboard products can vary greatly depending on the end use and 
manufacturing process. While ?fibreboard? may refer to MDF, it may also refer to 
low density fibreboards, of the type commonly used for pinboards and ceiling tiles. As 
such, the material properties will be different from MDF and will give different test 
results.  
 
Plywood is made from layers of wood, with the grain direction of each ply at 90 
degrees to the neighbouring plies, and the layers are joined with a pressure cured 
adhesive. The grade used for these tests is C/D grade, commonly used for 
construction. One face is sanded and surface knots are secure or filled. The other face 
is rough and empty knots are allowed.  
Plywood can have varying properties, depending on the substrate and surface plies 
used and the presence of any voids in the material.  
 
Hardboard is a compressed fibreboard sheet product, made from wood pulp and 
fibres, which is exploded with pressure and steam, similar to MDF and this is then 
compressed using a thermosetting adhesive to form a thin, high density board 
(Youngquist, 1999), with a characteristic brown colour. It is commonly used for low 
 7
strength applications such as cupboard backs and drawer bottoms. A common brand 
name which is often used as a generic name for this type of hardboard is Masonite.  
 
Melteca consists of melamine facing on a substrate of either MDF or particle board. It 
is commonly used for shelving, kitchen cabinets, cupboards and bench tops. Two 
brands of Melteca faced board were tested, where one uses a MDF substrate, and the 
other uses particle board. 
The manufacturer of each board was different so some variation in the performance of 
the samples due to the differences of the facing material is expected.  
 
Macrocarpa (Cypresses Macrocarpa) is a member of the cypress family, and is also 
known in the US as Monterey cypress. It has the typical cypress smell to it, which is 
especially noticeable when it burns. The timber is used for boat building, furniture, 
framing and panelling.  It is known for the wild grain and knotty timber it produces, 
and can be resinous. It is prone to sparking when burning due to the resin pockets. 
 
Radiata Pine is a native of California, and is also known there as Monterey Pine. It 
forms the basis of New Zealand silviculture, making up 95% of the New Zealand 
timber production in 2004 (anon, MAF statistics, 2005). It forms the basis of almost 
all New Zealand made framing timber and manufactured wood panels. 
 
Rimu is a native New Zealand timber, although other members of the same family are 
found through the Pacific Rim. It is best known for the dramatic grain of the heart 
timber and reddish brown colour, although the other Rimu species from the Pacific, 
principally Fiji and sold in timber suppliers as Pacific Rimu, tends to be plainer and 
have a lower density. The colour and density varies between the sap wood, and the 
heart wood. The sap wood and late growth timber tends to be a plain brown and prone 
to borer infestation.  
It has been widely used for flooring, panelling and furniture making, and was widely 
used for framing until the introduction of Radiata Pine from the 1960s. 
 8
 
2 The theory of flame spread  
Flame spread is divided according to the direction of any forced or buoyancy driven 
flow in regard to the direction of flame travel. In the case of wind assisted or vertical 
flame spread, the flame extends over the unburnt area, increasing the area affected by 
the radiation from the flame and hence the preheating of the material. Opposed flow 
(also called creeping or lateral flame spread)  is where the flame is either over the 
already burnt material or at right angles to it (Figure 1)., so that there is no flame 
extension over the unpyrolised area The LIFT test, and hence the RIFT test, is 
concerned with opposed flow flame spread. The theory and principles of opposed 
flow flame spread is developed later in 2. 
 
Figure 1: Lateral flame spread 
 
Flame spread is often modelled as a series of piloted ignitions, so that as the area in 
adjacent to the flame front reaches the critical ignition temperature, then it ignites. 
This pyrolysis area is heated by gas phase conduction from the flame itself, as well as 
from the incident heat flux from any external heat source. Therefore, any study of 
flame spread will involve ignition and ignition theory to at least some degree. 
 
Historically, the study of flame spread has resulted in empirical indices, which allow 
materials to be compared with each other, for that test procedure, but do not lead to 
material properties suitable for further calculation or modelling. Such tests involving 
lateral flame spread include BS478 Part 7 and ASTM E 162 (Surface flammability 
testing of materials using a radiant heat energy source) (Hilado, 1973). These give an 
index value, based on the extent of flame spread. The ASTM E 1321-97a LIFT test is 
 9
different in that it provides flame spread theory and the required material properties to 
allow modelling of flame spread.  
 
2.1 Ignition 
The study of flame spread and the flame spread rate depends on the ignition properties 
of the material being tested. The study of ignition can be divided by the means of 
starting the ignition ? either piloted or unpiloted (autoignition). Most of the study of 
ignition for fire engineering is piloted ignition, as this is more conservative, as the 
minimum heat flux required for piloted ignition and the resulting minimum surface 
temperature is less than the unpiloted equivalents. For laboratory testing, the pilot 
ignition source is generally a spark, hot wire or a gas flame, depending on the 
apparatus design. Flame spread is a piloted ignition process. 
There are a number of models for predicting ignition under varying flux conditions, 
which are discussed in depth by Babrauskas (2003, 2001), and some of these models 
have been compared with experimental results by Ngu (2002).   
The ASTM E 1321-97a LIFT standard is based on the work by Quintiere et al (1981, 
1983, 1984) and hence uses the ignition theory developed there. Other theories on 
ignition have been developed since, which attempt to give more accurate predictions 
or address the assumptions and simplifications made by Quintiere et al.  
 
At the simplest level, a material will ignite when a sufficient quantity of material has 
pyrolised to reach the lower flammable limit, and in the case of a piloted ignition, a 
suitable ignition source is available. Using the pyrolysis of the material as an ignition 
criterion is often not practical, particularly for design purposes. More desirable is a 
value for the incident heat flux or a temperature at which the item will not ignite, and 
hence the fire will no longer spread.  
To achieve this objective, ignition theory can be divided into several areas, depending 
on the material properties and thickness. Much ignition theory is based on the concept 
of heat transfer to and from a quasi steady control volume. The final outcome is a 
function of the material thickness. At one extreme, a thin material can be effectively 
at constant temperature throughout and so the temperature from the rear face away 
from an incident heat flux is the same as the front. The resulting temperature rise, and 
 10
hence time to ignition, can be calculated from the material properties and heat transfer 
boundary conditions. 
At the other extreme is a ?thick? material, where there is no heat loss from the back of 
the sample. The development of the ignition theory Quintiere and Harkleroad (1983) 
which forms the basis of the LIFT test, given later in this report, is based on 
?thermally thick? heat transfer.  
2.1.1 Definition of ignition results 
There are some similar but confusing outcomes from ignition tests, regardless which 
ignition theory is used. A common requirement is to find the lowest heat flux level at 
which ignition will occur. Based on this, the likelihood of an item made from that 
material igniting as a result of the radiant heat flux can be calculated. This forms the 
basis of much of the legislation limiting heat flux from fires across property 
boundaries (Babrauskas, 2003) 
There are 2 ?lowest? heat flux from ignition test data - the minimum heat flux for 
ignition (
"
min,
.
ig
q ) and the critical heat flux (
"
.
crit
q ), and it is important not to confuse the 
terms. 
Minimum ignition flux 
The minimum heat flux for ignition is the lowest level at which the material will 
ignite within some time limit, and this varies depending on the requirements of the  
test protocol. It is found by a series of ignition tests, until the sample will no longer 
ignite within the allowed time limit, and so the plot of the time to ignition vs. the 
incident heat flux asymptotes to the minimum ignition flux. The value for 
"
min,
.
ig
q  is 
found by the average of the highest level where there is no ignition, and the lowest 
level that caused ignition within the allowable time, e.g. the ASTM E 1321-97a test 
standard calls for this value to be found by bracketing to within ?2kW/m
2
.  
 
 11
 
Figure 2: Minimum ignition flux 
 
Critical ignition flux 
Unlike the minimum ignition flux, the critical ignition flux is found by correlation, 
rather than as an experimental value, and different ignition theories can give different 
results. It is the theoretical lowest flux which will cause ignition, given an infinitely 
long time. Implicit is that the material properties do not change significantly during 
that time.  
Quintiere?s model assumed a thermally thick material, whereby there is no heat loss 
out of the material through the back of the sample, and the material behaves like an 
inert solid with no thermal decomposition or reaction. Plotting the ignition flux 
against (1/?(time to ignition)) and fitting a straight line to the data ( 
Figure 3) gives the critical heat flux at the intercept at the x- axis. 
"
min,
.
ig
q
 
Time to 
ignition 
(s) 
Heat flux (kW/m
2
)
 12
 
Figure 3: Critical heat flux 
 
An alternative thermal ignition model which gives a value for the critical heat flux 
and is also widely used is that of Janssens (1991). It is similar to the Quintiere and 
Harkleroad model, except the basis for the derivation means that the data is plotted as 
(incident heat flux) 
"
.
e
q  vs. (time to ignition)
0.55
, rather than   (time to ignition)
0.5
 as for 
Quintiere and Harkleroad. The value of the exponent for Janssens theory (0.55) 
applies if the material is thermally thick. The intercept with the x-axis gives 
"
.
crit
q  as 
above. As a result, the value for 
"
.
crit
q  is often slightly higher than that given by 
Quintiere and Harkleroad (1983) for the same data set. (Babrauskas, 2003). 
 
Thermal inertia k?c 
Thermal inertia is defined as the product of the specific heat of the material (c), the 
thermal conductivity (k) and the density (?).  
It is a measure of how easily the material absorbs energy and hence how quickly the 
temperature will rise to ignition. A material with a low thermal inertia will ignite 
sooner than one with a high thermal inertia under the same conditions and ignition 
temperature, as more energy must be absorbed to raise the surface temperature by the 
same amount.  
 
(kW/m
2
)
 13
A summary of the theories and research into the ignition of wood is given by 
Babrauskas (2001, 2003). Seven different ignition theories, including the Quintiere 
and Harkleroad model used in the LIFT standard and that of Janssens, are compared 
experimentally by Ngu (2002).  
 
2.1.2 Effect of sample orientation on ignition 
. The ASTM E 1321 LIFT test uses an ignition test where the sample is held in the 
vertical plane, whereas the conventional cone calorimeter and ISO 5657 ? 1986 test 
for ignition of samples subjected to thermal irradiance uses a sample in the horizontal 
orientation. The detail of each test apparatus is discussed later in this report.  It is 
anticipated that the ignition tests for the RIFT will generally use the horizontal 
orientation in the ISO 5657 ignition testing apparatus or the cone calorimeter, 
although ignition tests were conducted in the RIFT in the vertical position, in order to 
compare the results.  
 
Shields, Silcock and Murray (1993) did extensive work on the ISO 5657 ignition 
apparatus in various orientations, and compared the results to the cone calorimeter. 
The ISO 5657 apparatus used the ?nodding? gas pilot flame applied at 4 second 
intervals (Babrauskas, 2003), rather than the spark ignition used in this report, and the 
time to ignition for the cone calorimeter and the ISO 5657 apparatus was similar, 
allowing for the margin of error due to the interval of the nodding gas pilot ignition 
system. Ignition times were similar for horizontal and vertical orientation, for heat 
fluxes between 50-70kW/m
2
, but at lower flux levels (down to 20kW/m
2
), there was 
significant difference with orientation, with vertical samples taking longer to ignite, 
and inverted samples several times longer still.  
Babrauskas (2003) notes that the original version of the apparatus developed by the 
Experimental Building Station (now CSIRO) in Australia had provision for both the 
gas ignition system and an electric spark ignition system. 
Dietenberger (1996) found that the time to ignition for samples in the cone 
calorimeter, with a horizontal sample, was less than that for the LIFT. This is shown 
in Figure 4, where the results for the ignition in the cone calorimeter are in the 
horizontal position, and the others are from the LIFT in the vertical position.  
 
 14
2.1.3 Effect of sample size 
The size of the sample can have an effect on the time to ignition, particularly in the 
vertical orientation. The main difference as the sample height increases is the 
thickening of the boundary layer and hence the convection coefficient. The main 
source of heat loss from the sample face is convection, which is proportional to (the 
height of the sample )
1/4
. (Babrauskas, 2003) 
 15
2.1.4 Effect of pilot ignition source 
The pilot source and type is recognised as a source of error in ignition testing. The 
error can come from the pilot itself, or the manner in which it is applied, where a 
directly impinging pilot flame will cause ignition sooner than one which is remote 
from the sample. Similarly, if a gas flame is used, and the pilot flame is sufficiently 
large, the heat flux from the pilot flame can lead to a local heat flux which is higher 
than the nominal value. Similarly, if the pilot source is to far away from the sample, or  
poorly placed, the ignition time will increase, as the pyrolised material will be diluted 
with ambient air, decreasing the concentration of flammable gas.  
In the original research that looked at the flame spread due to radiant panels, such as 
the LIFT apparatus, Quintiere (1981) used a ?weak? pilot flame. This was formalised 
experimentally by Quintiere, Harkleroad and Walton (1983) to give the location in the 
ASTM E 1321 standard. This is mounted above the sample with a backing flange to 
provide a laminar flow of pyrolised material to the pilot flame.  
 
The apparatus can have an additional effect. The original ISO 5657 ignitibility 
apparatus, as used by Shields, Silcock and Murray (1993) used a pilot gas flame, 
applied at 10 second intervals to the sample. This automatically introduces an error in 
the time to ignition, solely due to the resolution of the pilot flame application. The 
ISO 5657 apparatus used for this report uses a spark ignition, similar to the cone 
calorimeter, in order to reduce this systematic error.  
Babrauskas (2003) reports several experiments comparing spark and gas ignition. Gas 
flame pilots are shown to give more inconsistent results than a spark ignition pilot, 
with generally shorter ignition times, due to local heating, even with ?non impinging? 
pilot flames. Babrauskas recommend a spark ignition as the preferred pilot source.   
2.1.5 Effect of moisture content on ignition 
The moisture content of the samples, particularly wood, can have a large effect on the 
time to ignition. This will also then have an effect on the flame spread rate, since this 
is also affected by the ignition properties of the material. Dietenberger (1996) 
conducted experiments with the LIFT and cone calorimeter on redwood, with oven 
dried (0% MC), 30% and 50% moisture content. The resulting increase in the time to 
ignition for various moisture content levels is shown in Figure 4. 
 16
 
 
Figure 4: Effect of moisture content on ignition time for redwood in LIFT and cone calorimeter. 
Adapted from Dietenberger (1996) 
The effect on moisture content on the ignition temperature (and hence the heat flux 
for ignition) can be seen in Figure 5 with the ignition temperature increasing with the 
moisture content.  
 
Figure 5: Heat flux vs. ignition temperature for Radiata Pine. From Moghtaderi et. al (2005) 
 
Of greater importance to this report, Babrauskas notes that changes in moisture 
content of timber at room equilibrium do not make a significant difference to ignition 
 17
time (Babrauskas, 2001) and that differences in ignition times for timber moisture 
contents between 0-12% MC is lost in the data scatter.  
 
2.1.6 Effect of Sample thickness 
The thickness of the material affects the time to ignition as it affects the heat loss 
through the rear of the sample. At one extreme, the material is ?thermally thin?, so 
that the rear of the sample is effectively at the same temperature as the radiated face. 
The temperature of the sample then depends on the boundary conditions of both the 
front and rear face, for example if the face is insulated or under natural or forced air 
flow. At the other extreme, the material is ?thermally thick?, where the thickness of 
the material is such that there is no thermal penetration to the rear of the sample and 
hence no heat loss from the rear face. Some ignition theories for predicting the time to 
ignition, such as those used to develop the protocol for the ASTM LIFT test require 
that the material is thermally thick.  
While materials over 1mm in thickness are generally thermally thick or thermally 
indeterminate, it depends on the flux level and preheating time. (Babrauskas, 2003). A 
lower flux level will give a longer time until the ignition temperature is reached, 
leading to greater thermal penetration.  Hence, all materials behave as thermally thick 
for high heat fluxes with a correspondingly short ignition time, but increasingly 
behave as thermally thin at lower flux levels and longer ignition times.  
 The time for thermal penetration to depth D is given by Karlsson and Quintiere, 
(2000) as 
?4
2
D
t
p
=
(1) 
 
Where  ? is the thermal diffusivity.  
c
k
?
? =
(2) 
 
 
The problem with using Equation (1) to define the minimum thickness is that the 
properties used to calculate the thermal penetration depth and time are unknown and 
derived from the ignition test. 
 18
For wood products, Babrauskas (2003) summarises many of the findings into this 
area. For wood products, a rule-of-thumb for the thermal depth D is given by 
Equation (3)  with a comment that several exceptions have been found.  
 
"
.
6.0
500
e
q
D ?
=
(3) 
 
As the ignition and flame spread theory for the LIFT standard is based on materials 
being thermally thick, then the thickness of the materials should be chosen to be 
thermally thick. The ASTM E 1321-97a standard (section X.1.1.1) notes that 
materials in this category are typically 2-5mm thick, and where the material is less 
than this,  the results apply to the facing and substrate combination as the substrate 
can have a significant effect on the ignition and flame spread results.  
 19
 
2.2 Theories of ignition 
A large number of ignition theories have been developed, in order to predict the 
likelihood and time to ignition of materials, with varying degrees of complexity. Two 
common ones which can give the material properties for use in the flame spread 
model are outlined in the following sections. 
 
The problem of ignition can be treated as a heating problem, with a surface receiving 
radiation, and losing heat via radiation and convection from the surface (Figure 6), 
and solving as an energy balance. This also assumes that reactions within the material 
or on the surface are not significant. This may not always be true if, for example, the 
production of smoke or water vapour interferes with the received radiation, or alters 
the material properties. 
For an inert solid, an approximate solution is possible for the heat transfer to and from 
the surface, given in equation (4) (Babrauskas, 2003): 
 
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?=?
?
ck
th
erfc
ck
th
h
q
TT
igig
e
ig
?
?
?
?
22
.
exp1
"
(4) 
 
 
Where h is the effective linearised heat transfer coefficient, with both radiative and 
convection components and ? is the surface absorptivity.  The radiation losses are 
proportional to T
4
 and hence a linearised heat transfer coefficient can only be accurate 
over a short range.  
 
 20
 
Figure 6: Control volume for ignition 
 
Babrauskas (2003) notes that the application of Equation (4) is difficult, as there are 
practical difficulties in experimentally calculating the values. It is mathematically 
complex, and the Gaussian error function complement (erfc) is prone to rounding 
error when multiplied with the exponent value. 
The ignition temperature at ignition is difficult to measure and there is a wide 
variation in values. Babrauskas (2001) lists a summary of values obtained by various 
methods, and these range from 228?C to 420?C. The value observed are dependent on 
the apparatus, orientation, flux level and measurement method (Fangrat et al, 1997). 
Generally the heat flux is known or more easily measured than the surface 
temperature at ignition, so any solution should not rely on the ignition temperature for 
the final result.  
 
2.2.1 Quintiere, Harkleroad and Walton (1983) and Quintiere and 
Harkleroad (1984) 
 
The ignition theory developed by Quintiere, Harkleroad and Walton (1983) and 
further developed by Quintiere and Harkleroad (1984) forms the basis for the ignition 
tests in the ASTM E 1321 LIFT ignition tests, and the basis for the material properties 
Incident heat flux 
"
.
e
q  
Heat conducted and 
radiated away from 
surface 
Depth of control volume D 
 21
used in the flame spread part of the test. It is based on an energy balance into a control 
volume for an infinite 1 dimensional slab (Figure 6). 
Some assumptions are made: 
? The material under test is modelled as an inert, grey body. 
? The temperature in the control volume increases under the received heat flux 
until it reaches the ignition temperature (T
ig
)., at which point it ignites 
? More generally, the sample is assumed to be ?well behaved? with 
homogeneous properties, unaffected by the temperature increase to ignition, 
and the surface does not melt or blister.  
 
The material is assumed to ignite once the surface temperature (T
surf
)
 
reaches the 
minimum temperature for piloted ignition (T
ig
), and this temperature increase is due to 
the increase from the external flux and the flame heat flux, i.e.: 
fesurfig
TTTT ?+?= -
(5) 
 
Taking an energy balance on the control volume, the minimum heat flux to raise the 
temperature of the surface to the ignition temperature is: 
)()()(
44
"
min,
.
???
???+?= TThTTTThq
igsurfsurfcig
??
(6) 
 
Where h = linearised heat transfer coefficient, including the radiation component, and 
the emissivity ? = 1, as the surface chars before ignition.  
The surface temperature required for ignition can be calculated from Equation (6) if a 
heat transfer coefficient h is known. Experiments by Quintiere, Harkleroad and 
Walton (1983) showed the heat transfer coefficient was relatively constant across the 
temperature range of materials commonly tested in the LIFT at 15 kW/m
2
K. Further 
work by Dietenberger (1995) showed that in fact the heat transfer coefficient varied 
along the sample, and that 15 kW/m
2
K was a simplification. As the surface 
temperature of the sample varies with position, due to the varying heat flux levels, the 
heat transfer coefficient will also vary as well. This is further complicated by the 
effect of the gas fired radiant panel in the LIFT, which provides a turbulent flow due 
to burning gas from the panel (Babrauskas, 2003).  
 
 22
Treating the control volume as a semi infinite, thermally thick solid with one 
dimensional heat flow into the solid gives the Newtonian heating equation in Equation 
(4), rewritten by Quintiere et al (1983) as Equation (7) - Equation (9) for the surface 
temperature at ignition, where the absorptivity ? in Equation (4) is assumed to be 
equal to 1. 
 
haterfcatqTTT
f
xe
ige
/])exp(1[
"
,
?=?=?
?
ck
h
a
?
2
=
(7) 
 
 
or 
htFqTTT
f
xe
ige
/)(
"
.
,
=?=?
?
(8) 
 
 
Where F(t) is the time transient term 
)()exp(1)( aterfcattF ?=
(9) 
 
As the time the sample is exposed to the external flux increases, then the time 
transient term F(t) tends to zero as the material surface approaches equilibrium.  
From ignition tests (Cleary, 1992) the time transient F(t) is related to the flux levels: 
?
?
?
==
1
)(
"
.
"
min.
.
tb
tF
q
q
e
ig
*
*
tt
tt
?
?
(10) 
 
 
The thermal equilibrium time t
*
 is calculated from the ignition data, where a plot of 
the ratio of the (minimum heat flux for ignition   
"
min.
.
ig
q  / incident heat flux  
"
.
e
q ) 
versus (time to ignition)
0.5
 (Figure 7).  
 
 
 
 23
 
Figure 7:  Ignition data plot to find preheating time t
*
 (from Cleary, 1992) 
 
As the time t increases then )(tF  tends to a value of 1 at long ignition times, shown in 
Equation (11), hence the plateau in Figure 7.  
)()exp(1)( aterfcattF ?=  ? 1 as ??t
(11) 
 
As the time t tends to 0 ? i.e. at high heat fluxes with a correspondingly short ignition 
time, then the exponential term tends to a value of 1 and as a result F(t) tends to a 
function dependent on the thermal inertia, shown in Equation (12).    
)()exp(1)( aterfcattF ?=  ? 
ck
th
??
2
 as t?0
(12) 
Hence for the period of time when t is small, then the F(t) can also be written as 
t
ck
h
tF
??
2
)( =   as t?0 or
                               tbtF =)( 
(13) 
 
Where b is the ignition parameter, given in Equation (14) and this can be used to 
derive the effective thermal inertia k?c. 
ck
h
b
??
2
=  or 
2
4
?
?
?
?
?
?
=
b
h
ck
?
?
(14) 
 
 
 24
2.2.2 Janssens 
Although the theory by Quintiere et al is specified for the ASTM E 1321 LIFT 
standard, some researchers have used the ignition theory by Janssens to derive the 
required physical properties, a summary of which by Babrauskas (2003) is as follows. 
The basis is derived from Equation (4) however the absorptivity ? is not necessarily 
equal to 1, which is assumed in the work by Quintiere. 
Janssens showed that an approximation for the F(t) term in Equation (9) is 
 
55.0
)(73.01
1
)()exp(1)(
?
+
??=
at
aterfcattF
ck
h
a
?
2
=
(15) 
 
 
 As the ignition time increases, so that t
ig
 ? ? at the critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  then 
Equation (15 ?1.0, so then Equation (7) becomes Equation (16) at 
"
.
crit
q . 
h
q
TT
crit
ig
"
.
?
+?
?
(16) 
 
And hence the effective heat transfer coefficient can be calculated 
()
?
?
=
TT
q
h
ig
crit
"
.
.?
(17) 
 
 Rearranging Equation (8) gives Equation (18) for the energy balance on the surface 
due to radiant ignition. 
() )(..
"
.
tFqTTh
eig
?=?
?
(18) 
Equation (15) and Equation (17) are substituted into Equation (18) and the common 
terms, cancel out and Equation (19) gives the time to ignition at a certain heat flux. 
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
+=
55.0
2
"
.
"
.
73.01
ig
crite
th
ck
qq
?
(19) 
 
 
 25
As a result of Equation (19), the material properties can be found with the following 
procedure. 
Using the time to ignition data for various heat fluxes, as per the Quintiere method, 
plot t
ig
-0.55
 on the y-axis against 
"
.
e
q  on the x-axis and fit a straight line to the data 
points. The value for the critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  is the intercept with the x-axis.  
The ignition temperature T
ig
 is found iteratively from the energy balance at the surface 
at the minimum ignition flux using Equation (20). 
 
)(
(
)(
44
"
min"
.
?
?
?
?
?
+=
? TT
TT
h
TT
q
ig
ig
c
ig
?
?
(20) 
 
 
The value for the absorptivity ? is specified as ? = 1 in the ASTM LIFT standard. 
More realistically, wood products are around 0.88, and typical plastics range from 
0.64 to 0.92 (Babrauskas, 2003).   
Given the ignition temperature and absorptivity, then the heat transfer coefficient can 
be found using Equation (16), and the effective thermal inertia k?c can be calculated 
from Equation (21). 
 
828.1
"
min
.
2
73.0 ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
=
q
B
hck
ig
?
where B
ig
 = 1/(slope of data fit line)
 
(21) 
 
 
 26
2.3 Opposed flow (lateral) flame spread 
2.3.1 Principles of opposed flow flame spread 
Work by Quintiere (1981), Quintiere, Harkleroad and Walton (1983) and Quintiere 
and Harkleroad (1984) led to the ASTM E 1321 LIFT test for lateral flame spread 
along thick materials burning in still air (i.e., with natural convection rather than 
forced flow), where flame spread has been modelled as a series of piloted ignitions. 
The material ignites when the preheated area reaches the ignition temperature (T
ig
), 
and the ignition temperature is assumed to be constant over the temperature range 
(Quintiere, 2002). The preheating is from the radiation of the flame of already-
burning material, any external heat flux and conduction through the material 
(Delichatsios, 1999), as shown in Figure 8. The heating from the flame is much less 
than for vertical or wind assisted flame spread, as the flame does not extend over the 
preheating area, hence there is reduced radiation from the flame to the unpyrolised 
surface. The main form of heat transfer into the unpyrolised surface is through the gas 
phase conduction from the flame front (Quintiere, 2002). 
 
The heat loss from the area in front of the flame front which has not yet ignited leads 
to the requirement for a minimum heat flux impinging on the surface and resulting 
surface temperature for the flame to spread. Without the heat flux to raise the 
temperature of the material, either from the flame or from an external source, the 
surface temperature will not be high enough to reach the ignition temperature, and 
hence there is a limiting flux for the material to give the ignition temperature required 
for flame spread. This is given in the LIFT/ RIFT test as the heat flux at the point 
where the flame front ceases to advance. The analysis by Quintiere (1981) involved a 
moving control volume, shown in Figure 8.  
 27
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Opposed flow flame spread 
 
The thickness of the material and any backing substrate can have some effect on the 
rate of flame spread and behaviour (Quintiere 2002). The ASTM E 1321 LIFT test 
requires the material to be thermally thick, whereby a thermally thick material does 
not have significant heat loss through the rear or sides of the sample, so that there is 
no significant temperature rise on the back of the sample. 
 
For thermally thick materials, the flame spread velocity V
f
 at any point along the 
sample (Equation (28) ) involves an energy balance into the control volume shown 
ahead of the flame front in Figure 8 (Quintiere et al, 1981) and the energy balance of 
the control volume can be used to give the material properties, as follows, from 
Quintiere et al (1983).  
 
The solution depends on a number of simplifying assumptions: 
? A key assumption is that the length of the control volume is small. This 
is valid for opposed flow flame spread, as the flame does not extend 
over the unpyrolised area, so the preheated are is limited by conduction 
from the flame. The length of the control volume is up to 2mm 
(Quintiere, 1981). The relatively short length of the control volume (?
f  
in Figure 8) allows the assumption that the incident flux 
"
.
e
q  on the 
sample is constant over that length, allowing energy absorbed to be 
calculated and a simple energy balance to be used.  
Unpyrolised area in front 
of flame ? length ?
f
  
Flame spread direction 
Incident 
flux 
"
.
e
q
 
Flame 
heat flux 
"
.
f
q
Heat loss 
from 
surface 
?
T  
ig
T  
Flame 
D
 28
? The temperature in the control volume increases under the received heat flux 
until it reaches the ignition temperature (T
ig
), at which point it ignites. The 
flame spread is therefore a series of ignitions along the sample ? the flame 
front is at the position where the surface temperature is greater than or equal to 
the ignition temperature.  
? The external radiation 
"
.
e
q  varies along the sample, however the radiation from 
the flame front 
"
.
f
q  is constant and independent of the external radiation. 
? More generally, the sample is assumed to be ?well behaved? with 
homogeneous properties, unaffected by the temperature increase to ignition, 
and the surface does not melt or blister.  
 
The material is assumed to ignite once the surface temperature reaches the minimum 
temperature for piloted ignition (T
ig
), and this temperature increase is due to the 
increase from the external flux and the flame heat flux: 
 
feig
TTTT ?+?=?
? (22) 
 
The depth of the control volume into the material (D in Figure 8) is equal to the 
thermal penetration, which is material dependent, and is given in Equation (23) for an 
exposure of t seconds.  The depth of the control volume is ?thin? over the time it takes 
to heat the length of the control volume from the ambient temperature to the ignition 
temperature, so the temperature of the control volume is assumed to be the same at 
any point at a given time. 
c
kt
D
t
?
=
(23) 
 
If the surface material is at equilibrium with the external heat flux 
"
e
q  due to a 
preheating period, then an energy balance on a single unit control volume D.?
f
 in size, 
moving at the flame front velocity V
f
 is 
ffigf
qTTcDV ??
"
.
)( ??
?
(24) 
 
 29
Taking an energy balance on the control volume, the critical heat flux to raise the 
temperature of the surface to the ignition temperature in an ?infinite? time is given in 
Equation (6), reproduced below in Equation (25). 
)()()(
44
"
,
.
???
???+?= TThTTTThq
igigigccrite
?
(25) 
 
Where h = linearised heat transfer coefficient, including the radiation component, and 
the emissivity ? =1, as the surface chars before ignition. Treating the control volume 
as a semi infinite, thermally thick solid with one dimensional heat flow into the solid 
gives the Newtonian heating equation in Equation (7), reproduced below in Equation 
(26) for the surface temperature up until ignition. 
 
haterfcatqTTT
f
xe
surfe
/])exp(1[,
"
.
?=?=?
?
                  ckha ?/
2
=  
igsurf
TT =  at ignition
(26) 
 
The surface ignites once it reaches the minimum surface temperature for ignition T
ig 
 
The inverse square root of the flame front velocity is found to be proportional to the 
difference between the critical ignition flux and the incident flux at that point, as 
shown in Equation (28). Rearranging Equation (24) and Equation (26) and 
substituting into Equation (22) gives Equation (27) 
haterfcatqV
ck
q
TT
f
xef
ff
ig
/])()exp(1[
"
,
.
2/1
"
.
?+
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
=?
?
?
?
?
(27) 
 
 
or the flame front velocity is given as: 
)](.)([
"
,
.
2/1
tFqTThCV
f
xeiigf
??=
? (28) 
 
where 
ff
aqC ?
"
.
/1=
(29) 
 30
 
)()exp(1)( aterfcattF ?=
ck
h
a
?
2
=  
(30) 
 
where C = a material specific constant referred to as the flame heat transfer modulus. 
 
The solution to Equation (28) requires the accurate measurement of the preheating 
area in front of the flame front as it progresses along the sample. This is practically 
difficult, given the objective is to find the properties of the material to solve Equation 
(23).  
 
As the time the sample is exposed to the external flux increases, then the time 
transient term F(t) tends to zero as the material surface approaches equilibrium. For 
this reason, the sample in the LIFT flame spread test is preheated to equilibrium 
before ignition to simplify Equation (28) 
 
The ignition parameter b, calculated from the ignition tests and equation (14), can be 
used to calculate the required preheating time t
* 
 to bring the material to thermal 
equilibrium, which is  given by Equation (31) or from reading from the ignition 
parameter graph (Figure 7) 
 
2
*
1
?
?
?
?
?
?
=
b
t
(31) 
 
As the heat flux along the sample is known, the minimum heat flux required for the 
flame to spread (
"
s
q ) is given by the location of the flame front when it self-
extinguishes. Similarly, the minimum temperature for flame spread can be calculated 
from Equation (25), by setting the critical heat flux value in Equation (32) to that of 
the minimum flux for spread, and then solving for the temperature.  
)()()(
44
"
.
???
???+?= TThTTTThq
ssscs
?
(32) 
 
 31
From Equation (27) and Equation (28), the flame velocity can be calculated. However 
it is difficult to do in practice as the length of the pyrolysis area ?
f
 is unknown. 
However, if the  pyrolysis area is assumed to be constant for a given material due to 
the fact there is no flame impingement on the unpyrolysed area, and  the other 
constants are included in a new value, then equation for flame spread velocity is as 
below: 
2
)(
?
?
=
TTck
V
ig
f
?
?
(33) 
 
Where the flame spread parameter ?  can be derived from the experimental results 
using Equation (34). 
2
)(
4
Cb
?
? =
(34) 
 
 32
    
3 The ASTM E1321-97a Lateral ignition and flame transport 
(LIFT) test apparatus 
3.1 History 
The ASTM E 1321 standards series originated from the ASTM E 1317 Standard for 
marine surface finishes and work by Quintiere (1981) and Quintiere and Harkleroad 
(1982, 1984) and uses the same testing apparatus with the addition of a mathematical 
model of flame spread developed by Quintiere (1981). The difference between the 
two standards is principally with the pilot flame location and the addition of a 180mm 
long flange behind the pilot flame at the top of the sample holder. The ASTM E 1317 
standard uses a vertical pilot flame at the hot end of the sample, approximately 10mm 
away from the sample. The ASTM E 1321-97a standard calls for a horizontal pilot 
flame, above the top edge of the sample with a vertical backing flange, so that the 
radiation from the burner flame does not affect the time to ignition results by 
increasing the heat flux received by the sample.  
The ASTM E 1317 standard also uses a thermopile in the hood to give basic heat 
release data, and this is not used in the ASTM E1321-97a test.  
 
3.2 Requirements of the ASTM E 1321-97a LIFT apparatus 
The standard LIFT testing apparatus uses a gas fuelled diffusion burner and a vertical 
sample holder, angled at 15 degrees away from each other (Figure 9). The plans for 
the ASTM E 1317, upon which the ASTM E 1321-97a LIFT test is based, were issued 
by the National Bureau of Standards and are available from the ASTM as ADJE1317 
Adjunct to ASTM1321-97a.  
 
The 155 x 800mm sample holder is angled at 15?? 0.25? to the face of the burner 
(Figure 9).  The hot end of the sample is 125mm away from the face of the burner, 
and offset from the edge of the burner by approximately 125mm (Figure 10). The 
burner is a flat panel burner 280mm high x 430mm long, with radiant ceramic 
elements and a reverberant screen. This is mounted so that it allows the burner 
 33
assembly to rotate to allow horizontal testing, although this is outside the standard test 
procedure. The rotating ring assembly can be seen behind the burner in Figure 11.  
The burner offset can be adjusted to give the best match to the standard flux profile 
(Figure 12). This gives an almost constant flux level for the first 150mm along the 
sample for use in ignition testing, and then a decreasing flux level to approximately 
2% of the peak heat flux.  
 
 
 
Figure 9: Main components of LIFT apparatus 
 
 34
 
Figure 10: Schematic of LIFT apparatus 
 
Figure 11: LIFT showing angled gas radiant panel (left) and sample holder (right) 
 The results from the ignition or flame spread tests can be observed directly or via on 
observation mirror, which is at the front of the unit and angled to look under the 
Sample 
holder 
Radiant 
panel 
Viewing 
rake 
Hood 
Burner 
rotating 
ring 
 35
burner, and this can be seen more clearly in Figure 13. A viewing rake, seen under the 
sample holder in Figure 11, allows the operator to monitor the flame spread along the 
face of the sample.  
 
The output of the burner can be varied to suit the desired flux levels by altering the air 
and gas settings. The standard calibration output, measured at the sample face, is 
shown in Figure 12.  
Standard LIFT calibration heat flux profile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
eat fl
u
x
 kW
/
m
2
 
Figure 12: Standard ASTM E 1321 LIFT heat flux distribution for calibration  
 
3.3 The University of Canterbury LIFT apparatus 
3.3.1 Apparatus description 
The LIFT apparatus used in these experiments was built in the University of 
Canterbury (UC) over a period of 5 months in 2005. While it follows the design for 
the ASTM E 1317 apparatus (Adjunct to ASTM E 1317), with the modifications 
listed for the ASTM E 1321-97a standard, there are some variations. The main 
variation from the ASTM standard is the fuel used for the burners. The ASTM E 
1321-97a LIFT standard calls for methane powered main burner with an air-acetylene 
pilot flame, whereas the University of Canterbury LIFT uses Liquefied Petroleum Gas 
(LPG) ? a mixture of propane and butane - for both burners, controlled via mass flow 
 36
controllers and a variable pressure air regulator (Figure 13). The radiant panel also has 
adjustable spacing using a leadscrew and hand wheel (Figure 14) to allow for lower 
heat fluxes for the ignition tests than the LPG fuelled burner can provide.  
 
 
Figure 13: University of Canterbury LIFT apparatus with measuring template in sample holder 
Observation 
mirror 
Mass flow 
controllers 
panel and air 
regulator 
 37
 
Figure 14: UC LIFT burner position adjustment showing rails and leadscrew 
 
3.3.2 Fuel and air supply 
Due to the unavailability of methane, the UC LIFT uses LPG and a compressed air 
supply for the main radiant panel burner fuel and the pilot flame. The decision to use 
methane for the burner used in the original research (Quintiere, 1981) and the 
subsequent ASTM standard was dictated by the wider range of the methane fuelled 
radiant panel for the ignition test which form part of the experimental procedure.  The 
spacing of the propane fuelled radiant panel used in this case can be adjusted, as the 
burner can slide on rails and the position is set by using a lead screw  (Figure 14) to 
give the lower flux levels within the limitations of the burner output.  This is only for 
the ignition tests, as the radiant panel can be used with the standard spacing for the 
flame spread tests. 
 
The use of LPG fuel for the burner is justified by the previously published work in the 
literature. LPG is a mixture of propane and butane, and propane has been used for 
ignition experiments with the ASTM E1623 ICAL intermediate scale calorimeter 
(Grand and Mehrafza 2001), which also normally runs on methane or natural gas. The 
ICAL procedure also uses a fixed sample, and changes the distance from the burner to 
alter the flux received by the sample. Similarly, in a round robin test of the IMO 
Resolution A. 653 (16) marine finishes flame spread test (also known as the ASTM E 
Leadscrew
Burner position 
adjustment hand 
wheel 
Standard 
position stop 
 38
1317 standard) which uses the same apparatus as the ASTM E 1321 LIFT test, it was 
noted that one of the laboratories used propane for the radiant panel burner, although 
this was later changed to methane. (Pauner, 2003).  
 
The propane powered radiant panel burner used in the UC LIFT has a lower limit of  
"
50
.
mm
q =
 
 25kW/m
2
 at the 50mm measuring point when set up in accordance to the 
standard LIFT spacing (Figure 10), as the burner behaviour becomes unstable and has 
uneven heating below this level. From the observed conditions during the 
experiments, it appears that a change to the gas manifold to allow a more even entry 
of gas to the centre of the gas panel would allow a setting lower than the 25kW/m
2
 
limit currently imposed, by reducing or eliminating the uneven burning across the face 
of the panel, giving a lower limit of approximately 20kW/m
2
 on LPG.  
 
The limitation of 
"
50
.
mm
q
 
 =
  
20-25kW/m
2
 for the propane fired panel of the UC LIFT is 
not generally a limitation for the flame spread tests, as the flux level is usually set to 
5-10kW/m
2
 over the minimum ignition flux, and for timber based products, the 
minimum ignition flux is usually in the order of 12kW/m
2
  (Babrauskas, 2001), and 
usually higher for ignition tests conducted in the LIFT (Babrauskas, 2003). The level 
that the panel is set at is not critical, as it is only to increase the resolution by reducing 
the step size between each measuring point, and to reduce charring during the preheat 
period.  
 
An upper limit was found of 
"
50
.
mm
q
 
 = 50
 
kW/m
2
 , due to the air supply to the burner. 
The air compressor used was unable to supply sufficient air for the burner at higher 
outputs. In trials using an additional air compressor in parallel with the main air 
supply, the burner was capable of producing heat fluxes greater than 
"
50
.
mm
q  = 
60kW/m
2
, 
but there was not sufficient air capacity to hold this level for extended 
periods.  
At heat flux settings less than 
"
50
.
mm
q  =30kW/m
2
, initial tests showed erratic output 
form the burner, where it cycled in a periodic manner, shown in Figure 15.  The 
 39
problem was traced to a combination of the air compressor cycling and variation of 
the output of the air supply regulator. Changing the air compressor set points to 
increase the running time, and adding a ball valve to allow some preload of the 
regulator to a minimum of 8psi gauge pressure significantly reduced this problem. It 
can be seen in Figure 16 that the heat flux output with the regulator preloaded to 8psi 
is more stable than without any preload.    
Measured heat flux at 50mm - no regulator preload
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200
Time (s)
q"
50m
m
 H
e
a
t
 f
l
u
x
 (
k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 15: Heat flux variation without preloaded air regulator 
  
 40
Effect of minimum air supply regulator pressure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 60 120 180 240 300
Time (s)
q"
50
mm
 he
a
t
 
f
l
ux
 (
k
W
/
m
2
)
Preload regulator
No preload
 
Figure 16: Effect of preloading air regulator to minimum of 8psi on heat flux variation 
 
3.3.3 Flux measurement and calibration  
 
Both the LIFT and the RIFT require a measurement of the heat flux at points along 
the sample face, to allow the calculation of the flame spread velocity and minimum 
flux level for flame spread. This is done by using a water cooled flux gauge with a 
template. The template is made from rigid refractory board, with holes drilled at 
intervals to suit the head of the flux gauge.  The head of the flux gauge is to be a snug 
fit in the holes, without excess clearance; 12.7mm (1/2 inch) diameter holes were used 
in the templates. The hole spacing for the LIFT template is at 50mm centres, 
measured from the edge of the flange of the sample holder.  
The heat flux gauge was bent to allow it to be clamped to the rail behind the sample 
holder (Figure 17), in order to keep the flux gauge in place and at a consistent angle 
while measurements were taken. In use, it was found that care had to be exercised to 
ensure that the head of the heat flux gauge was flush with the face of the template and 
not shielded by being inside the hole. Other work, outlined in Section 10.1, indicates 
that having the head of the flux meter proud of the surface of the template, 
 41
particularly at the cold end of the sample, will improve the accuracy of the 
measurements.  
 
Figure 17: Flux gauge and template 
For the initial calibration for the radiant panel position, the panel was set to the 
standard angle and position (Figure 10). With the burner output to 50kW/m
2
, 
measured at the 50mm position, the flux levels were measured at 50mm intervals 
along the sample template using a calibrated heat flux meter. When compared to the 
standard values, the measured values must be within 10%. The burner position can be 
adjusted by moving the burner frame relative to the sample frame to alter the offset to 
give the desired distribution and  so the sample angle remains at 15? and the gap 
between the sample (x=0mm) and the face of the burner remains at 125mm.  
  
Prior to the flame spread tests, this procedure was repeated for the desired peak heat 
flux level, so the distribution along the sample was known.  
 
The average of 3 calibration runs over 3 days is shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19. 
The flux profile matches the standard profile well, although the cause of slightly 
higher value at 350mm is unknown.  
 42
LIFT calibration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
ux
 
(k
W
/
m
2
)
ASTM standard
Calibration results
 
Figure 18: LIFT calibration profile 
 
From 600mm onwards, the calibration results are outside the 10% limit (Figure 20), 
however this is beyond the limit of flame spread along the sample for the materials 
tested, so was not considered to be important. The results of the ASTM E 1317/ IMO 
resolution A.653 (16) interlaboratory round robin comparison (Pauner, 2003) showed 
a similar level of variation at the cold end of the sample at the same reference 
"
50
.
mm
q  
heat flux. The tests published by Nisted (1991) and Babrauskas and Wetterlund 
(1999) also had this issue and adopted the same approach. Due to the low flux levels 
at the cold end of the sample, the absolute error is less than the percentage variation 
would indicate.  
Since the heat flux gauge was held flush with the surface of the measuring template, it 
records the radiative and a convective component to the total heat flux at the point. 
Dietenberger (1995c) showed the convection coefficient along the sample varied with 
position, and hence the convective component diminishes along the sample. 
Dietenberger recorded a bias up to 13% at the 750mm position for this reason.  
 
 
 43
Comparison of UC LIFT to ASTM E1321-97a standard flux distribution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
102030405060
Calibration average flux at point (kW/m
2
)
LI
FT f
l
u
x
 a
t
 poi
nt
 (
k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 19: Comparison to UC LIFT calibration flux to ASTM E 1321 standard 
 
 
Calibration deviation from standard of UC LIFT 
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample
V
a
r
i
ati
o
n
 fr
o
m
 stan
d
a
r
d
 val
u
e
 (%
)
 
Figure 20: Variation from standard for calibration of LIFT 
 44
 
3.3.4 Heat flux from the pilot flame 
The heat flux from the pilot flame to the sample was measured at the 
"
50
.
mm
q  position, 
without the main burner running. The net increase of heat flux to the sample is given 
in Table 2. The effect of any draft or buoyancy driven updraft was noticeable, with an 
increase in the net heat flux to the sample of 50%, as the flame moves away from the 
backing flange. The effect of the pilot burner on the ignition time is within the 
variation of the experimental error, and variation of the burner output, so cannot be 
considered a significant source of error. 
Average flame heat flux        0.14 kW/m
2
 
Background flux        0.03 kW/m
2
 
Net heat flux from flame to sample        0.11 kW/m
2
 
Table 2: Pilot flame flux to sample 
3.4 LIFT Operating Procedure 
The operating procedure for the UC LIFT is given in Appendix 1. The effect of 
moisture content in the LIFT test is controlled by conditioning the samples at 50?5 % 
RH and 23?3?C until the product weight stabilises so that the change in mass over a 
24hour period is less than 0.1% of the sample mass. All materials used in the 
experiments conducted in this report were conditioned for at least two weeks, with the 
conditioning room and laboratory conditions being at the lower end of the allowable 
range. No oven drying calculations were conducted to get the moisture content of the 
materials; however Simpson and TenWolde (1999) provide data for the typical 
moisture content of wood in equilibrium with the surrounding air. For the allowable 
range given in the ASTM LIFT standard, then the moisture content of the natural 
timber samples would be between 8.5% and 9.9% MC. The data from Simpson and 
TenWolde (1999) does not specifically address particle board or Meltica boards, 
where the high adhesive content may cause some difference to the equilibrium 
moisture content.  
3.4.1 Ignition test 
The LIFT test comprises of 2 parts, the first is an ignition test where the time to 
piloted ignition t
ig
 is obtained for various heat fluxes 
"
.
e
q , and the minimum heat flux 
 45
for ignition (
"
min,
.
ig
q
) is obtained by bracketing the ignition results to find the lowest 
flux which will cause ignition within 20 minutes. The critical heat flux for ignition 
(
"
.
crit
q ) is obtained by plotting 1/ ?t
ig
 against 
"
.
e
q
, and the critical heat flux is given by 
the intercept with the 
"
.
e
q , axis. The minimum heat flux for ignition (
"
min,
.
ig
q
) is given 
by plotting the time to ignition vs. heat flux and the curve will asymptote at the value 
for  
"
min,
.
ig
q
.
 
 
Samples, 155 x 155 (+0,-5)mm were conditioned before the tests so that successive 
weighings, taken 24 hours apart, did not vary by more than 0.1% of the mass. The 
readings of the temperature and humidity in the conditioning room during the 
conditioning period indicated that they were generally at the lower end of the 
allowable range of 23?C ? 3?C and a relative humidity of 50% ?5%. The samples had 
the edges and back covered in aluminium foil during the test to reduce heat loss, and 
an insulated backing board is used. (Figure 21) 
 46
 
Figure 21: Ignition test of particle board in LIFT 
 
The heat flux level at the sample face was measured using a water cooled heat flux 
gauge and the measuring template, which was fitted to a sample holder frame. The 
flux measurements for the ignition tests are conducted at the 50mm position ? i.e. 
50mm from the edge of the flange on the front face of the sample holder frame. After 
lighting the pilot burner and main burner, the pilot burner was adjusted to give a flame 
approximately 180mm long, and after the burner was allowed to equalise for 5 
minutes, the flux output was adjusted to give the desired flux level at the 50mm 
position on the flux measuring template. The equipment was allowed to stabilise to 
give a constant output prior to testing.   
The sample was wrapped with foil on the back and sides and placed with  an insulated 
backing board in a second sample holder The measuring template was removed and 
within 10 seconds the sample was slid into place and timing started.  
Once the sample ignited, it was removed and extinguished, the burner was adjusted to 
the next flux level, again using the heat flux gauge and template, and the burner was 
left to stabilise prior to testing the next sample.  
 47
A series of tests was done at varying heat flux levels to bracket the minimum flux for 
ignition to within 2kW/m
2
, and up to the maximum that the burner could deliver.  
 
3.4.2 Analysis of the ignition test 
The basis for the ignition analysis is the ignition theory of Quintiere et al (1983) given 
in section 2.2.1. 
Using the ignition data as above, the time to ignition (t
ig
) versus heat flux (
"
.
e
q ) was 
plotted. The graph asymptoted to the minimum ignition flux (
"
min,
.
ig
q
) with a time to 
ignition limit of 20 minutes. 
The (minimum ignition heat flux / incident heat flux)  (
"
min,
.
ig
q
) / (
"
.
e
q )  versus  1/?(t
ig
) 
was plotted and a best fit line through the origin was overlaid on the data. As 
discussed in the following section, values where (
"
min,
.
ig
q
)/ (
"
.
e
q )/ >0.8 were ignored 
as discussed below, if it significantly improved the fit of the data. This was a matter of 
engineering judgment as to the effect of these outliers due to the long heating times 
before ignition.  
The point at which the best-fit line passes (
"
min,
.
ig
q
)/ (
"
.
e
q ) = 1 is the square root of the 
preheat time t
*
 for the flame spread test ? i.e. ?( t
*
) 
 . 
  The slope of the best fit line 
was the ignition parameter ?b?, and this was used to solve for k?c, the thermal inertia 
using equation (14).  
 
Reduction of ignition data 
Since the behaviour of the material changes as the heating time increases, the fit of the 
data for the correlation to a straight line becomes increasingly less accurate, in 
particular for the data used in Quintiere et al?s method. The values which best reflect 
the thermal inertia are those at the higher heat fluxes with the corresponding shorter 
ignition times. For the most accurate result, some of the data for points close to the 
minimum ignition flux must be ignored. The problem is that the choice of acceptable 
 48
data points is not clearly defined, a problem that has occurred for other researchers in 
the past: 
 
?From the examples shown in Figure x1.2 of the (ASTM E 1321) standard, it is 
clear that the sloping-line segment should follow only the initial set of data 
points. Data points for large values of ?t are not to follow the sloping-line 
segment, but rather should end up fitting the subsequent horizontal line 
segment. Unfortunately, the standard gives no guidance as to how this is to be 
done. In our study, we inspected the individual data points and excluded as 
many from the high end of the time scale as did not follow the same slope as the 
data points on the left side of the graph? 
?. This process is clearly dependent on the judgement of the individual doing 
the data reduction. This means that, starting with the same raw data; two 
different operators can produce different values of reduced data.?  
(Babrauskas and Wetterlund, 1999, page 23) 
 
Attempting to define the limit for this report, based on the thermal penetration depth 
using equation (3) did not give a definite cut-off for acceptable data, especially if 
there was some scatter. In order to provide consistency, the data was plotted and a 
regression fitted to the data and the result was visually inspected. As a guide, points 
above (
"
min,
.
ig
q ) /
"
.
e
q
 
 >0.8 could be discarded if it significantly improved the fit of the 
data. This value was chosen as it encompassed the values close to the minimum 
ignition flux where the deviation was the greatest.  
The R
2
 correlation coefficient calculated by the spreadsheet for the fit of the data was 
used as a guide to what was deemed a ?significant? difference. When considering 
whether to include a data point, it is again arbitrary, but if the R
2
 value improved by 
more than 0.15 by excluding a data point, then this was deemed to be significant, and 
the value could be deleted. The difference was generally obvious from visual 
inspection.   
The choice of which data points to include can have a significant effect on the ignition 
parameter ?b? and particularly the preheating time t
*
. 
 
 49
3.4.3 Flame spread test 
 
Samples, 800 x 155 (+0,-5) mm were conditioned before the test as above. The 
samples had the edges and back covered in aluminium foil during the test to reduce 
heat loss, and an insulated backing board was used.  
 
 
Figure 22: Flame spread test 
 
Using a lead pencil, a line was scribed along the centre of the sample, in the long 
direction, with intervals marked at 25mm spacing, starting at the flange of the sample 
holder. 
 
After igniting the pilot burner and main radiant panel burner,  the pilot flame was 
adjusted to approximately 180mm long, and the radiant panel output to approximately 
5-10kW/m
2
 over the minimum ignition flux level calculated in the ignition test For the 
material being tested. The panel was left for 10 minutes to stabilise prior to starting 
the test. The flux levels at 50mm intervals along the sample were measured, using the 
flux gauge and measuring template, and then the pilot burner was turned off. 
The sample holder containing the measuring template or dummy sample was removed 
and within 10 seconds the sample holder containing the test specimen was slid into 
 50
place and the timing started. If the sample did not ignite within the preheating time t
*
 
calculated from the ignition tests, then the pilot burner was lit or the sample was 
ignited at the bottom of the hot end using an hand held flame. 
The time of ignition was recorded and the spread of the flame front was timed along 
the sample, using the reference points marked on the sample, or by using the viewing 
rakes and observation mirror.  
As the flux level is effectively constant over the first 150mm of the sample, the flame 
spread very rapidly over this section. If it was extensively charred from a long 
preheating period, then it was difficult to ignite using the pilot burner, in which case, a 
small pilot flame was applied directly to the hot end of the sample.  
3.4.4 Analysis of flame spread results 
The analysis for the material properties is given in section 2. As noted by Babrasukas 
(1995), the units used in the flame spread calculations are inconsistent. The sample 
measuring positions are given in millimetres along the sample, but the calculation of 
the flame spread parameter value (? ) requires the velocity to be in metres/second. 
The calculation in this case changed the velocities to metres/second.  
The velocity of the flame front is calculated using a three point least squares fit 
calculated from the distance and time results of the nominal point and the points 
behind and in front ? i.e. x
n
, x
n-1
 and x
n+1
 using Equation (35) to get the average at the 
point. 
3
)(
3
).(
2
2
t
t
xt
xt
V
f
?
??
??
??
=
(35) 
 
 
F(t) was calculated for each interval along the sample, where F(t) = 1 if the time from 
inserting the sample was greater than the equilibrium time t
*
. 
A graph of 1/?V
f
 on the y-axis against (
"
e
q
 
. F(t)) on the x-axis was plotted and a 
regression line was fitted to the data (Figure 23) 
 
 
 51
 
Figure 23: Flame spread correlation graph 
The lowest value of 
"
.
e
q .F(t) gave the minimum heat flux for flame spread (
"
.
s
q ), as an 
alternative to the heat flux at the point of the extent of flame spread on the sample 
during the test. 
The point at which the regression line crosses the x-axis gave an alternative means of 
calculating the minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q . Note that strictly speaking, the value of 
"
min,
.
ig
q  was an experimental result, whereas the value from the graph was a 
correlation, so some difference in the result was expected. 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
X- intercept 
Minimum ignition 
flux from 
correlation 
Lowest value is 
minimum flux 
required for flame 
spread 
"
.
e
q  
1/?V
f 
"
.
e
q .F(t)
 52
 
4 The cone calorimeter 
 
The cone calorimeter was developed by the National Bureau of Standards (now 
National Institute of Standards and Technology), part of the US Department of 
Commerce, in 1982. It was a radical departure from previous heat release measuring 
systems, and attempted to eliminate some of the problems that previous methods had 
(Babrauskas, 1993). It was adopted as an ISO standard (ISO5660) in 1992, and forms 
the basis of an increasing number of legislative tests (Babrauskas, 1992) and models 
of other standards, such as the ISO 9705 room-corner test (Beyler et al, 1999) and the 
ASTM E 84 ?tunnel? flame spread test (White and Dietenberger, 2004).   
 Conceptually, it is a simple method, but gives the ability to produce a lot of data with 
a high degree of automation in the data collection. It has a conical element, which 
gives the device its name. For conventional fire testing, a sample, generally 
100mm*100mm is mounted on a load cell, so that the mass loss during burning can be 
recorded. The sample is exposed to a heat flux, up to 100kW/m
2
, and the heat release 
rate, mass loss and toxic gas production is recorded. Further enhancements have 
included measuring the smoke production, opacity and the effect of atmosphere 
(vitiated or oxygen enriched) on the burning behaviour.  
There are a number of key features that make it different from other methods of bench 
scale fire testing (Figure 24). Most obviously is the use of the conical electric element. 
Most other devices of this sort at the time used flat panel radiant elements, generally 
gas fired. Using an electrical element eliminated the need for the fragile refractory 
ceramic tiles and gas supply, and gave a more consistent control. More importantly, it 
allowed testing to be done in the horizontal position, particularly for melting 
materials. The conical shape gave an almost constant heat flux across the face of the 
sample, yet allowed the smoke and combustion products to escape without interfering 
with the radiation from the element. 
The combustion products are collected in a hood, and sampled to measure the oxygen, 
carbon monoxide and other gas levels. The heat release rate is calculated using 
oxygen consumption calorimetry, whereby the amount of oxygen consumed by the 
combustion is measured. The heat released per mol of oxygen consumed is effectively 
constant at 13.1kJ/kg and hence by measuring the oxygen consumed, the heat release 
 53
rate for the sample can be calculated. As the sample is mounted on a load cell, the 
heat release rate can be compared with the mass loss and an effective heat of 
combustion can be determined. 
 
  
Figure 24: Cone calorimeter (reproduced from Babrauskas, 2002) 
 
The pilot ignition is by a spark gap, and the position of this is adjustable to be centred 
in the middle of a horizontal specimen, or at the top of a vertical specimen.  
 
A key advantage of the cone calorimeter against tests such as the LIFT is that the data 
collection is automatic and extensive, hence more data can be collected, the tests are 
faster and the results do not require as much judgement or manipulation. The cone 
calorimeter has successfully been used to model a variety of other tests and standards, 
giving good results for well behaved materials, such as timber products (Janssens, 
2005). Thus far, efforts to model lateral flame spread using only cone calorimeter data 
(Jianmin, 1990) have generally not been successful (Goransson, 1991, Persson, 1993). 
  
 54
While the RIFT as tested here is only concerned with ignition and flame spread, 
Azhakesan et al (1998) used the RIFT data in conjunction with mass loss readings and 
calorimetry to give a simultaneous heat release rate as part of a room fire model. 
 55
 
5 ISO 5657-1987 Ignition test 
The ISO 5657 apparatus was originally designed in 1970 in the Experimental 
Building Services in Australia, now part of the CSIRO (Babrauskas, 2003). The ISO 
5657-1987 ignition apparatus is similar to the cone calorimeter, in that it uses a 
conical electrical element, although the size and shape is slightly different. The 
element is electronically controlled via a thermocouple controller with a maximum 
heat flux to the sample of 50kW/m
2
.  
. The standard ignition method was part of the original British Standard BS 476: 1987: 
Part 13, from which the ISO 5657-1987 standard is derived. This originally used a 
small pilot flame, which is dipped above the sample at 4 second intervals ? giving a 
resolution of ?2 seconds. The ignition in the University of Canterbury ignition 
apparatus is now a spark, similar to the cone calorimeter, to give a more accurate time 
for ignition. The pilot flame apparatus, seen on the centre of Figure 25, is still present 
but was not used for these experiments, or those by Ngu (2002). 
 
The test differs from the cone calorimeter in that it uses a weighted platform with a 
counterweight (seen on the right side of Figure 25) to hold the sample against a flat 
plate with a circular cut-out, in order to provide a consistent distance from the sample 
to the element, even if the top of the sample shrinks away. The sample size is also 
larger, using a 165mm square sample, instead of the 100mm sample used in the cone 
calorimeter. In both cases, the sample is backed by an insulating board. Only a 
circular area of 150mm diameter of the sample is exposed the element, with the 
remainder of the sample shielded by the flat plate. 
 
 
 56
 
Figure 25: ISO 5657 ignition apparatus 
 
The sample is wrapped in aluminium foil. The BS476: 1987 Part 13 standard calls for 
the top of the sample to be covered with aluminium foil, with a circular cut-out, to 
prevent the plate from being soiled by residue.  
A shield is used while the sample is being placed in position, shown on the bench in 
Figure 25, which is removed and timing started until the sample ignites, or the test 
duration is over. Replacing the shield extinguishes the burning sample which can then 
be removed.  
 
 
 
Conical element. 
Spark igniter at 
rear of element 
?Nodding? gas 
pilot flame (not 
used) 
Counterweight
Temperature 
controller 
Removable shield 
 57
6 Reduced Scale ignition and flame test (RIFT) method 
 
The RIFT method is a result of research published by Azhakesan et al (1998) at 
FireSERT in Ulster, Northern Ireland. The objective was to provide an alternative to 
the standard LIFT test for spread-of-flame measurements, by using a modified cone 
calorimeter, rather than requiring the ASTM1321 LIFT test apparatus. The results 
published from Azhakesan et al (1998) showed some success. 
Further work was done at the University of Newcastle by Pease (2001) and by Huynh 
(2003) from the University of Canterbury. These results were inconclusive and 
showed a lack of resolution in the measurements. The principal problem was 
identified as the location of the sample, where the hot end of the sample was on the 
centreline of the cone (Figure 26), so only half the heat flux from the cone was 
available. The resulting flame spread was in the order of 90mm along the sample 
(Huynh 2003), and the resolution was insufficient to give accurate data. 
 
 
Figure 26: Australasian RIFT test, showing location of sample to the cone (reproduced from 
Huynh, 2003) 
The angle of the sample in the tests in Australia (Huynh 2003, Pease 2001) and Ulster 
(Azhakesan et al 1998) was at 60 degrees to the cone heater element face, compared 
 58
with 15 degrees for the conventional LIFT test, which uses a larger flat panel element. 
The sample size chosen was 100 x 350mm in Ulster, and 100 x 250mm in Australia. 
6.1 Comparison between RIFT and LIFT 
The LIFT uses a sample angle of 15 degrees with a flat radiant gas panel instead of 
the conical element of the RIFT and the LIFT burner panel size and the sample size 
are in the order of three times larger than those used in the RIFT.  
The effect of the smaller scale of the RIFT is shown in Figure 27 where the sample 
angle and peak heat flux is set at the same values for both sets of apparatus. The heat 
flux decays more rapidly in the RIFT as the measurement moves away from the 
element, due to the directional nature and smaller size of the cone and consequently 
the smaller size of the sample. .  
Comparing the heat flux of the RIFT with the LIFT shows that the potential peak heat 
flux is less (the LIFT has a peak up to 50kW/m
2
) and the heat flux diminishes more 
quickly with the RIFT. The peak heat flux for the RIFT is largely dictated by the 
available cone element temperature. A maximum temperature of approximately 
850?C was chosen in the interests of a longer element life. Increasing the peak heat 
flux level does little to increase the effective flame spread length. This is discussed in 
more detail in Section 6.3. This is due to the directional nature of the cone element. 
Hea flux distribution along sample for LIFT and RIFT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
ux
 
(k
W
/
m
2
)
LIFT
RIFT
 
Figure 27: Heat flux for LIFT vs. RIFT (both at 15 degree angle) 
 59
6.2 Procedure for using RIFT  
 
The procedure for using the RIFT apparatus is based on the ASTM1321 standard and 
follows the same methodology. The rear and sides of the samples are wrapped in 
aluminium foil and a 12mm Kaoboard insulating board is used behind the sample. 
The sample is inserted, with timing starting once the sample is in place against the end 
of the sample frame. The retaining screws at the rear of the sample frame are 
tightened to press the sample against the front flange.  
6.2.1 Setup of RIFT  
The cone calorimeter element was set to the vertical position and the long axis 
centreline of the RIFT sample holder was inline with the centreline of the cone. The 
end of the sample closest to the element was in line with the edge of the element, as 
shown in Figure 28.  
The angle and sample separation distance x
0 
was set by measuring perpendicularly 
from the face of the cone to the sample, as shown in Figure 28 and Table 3.  
 60
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28: RIFT setup ? plan view 
The standard RIFT setup is in Table 3. 
Angle of sample 60 degrees 
Separation of sample from face of 
element (z
0
) 
45mm 
Peak heat flux (0mm along sample) 35kW/m
2
 
Typical cone temperature 850?C 
Cone diameter D
cone
 160mm 
Table 3: RIFT setup dimensions 
The sample holder must be level and parallel to the face of the cone element, when 
viewed in elevation.  
 
6.2.2 Sample preparation 
The same protocol was used as required by the ASTM E1321-97a LIFT standard , 
which calls for samples to be conditioned at 23?C ?3?C and a relative humidity of 
50% ?5% so that successive weighings, taken 24 hours apart, do not vary by more 
than 0.1% of the mass.  For the flame spread test, the samples had the back and sides 
covered in aluminium foil to limit moisture loss from the sample.  
z
1
 =  D
cone
.tan? + z
0 
Corner at end of sample and 
edge of cone are in line 
z
0 
?
D
cone
 
 61
6.2.3 Flux measurement 
The heat flux measurement along the sample was conducted using a template made 
from fibre cement board with location holes at 25mm centres to take the head of a 
water cooled flux measuring gauge and this was inserted in into the sample holder 
(Figure 29 and Figure 30).  
After turning on the cone element and extraction hood, the cone element was brought 
up to temperature with 5 minute stabilisation breaks at 400 and 600 degrees, before 
increasing to the final temperature. The element was running at the final temperature 
for at least 10 minutes before any readings are taken to allow the temperature of the 
element and apparatus to stabilise. After checking that there was water flow through 
the heat flux gauge before taking any heat flux readings, the head of the flux gauge 
was inserted into the template, ensuring that the face of the heat flux gauge was flush 
with the face of the template and not inside the hole to ensure accurate readings of the 
incident flux at each point. The heat flux gauge was left in place for at least 30 
seconds to allow an average reading of the heat flux over that time to be taken before 
moving to the next measuring point. As with the LIFT, and outlined in Section 10.1 
having the head of the flux meter proud of the surface of the template at the cold end 
of the sample will improve the accuracy of the measurements due to the convection 
boundary layer. 
The flux readings were compared with the required values from Figure 31 and the 
cone temperature was altered to give the best match.  
A polynomial match to the final RIFT heat flux profile gives a 5th Degree Polynomial 
Fit:  y=a+bx+cx
2
+dx
3
... with the coefficients given in Table 4. 
a = 34.910273 
b = -0.064334216 
c = -0.0031889273 
d = 2.6422166e-005 
e = -8.0288574e-008 
f = 8.6335299e-011 
Table 4: RIFT polynomial coefficients 
 62
 
Figure 29: RIFT with flux measurement template 
 
Figure 30: RIFT sample holder from rear 
 
 63
Flux profile for RIFT - (60? sample angle, 850?C element, 45mm 
separation of sample to element
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance along sample (mm)
H
eat
 f
l
ux
 (k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 31: RIFT irradiance curve for a sample separation of 45mm, 850?C element temperature 
and 60? sample angle
 
 
6.3 Heat flux and sample angle in the RIFT 
The ASTM E 1321-97a standard test for measuring the spread of flame parameters 
calls for a peak heat flux 5-10kW/m
2
 over the minimum ignition flux (
"
min,
.
ig
q ) from 
the ignition tests. For timber based products the peak heat flux would then be between 
18-28 kW/m
2
, given the minimum ignition flux is in the order of 13-18 kW/m
2
 (Ngu 
2002).  
 
Azhakesan et al (1998) used a peak heat flux of 35kW/m
2
, whereas Pease (2000) and 
Huynh (2003) used a 60kW/m
2
, due to the different experimental setup, which only 
used half the cone width (Figure 26). The choice in the original tests of 35kW/m
2
 was 
given as the typical heat flux to walls in a fire (Azhakesan et al (1998)). 
 
6.4 The effect of different element temperatures 
The effect of changing the element temperature as a means of altering the received 
heat flux on the sample can be seen in Figure 32.  The main result is the curve is 
 64
scaled with a correspondingly lower peak flux value. The point at which the minimum 
heat flux for flame spread occurs moves slightly towards the hot end of the sample, 
with little overall difference in the overall length of flame spread, as given in Section 
6.7, due to the directional nature of the heat flux profile of the conical element.  
Effect of varying cone temperature on RIFT heat flux distibution with 
constant sample separation distance and angle
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
u
x
 (k
W
/
m
2
)
30 deg sample, 830?C element
30 deg sample, 850?C element
 
Figure 32: Effect of changing cone element temperature on received heat flux (70mm separation, 
30 degree sample angle) 
 
6.5 The effect of changing the sample angle 
The effect of a changing sample angle for a constant cone temperature on the received 
heat flux is shown in Figure 33. The decreasing angle increases the peak flux level, 
however does not significantly alter the minimum flux level or the point at which this 
occurs, due to the directional output of the cone element. 
 65
Heat flux vs distance along sample for 850 deg cone temperature, 70mm 
separation
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from end of sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 f
l
u
x
 (k
W/m
2
) 
60 degrees
50 degrees
40 degrees
30 degrees
 
Figure 33: Irradiance for a constant 850? element temperature, 70mm separation and changing 
sample angle 
 
More usefully, when the peak heat flux is kept constant by changing the cone 
temperature to suit, then the effect can be seen in Figure 34. The directional nature of 
the cone element can be seen by the location of the peak flux level along the sample, 
and the terminal heat flux, which remains relatively constant, despite the changing 
view factor.  
 66
Measured irradiance for constant peak heat flux, 70mm separation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 flu
x
 (k
W
/
m
2
)
Heat flux (15 deg angle)
Heat flux (20 deg angle)
Heat flux (25 deg angle)
Heat flux (30 deg angle)
Heat flux (60 deg angle)
 
Figure 34: Irradiance with constant peak heat flux of 35kW/m
2
 and 70mm sample separation  
 
6.6 The effect of increasing the separation distance between the 
sample and element 
 
Increasing the distance between the sample and the element should increase the 
spread of the  irradiance along the sample, giving greater resolution by allowing for a 
greater flame spread, as the minimum flux level for flame spread (
"
.
s
q ) is further along 
the sample. The directional nature of the cone element shows that this does not occur 
within the limitations of the desired heat flux level and element temperature.  
 67
Measured heat flux - 30 deg angle. 850 deg cone temp, 45 & 
70mm separation
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 100 200 300 400
Distance along sample (mm) 
H
eat
 fl
ux
 k
W
/m
2
45mm separation
70mm separation
 
Figure 35: Change in heat flux with constant element temperature and angle 
 
6.7 Optimum angle of sample in RIFT 
As the basis of flame spread measurements is to have a series of velocity vs. received 
heat flux measurements, it follows that the distance along the sample from the point of 
the peak heat flux (L
peak
) to the point where the flame spread stops (L
spread
) due to 
insufficient received flux, should be as long as possible, as shown in Figure 36 
 
 
Figure 36: Limitations for flame spread measurement 
 
 68
The profile of the full scale LIFT test allows the apparatus to be used for ignition 
testing, as there is an almost flat heat flux curve for the first 150mm of the 800mm 
sample. This feature is not required in the RIFT, as the cone calorimeter or ISO 5657 
ignition apparatus can be used for ignition testing in the conventional manner. The 
maximum distance along the sample, between the points L
peak
 and L
spread
 is when the 
peak heat flux coincides with the end of the sample, as the location of L
spread
 remains 
relatively unchanged due to the directional output of the cone element (Figure 34). 
There is no advantage to having a plateau in the irradiance profile at the beginning of 
the sample, as the requirement is for different heat fluxes at each measuring point 
along the sample; hence the optimum angle chosen between the element face and the 
sample is therefore 60 degrees, as used by Pease (2001), Huynh (2003) and 
Azhakesan (1998).  
 
 69
 
6.8 RIFT test methods 
6.8.1 Ignition test 
Previous studies involving the RIFT used either the cone calorimeter in the normal 
horizontal position (Azhakesan 1998, Huynh, 2003), or the ISO 5657 ignition testing 
apparatus (Huynh, 2003) to obtain the ignition data. Ignition tests were conducted 
using the RIFT (Figure 37) to see if it improved the correlation of the data to the LIFT 
results by having the sample in the same orientation.  
 
Figure 37: Rift used for ignition testing - rear view 
 
The ignition test used 200 x 95mm samples with the sample holder mounted parallel 
with the face of the cone element. The spark igniter was level with the top of the 
exposed face of the sample, and 13mm from the sample face (Figure 38). The ignition 
test in the cone calorimeter uses samples 100mm x 100mm, with an insulated backing 
board and holder, and an electric spark pilot, mounted 13mm above the sample face, 
and the test is generally conducted with the sample mounted horizontally. The 
 70
ISO 5657 ignition apparatus is similar but uses a 165 x 165mm sample. The sample 
holder in the RIFT ignition test was set to the centreline of the cone, and the cone 
element set to give the required heat flux, measured with a template in the centreline 
of the cone element. The required temperatures matched those previously recorded for 
this cone element when used for ignition testing in the cone calorimeter.  
 
Figure 38: RIFT used for ignition testing 
 
The sample was mounted parallel to the cone element, and exposed to a constant heat 
flux. In the same manner as ignition testing in the LIFT, cone calorimeter and ISO 
5657 apparatus, the time to ignition was recorded, and then another flux level was 
chosen and the procedure repeated, until the sample did not ignite in 20 minutes.  
The external irradiance (
"
.
e
q ) was plotted against the time to ignition (t
ig
) to give the 
minimum flux for ignition (
"
min,
.
ig
q ) where the ignition time is effectively infinite. For 
thermally thick materials, the x-intercept of 
"
.
e
q  . vs. 1/?t
ig
 gave the critical ignition 
flux (
"
.
crit
q ) 
Spark igniter 
 71
 
6.8.2 Flame spread test 
The samples were marked with a line in the centre of the face in the longitudinal 
direction, and across the sample every 10mm along the sample, to allow the flame 
spread to be measured during the test.  The distance from the end of the sample was 
marked on the sample every 20mm.so the flame progress along the sample could be 
monitored.  
The flux measuring template was removed and sample slid into place, with the timing 
started from the point at which the sample touches the end of the sample holder and 
the sample holder screws on the back of the sample holder were then tightened so that 
the face of the sample is pushed against the front flange.  If the sample did not within 
the preheating time t
*
, then a 25mm pilot flame was applied to the bottom corner of 
the hot end of the sample to ignite the sample. The time to ignition and the time taken 
for the flame front to reach each 10mm gridline, taken at the centreline of the sample 
was recorded. . 
 
Figure 39: Flame spread along sample 
 
 The test was complete once the flame ceases to advance along the sample and 
extinguishes, or it reaches the end of the sample.  
 72
6.9 Calculation of the view factor for the reduced scale LIFT test 
(RIFT) 
Some initial investigation into the view factor of the RIFT was done by Huynh 
(2003), but these were generally unsuccessful, due to the sample being positioned in 
the centre of the cone element, rather than at one edge. Huynh (2003) suggested that 
the view factor developed by Wilson et al (2002) for the cone calorimeter could be 
used to calculate a view factor for the RIFT, and that it may be more successful with 
the sample mounted fully across the face of the cone element. This has been 
investigated in the following chapter. 
6.9.1 Wilson et al, 2002 
 
Work by Wilson et al (2002) gave the heat flux received by a sample under the cone 
calorimeter as a function of distance from the cone centre, and the distance between 
the sample and the face of the cone element, given by equation (36) and equation (37) 
for the heat flux to a point on the sample. 
The nomenclature of the geometry is as listed by Wilson (2002), reproduced in Figure 
40. 
  
a distance from centreline 
dA
1 
Elemental area on the sample?s surface 
H
2
, H
4
  H
2 
= z/a  
 H
4 
= (h + z)/a 
h  height of the frustum (given as 65 mm for 
standard cone) 
q?  Local radiant heat flux on the sample 
surface (W/m
2
) 
R
2
, R
4
  R
2 
= r
2
/a  
 R
4 
= r
4
/a 
r
2
, r
4
  radii of the base and top of the frustum (80 
mm, and 40 mm, respectively) 
T  Average surface temperature of the heating 
 73
element (K) 
Z Distance from the lower base of the 
element frustum to the sample surface 
Z
2
, Z
4 
 
 Z
2 
= 1 + H
2
2
 
+ R
2
2
 
 
Z
4 
= 1 + H
4
2
 
+ R
4
2
 
?  Emissivity of the heating element (0.99) 
?  
Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.67 ? 10
-8
 
(W/(m
2
K
4
)) 
Figure 40: Cone calorimeter view factor geometry (from Wilson, 2002) 
The heat flux to any point on the sample, offset from the centre of the cone element is 
given by Equation (36) 
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
" T
RZ
RH
RZ
RH
q ??
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?+
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?+
?=
(36) 
 
 
 The heat flux to a point on the sample centre in the cone calorimeter in normal use is 
given in equation (37) 
4
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
)(
" T
rhz
r
rz
r
q ??
?
?
?
?
?
?
++
?
+
=
(37) 
 
 
where the temperature of the cone element  is the average temperature of the element 
in Kelvin.  
 
In the case of the RIFT, the separation z will vary along the length of the sample, as 
the sample is at an angle to the face of the element, shown in Figure 41. 
 74
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 41:  RIFT geometry 
 
As the sample is at an angle to the element face, the heat flux received by the 
differential element dA
1
 is reduced by the cosine of the angle between the sample and 
the heating element. The heat flux at a point on the sample is therefore given in 
Equation (38). 
)cos(.
4
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
"
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
???T
RZ
RH
RZ
RH
q
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?+
??
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?+
?=  
(38) 
 
 
The heat flux on the sample is limited by peak temperature attainable by the element, 
and this is taken to be 850?C. The distance between the sample and the element (z
0
), 
 75
measured perpendicular to the face of the element at the closest edge is used as a 
measure of the separation of the sample from the element.  
  
While Wilson (2002) showed reasonable accuracy for Equation (36) in comparison to 
measurements taken under the cone calorimeter in the horizontal position, with a 
sample parallel to the heater face, the relationship becomes increasingly less valid as 
the sample angle increases. The shape is generally correct, as shown in Figure 42; 
however the calculated values are significantly lower than the measured values.  
Comparison between calculated and measured heat 
flux for the RIFT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance along sample from end (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
u
x
 (k
W
/
m
2
) 
Measured 30
Calc 30
Measured 40
Calc 40 
Measured 50
Calc 50 
Measured 60
Calc 60 
 
Figure 42: Comparison of theoretical heat flux ? Equation (38) vs. measured 
 
The experimental results by Wilson et al (2002) showed reasonable variation between 
measured element temperature using thermocouples connected to the element, and an 
optical pyrometer, which used a wider sampling area than the thermocouples. This 
showed that there was variation between points around the cone element for surface 
temperature, and consequently a variation in received flux against the expected value 
given by Equation (38).  Visually, it can be seen from the colour when operating the 
 76
cone that there is some variation in the element temperature, with the ends of the cone 
element in the frustum in particular being cooler than the general element 
temperature. The model is also based on a smooth cone surface as it does not take into 
account the effect of the spiral element or re-radiation from the supporting elements or 
the sample holder and takes no account of the element coils. 
The view factor calculation is not required for the RIFT, which can be set up 
empirically, based on flux measurements, so no further work was be done in this area. 
 77
 
7 Literature on the LIFT, RIFT and lateral flame spread 
 
Unlike the cone calorimeter, where a significant number of papers have been 
published, little has been published on the ASTM 1321 LIFT apparatus. This is 
largely due to the more limited nature of the test when compared to the cone 
calorimeter. The cone calorimeter can be used for product comparisons, modelling 
compartment fire and upholstered furniture behaviour and other legislative tests 
(Babrauskas, 1992). In comparison, the LIFT is purely a measure of flame spread, and 
some ignition properties. Some work has been done to model the LIFT using only 
cone calorimeter data, with mixed success.  
The publications given here are most specifically dealing with the LIFT and RIFT. A 
summary of more general ignition and flame spread research is given by Huynh 
(2003), Ngu (2002) and Babrauskas (2003).  
7.1 LIFT literature 
7.1.1 Quintiere, J. A simplified theory for generalizing the results 
from a radiant panel rate of flame spread apparatus. 1981 
The basis of the mathematical model for flame spread, which forms the basis of the 
ASTM E 1321 LIFT and hence the RIFT was initially developed by Quintiere (1981). 
Although based on the ASTM E 1317 / IMO maritime finishes test apparatus, the 
derivation makes it generally applicable to any case of opposed flow flame spread 
under radiant heating, and the resulting equation is that of Equation (28). 
The requirement for preheating the material in order to aid data reduction is given, but 
the method of defining the preheating time is given as ?trial and error? by observing 
the results of the flame spread correlation for linearity. 
7.1.2 Quintiere, J. Harkleroad, M, Walton D. Measurement of 
material flame spread properties. 1983 
The work by Quintiere, Harkleroad and Walton in further developing and applying the 
theories developed by Quintiere (1981) led to the current ASTM LIFT apparatus and 
procedure. The theory was further developed to be able to calculate the preheating 
 78
time required using the ignition parameter. The flame spread theory was further 
developed and applied to particle board as an example material  
The apparatus was further modified to give more consistent results. Amongst these 
were the location of the pilot flame and the addition of a flange on the top of the 
sample holder to improve the consistency of the ignition time and reduce the effect of 
the pilot flame on the material.  
7.1.3 Quintiere, J. Harkleroad, M. New concepts for Measuring 
flame Spread Properties, 1984 
The theories developed earlier by Quintiere ET al (1981, 1983) were applied in a 
series of experiments to obtain material properties for a wide range of materials. This 
work formed the basis of the ASTM E 1321 standard. Much of the published material 
properties in the literature (for example, in Quintiere 2000) come from the results 
published in this paper. 
  
7.1.4 Fowell, A. Interlaboratory test program on ASTM E 1321: 
Standard test method for measuring material ignition and flame 
spread properties. Second edition, November 1994 
As part of an ongoing research program into the repeatability of various ASTM test 
methods, a round robin of tests of 6 materials, held in 4 laboratories was conducted by 
the ASTM, although the results for one material (particle board composite) were 
withdrawn as one  laboratory had received the wrong material. The materials tested 
were: 
? Douglas Fire plywood 
? Fire retardant treated Douglas Fir plywood 
? Composite panel 
? Type X gypsum wall board 
? Rigid polystyrene foam 
? Rigid polyurethane foam 
No detail of the raw experimental data is given, however some statistical analysis was 
conducted to give some indication of the variability inherent in the ASTM E 1321 test 
method. Of interest to this research are the results for the flame spread parameter ? , 
 79
minimum ignition flux and the other properties, which gave an indication of the 
acceptable range when comparing with other published results in the literature.  The 
results showed large variations in the results for the flame spread parameter, where 
the highest value was over 2 times the lowest value. The other results showed large 
variation, but on a smaller scale.  
 
7.1.5 Dietenberger, M. Experimental and analytical protocol for 
ignitability of common materials. 1995 
Dietenberger conducted a number of tests on wood products for the US Forest Service 
involving the LIFT and cone calorimeter, with the results published in several papers 
in 1995 and 1996.  
This report covers a new protocol for calibration of the LIFT, and recommendations 
for improving the calibration when aligning the burner to match the required flux 
profile. The use of at high irradiance level was also recommended, to reduce the error 
due to the time taken to insert the sample into place. The main result was the 
development of a function for the actual heat transfer coefficient along the material, 
given in Equation (39). 
)")(0138.09.13(
50, mme
qxh ?=  kW/m
2
K, 
(39) 
 
where x is the distance along the sample from the hot end, in metres. 
The measured convection coefficient component of the heat transfer coefficient is 
varies along the sample, and the heat transfer coefficient is significantly higher than 
the standard value of   0.015kW/m
2
K specified in the ASTM E 1321 standard at 
points closer than 650mm from the hot end of the sample, and it varies significantly 
with the panel radiant flux. As a result, using equation (6) and the standard heat 
transfer coefficient value given in the ASTM E 1321 LIFT standard, gives a higher 
ignition temperature than experimentally measured values. Using the corrected heat 
transfer coefficient calculated from equation (39) gave ignition temperatures around 
70?C less than predicted for the same materials using the ASTM standard value.  
A theory of ignition was developed that interpolated the results between thermally 
thick and thermally thin materials, to allow for the effect of thermal penetration on the 
sample. 
 80
7.1.6 Dietenberger, M. Ignitability of siding materials using a 
modified protocol for LIFT apparatus. 1995 
The effect of moisture content, apparatus and thickness of the test samples on 
ignitability were tested for typical US external cladding materials - Cedar, Redwood, 
Southern Pine, plywood, hardboard and vinyl faced polystyrene foam. A method is 
proposed to take into account the effect of moisture content on the ignitability of the 
material, in order to predict the ignition time and thermal properties, given results at 
an oven dried moisture level. 
7.1.7 Dietenberger, M. Ignitability analysis using the LIFT apparatus 
and cone calorimeter. 1995 
The ignition theory for finitely thermally thick materials with radiant heating, 
convective cooling and an insulated back face was further developed to give a better 
correlation result. It is a function of the Biot (Bi) and Fourier (Fo) numbers for the 
material under the test conditions: 
n
thinthicks
ig
e
FFT
q
q
/1.
.
)""(
1
1
1
"
"
+
+==
 (40) 
 
 
where 
?/)("
.
?
?= TThq
igigig
(41) 
 
)1/()4.068.2( BiBin ++=
(42) 
 
2
1
2
4
"
?
?
?
?
?
?
= FoBiF
thick
?
(43) 
 
1
254.01
exp" ??
?
?
?
?
?
+
=
Bi
BiFo
F
thin
(44) 
 
 81
The advantage of this theory is that the assumption of thermal thickness is not 
required, and the thermal thickness can change through the test at different irradiances 
and still give satisfactory results.  
The heat transfer coefficient equation was also developed for the cone calorimeter.  
 
7.1.8 Jianmen, Q. Prediction of flame spread test results using the 
test data from the cone calorimeter. 1990 
Jianmen (1990) attempted to model the flame spread on materials using a view factor 
calculation and material properties derived from cone calorimeter tests. Using the 
results from the ISO standards LIFT round robin test, the results looked to give a 
reasonable match, however later work by Goransson (1991) showed poor results in 
tests of varying materials. The materials tested were chosen to include as wide a range 
of properties as possible, and the materials were insulating fibreboard, particle board, 
PVC carpet on gypsum board and transparent PMMA 
7.1.9 Goransson U. Using the cone calorimeter to predict flame 
spread, 1991 
Goransson (1991) conducted tests using the LIFT to attempt to verify the flame spread 
model developed by Jianmen (1990) and had little success. The problems identified 
included the assumption in the model that the heat transfer from the flame to the 
unburnt material was via radiation, when gas phase conduction was the main method, 
and that the choice of values taken from the cone data does not necessarily represent 
the flame spread accurately.  
7.1.10 Persson G. Predicting lateral flame spread with cone 
calorimeter, 1993 
Following the work by Jianmen (1990) and Goransson (1991), Perrson (1993) used a 
numerical solution to an integral model of surface flame spread, using the 
experimental data by Goransson. Most of the data required for the model could be 
obtained from experimental results in the cone calorimeter. These included: 
? Heat flux 
"
.
e
q  along the sample  
? Preheating time t
*
 
 82
? Material thickness 
? Thermal inertia k?c 
? Thermal conductivity of the material k 
? Ignition temperature T
ig
 
? Flame heat flux parameters called 
"
0
.
f
q  and k
f
  
The flame heat flux parameters are used to define a decaying heat flux from the flame 
front on the unburnt material, where the heat flux from the flame is given in equation 
(45). 
)(exp(""
0 ffff
xxkqq ??=
(45) 
 
A recognised shortcoming was that the flame heat flux parameters are difficult to 
define experimentally due to the small scale of the heat affected area and a wide 
combination of 
"
0f
q  and k
f
 will give similar results. This is explored further by 
Delichatsios (1999). 
 
The results showed some success in the materials listed for the ASTM E 1317 / IMO 
marine finishes test, but performed poorly in the LIFT test. While the equipment is 
similar, apart from the differences in the pilot flame location, the IMO test involves a 
fixed peak heat flux of 50kW/m
2
 and no preheating time before ignition. The 
preheating was identified as the main reason why the theory did not perform well 
against the experimental results. The effect of preheating on the material properties 
was recognised by Babrauskas and Wetterlund (1999). 
 
7.1.11 Babrauskas, V. Wetterlund, I. Comparative data from LIFT and 
cone calorimeter tests for 6 materials, including flame flux 
measurements. 1999 
A key part of developing the models of opposed flow flame spread is the heat flux 
from the flame to the surface of the material. Following an earlier literature review 
into flame fluxes in opposed flow flame spread (Babrauskas, 1995) where little 
information had been found, particularly for the LIFT, experiments were conducted at 
 83
SP in Sweden on 6 materials with both the LIFT and cone calorimeter. These 
materials included 
? particle board, 
? fire retardant polyurethane foam, 
? black PMMA, 
? insulating fibreboard, 
? cotton fabric with a Kevlar liner over polyurethane foam, 
? acrylic pile fabric over polyurethane foam. 
In addition to measuring the heat flux from the passing flame front to the material, the 
report covers the requirements of the ASTM standard, and discusses the problems 
with the standard regarding clarity and definition of some of the terms, and the effect 
of preheating on the material. Some tests were done without preheating and the data is 
included, but no calculations were done or conclusions drawn, as it is outside the 
Standard requirements. The effect of preheating on the material properties was found 
to affect some of the materials, in particular the foams.  
It was found that the flame flux is essentially constant between the materials tested, 
and hence this should not be a major variant in flame spread modelling.  
 
7.1.12 Nisted, T. Flame spread experiments in bench scale; project 5 
of the EUREFIC research program. 1991 
Nisted conducted a series of LIFT tests, as part of the wider ?European Reaction to 
Fire Classification? research program, where the 11 materials covered a range of 
material properties. The report covered only the LIFT tests, the experimental 
procedure and results obtained.  
Of particular interest to this report were the tests for ?ordinary? plywood. The raw test 
data is included by Nisted, which was used to confirm the calculations used in the 
post experimental processing in this report. 
 
 84
7.2 RIFT literature 
7.2.1 Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. Ignition and opposed 
flow flame spread using a reduced scale attachment to the cone 
calorimeter. 1998 
The paper by Azhakesan et al in 1998 was the first publication on the RIFT method, 
and all the resulting work stems from it. The method is described, and four materials 
are tested ? fibreboard, hardboard, plywood and melamine faced particle board. The 
results are compared with published data for the LIFT and the BS476 part 6 Surface 
spread of flame test, rather than testing the same material in these tests. The 
conclusion was that the RIFT produced similar results to the tests and could give a 
comparative result to the BS476 part 6 test, with the flame spread parameter slightly 
higher than the LIFT results produced.  
 
7.2.2 Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. Combustibility 
parameters for enclosure lining materials obtained during surface 
flame spread using reduced scale ignition and flame spread technique. 
1998 
This publication is a continuation of the previous paper, and expands the use of the 
RIFT. Heat release rate and mass loss rate data was gathered during the flame spread 
test in the RIFT, allowing the calculation of heat of gasification and the heat release 
per unit area burnt to be calculated in addition to the opposed flow flame spread 
properties calculated in the conventional test.  
 
7.2.3 Huynh, VCM. Flame spread measurements of New Zealand 
timber using an adaptation of the cone calorimeter apparatus. 2003 
Some earlier work by Pease (2000) at the University of Newcastle in Australia to 
replicate the work of  the work of Azhakesan et al led to Huynh (2003) using the 
University of Newcastle apparatus to  attempt to derive some properties for New 
Zealand timber using the RIFT. Huynh used ignition data, which forms part of the 
flame spread analysis, from Ngu (2002) which used the ISO 5657-1987 ignitability 
apparatus. Both the work by Pease and Huynh suffered from a shortcoming in the test 
 85
apparatus, where the sample was exposed to only half the available element area, and 
consequently the results were inconclusive. A summary of this research is also given 
by Spearpoint, et al 2005. 
   
 
 86
 
8 Material test results for manufactured boards 
This chapter describes the ignition and flame spread results obtained in the tests on 
manufactured boards with both the LIFT and the RIFT.  
Ignition tests for each material were conducted at different heat flux in the ISO 5657 
apparatus, the LIFT and the RIFT to obtain the material properties required for the 
flame spread tests. The flame spread tests were conducted in the RIFT and LIFT. A 
minimum of 4 samples of each material was tested in the RIFT, with 6 samples if 
allowed by the available material. Three samples of each material were tested for 
flame spread in the LIFT. 
Some additional flame spread and RIFT ignition tests were conducted on different 
thickness materials of the same nominal type, to gauge an indication that the effect of 
material thickness may have on the results.  
As particle board is a common material used for research in the literature, two brands 
of particle board were tested in the RIFT to show the variation within a material and 
hence some indication of the error when comparing the experimental results to those 
published in the literature.  
The effect of preheating the sample on flame spread was investigated by conducting 
tests in the RIFT with full preheating, given by the ISO 5657 ignition tests, and a low 
preheating period of a few seconds.  
 
The results for manufactured board were generally more consistent with less variation 
between tests on the same material than those for natural timbers, as expected from 
their more consistent composition. The results are summarised in Appendix 3 along 
with the ignition data, and the raw data from the flame spread tests is in Appendix 4  
8.1 Medium density fibreboard 
The MDF used in these tests was 18mm ?Customwood? brand by Carter Holt Harvey 
and six samples of 18mm ?Customwood? MDF were tested in the RIFT with a low 
preheat and a full preheat time, and the same material was used in the LIFT to 
compare results. The ignition results in the LIFT, RIFT and ISO 5657 apparatus used 
samples of the 18mm MDF. The extent of flame spread along the sample is shown in 
 87
Figure 48.  Some flame spread tests were conducted on 9mm MDF to look at the 
effect of thickness on the flame spread rate and variation.  
 
8.1.1 Ignition of MDF 
MDF showed very consistent ignition and flame spread properties when tested, with 
little variation between runs. The time to ignition for MDF in the LIFT, RIFT and ISO 
5657 tests is shown in Figure 43.  
The results for ignition in the ISO 5657 ignition apparatus are compared with those 
obtained by Ngu (2002), who also used the ISO 5657 ignition apparatus to test various 
New Zealand timbers, shown in Figure 44. The ignition results in these tests are 
within the error limits of the tests by Ngu, showing the material is very consistent.   
 
Time to ignition for MDF
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
10203040506070
Incident flux (kW/m
2
)
Ti
m
e
to i
gni
ti
on t
ig
 (s
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 43: Time to ignition for MDF 
 
 88
Time to ignition for MDF in ISO5657 compared with Ngu, 2002
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 t
o
 
i
g
ni
t
i
o
n
 t
ig
 (s)
Ngu 2002
MDF
 
Figure 44:  Comparison of time to ignition of MDF in ISO 5657 apparatus with Ngu (2002) 
 
Plotting the incident heat flux (
"
.
e
q ) vs. 1/? (t
ig
), shown in Figure 45, gives the critical 
heat flux (
"
.
crit
q
) from the intercept with the x-axis.  
 89
Critical heat flux for 18mm MDF 
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1020304050607080
1/
?
(t
ig
)  
 (s
-0
.
5
) LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 45: Critical flux for 18mm MDF 
 
Using the protocol from ASTM E 1321-97a, the ignition parameter is calculated 
(Figure 46) by plotting (
"
min,
.
ig
q )/(
"
.
e
q ) vs. ?(t
ig
).  The intercept of a best fit line with 
(
"
min,
.
ig
q )/(
"
.
e
q ) = 1 gives the square root of the preheating time ?t
* 
for the time for the 
sample to reach thermal equilibrium (t
*
). The slope is the ignition parameter ?b?. 
 
 90
Ignition parameter for MDF in RIFT, LIFT and ISO5657
LIFT = 0.0468x
R
2
 = 0.9908
RIFT = 0.0529x
R
2
 = 0.982
ISO = 0.0532x
R
2
 = 0.9986
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
?(t
ig
)  s
0.5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
LIFT
RIFT
ISO5657
 
Figure 46: Ignition parameters from ASTM e1321-97a for MDF  
 
8.1.2 Flame spread of MDF 
The LIFT was set to a 
"
50
.
mm
q  heat flux of 24kW/m
2
 and the profile measured using the 
flux gauge and template, with the resulting profile shown in Figure 47. The RIFT was 
setup as outlined in section 6.2.  
 91
Flux distribution for MDF flamespread tests in LIFT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
ux
 
(k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 47: LIFT heat flux profile for MDF flame spread test. 
 
The effect of preheating 
MDF was compared in the RIFT with and without preheating the material fully to 
thermal equilibrium prior to ignition.  The comparison of distance along the sample 
against time from ignition is shown in Figure 48, where the unpreheated sample has a 
lower flame spread rate, and the extent of flame spread is less.  The lesser extent of 
flame spread means that the value for 
"
.
s
q ? the minimum heat flux for flame spread - is 
higher for the unpreheated sample. It shows that the flame front progressed faster than 
the material could heat to the minimum ignition temperature, and hence the flame self 
extinguished before the maximum flame spread distance could be achieved.  
 92
Flame spread for MDF in RIFT
0
120
240
360
480
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 
f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
o
n
 (
s
)
Full preheat
Low  preheat
Error bars = 2 std 
diti
 
Figure 48: Flame spread of 18mm MDF in RIFT 
The effect of preheating can be seen from Figure 49 and Figure 50, where the slope of 
the data fit line of the flame spread correlation decreases until the material reaches 
equilibrium, reflecting the slower flame spread rate of the unpreheated material, due 
to a lower surface temperature. Tests with varying preheating times were not 
conducted in the LIFT.  
 
 93
Flamespread parameter for 18mm MDF in RIFT (ISO ignition data)
40s preheat time
Best fit = -19.227x + 281.69
R
2
 = 0.7874
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0123456789101121314151617
1/
?
V
f  
(m
/
s
)
-0
.
5
q"
s
 
Figure 49: Flame spread parameter for 18mm MDF in RIFT using ISO ignition data and 40s 
preheat 
 
Comparison of MDF in RIFT and LIFT 
The flame spread correlations for the LIFT and RIFT are compared in Figure 50. The 
RIFT and LIFT produce similar results for both the slope of the data fit line, which 
leads to the flame spread parameter, and for the values of the minimum flux for flame 
spread. The RIFT gives a higher value for the minimum ignition flux from the 
correlation.  
 94
Flame spread correlation for 18mm MDF with full preheat
RIFT
y = -4.9425x + 120.06
R
2
 = 0.8763
LIFT
y = -4.9827x + 107.38
R
2
 = 0.8141
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s)
-0.
5
LIFT
RIFT
RIFT
LIFT
 
Figure 50: Flame spread correlation for 18mm MDF in RIFT and LIFT 
 
The effect of sample thickness on flame spread  
As a check on the effect of sample thickness on the flame spread, the flame spread for 
6 pieces each of 9mm and 18mm MDF is compared in the RIFT with no preheating, 
shown in Figure 51. This shows that for this material, the two thicknesses have similar 
flame spread results, with the 18mm MDF having a slightly slower flame spread rate 
than the 9mm MDF.  
This is expected to be due to thermal penetration of the thinner material, which is 
backed by a lightweight insulating board, allowing the material to reach a higher 
temperature at a given time than the thinner material. The 9mm MDF also had a far 
higher variation between the runs than the thicker material.  
 95
Flame spread for MDF in RIFT - 18mm vs 9mm with 60s preheating time
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
o
m
 i
g
ni
t
i
o
n
 
t
ig
 (s)
9mm MDF
18mm MDF
Error bars = 2 std  deviations
 
Figure 51: Flame spread for 9mm and 18mm MDF in RIFT with low (60s) preheating time 
 
 96
 
8.2 Particle Board (Chipboard) 
Samples of 20mm ?Pynefloor? flooring grade particle board were tested in the ISO 
5657 ignition testing apparatus, the RIFT and the LIFT. In addition, a different brand 
(20mm ?Superflake?), of nominally the same material, was also tested in the RIFT 
and ISO 5657 apparatus to compare the time to ignition and the flame spread rate  in 
the RIFT, and hence the variation between materials of the same nominal type. 
The results are summarised in Appendix 3  
8.2.1 Ignition of particle board 
As particle board is a commonly used material in the research literature, the two 
brands of particle board were compared for ignition, to see if there was significant 
variation between two samples of the same nominal material, and hence gauge the 
expected variation with published results. The ignition results in the ISO 5657 ignition 
apparatus is shown in Figure 52 and Figure 53 
Time to ignition for  particle board  in ISO5657 ignition test
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 to i
gni
ti
on t
ig
 (s
)
Superflake
Pynefloor
 
Figure 52: Ignition time for 2 brands of particle board in ISO 5657 apparatus. 
 
 97
Comparison of ignition time for particle board 
in ISO5657 ignition test
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200
Pynefloor (s)
S
upe
rf
l
a
k
e
 (
s
)
 
Figure 53: Comparison of ignition times for particle board 
 
There is a difference between the 2 brands, but it is small and appears to be 
approximately in proportion to the product density., where the higher density material 
(Pynefloor) has a longer time to ignition at any given heat flux level.  
 
The results of the ignition tests for Pynefloor are shown in Figure 54, where the 
minimum flux for ignition (
"
min,
.
ig
q ) is 13.75kW/m
2
 for the ISO 5657 ignition tests. The 
LIFT and RIFT gave higher values for the minimum ignition flux, in line with the 
expected findings.  The results for Superflake (Figure 55) are similar. 
 
 98
Heat flux vs time to ignition for Pynefloor particle board
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
10203040506070
T
i
m
e
 t
o
 ig
n
i
t
i
o
n
 
t
ig
 (s)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 54: Time to ignition for Pynefloor particle board  
 
Time to ignition vs heat flux for Superflake particle board
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
10203040506070
T
i
m
e
 
to
 i
g
n
i
ti
o
n
 (s
)
ISO5657
RIFT ign
 
Figure 55: Time to ignition for Superflake particle board 
 
 99
The ignition parameters for Pynefloor from the different tests are given in Figure 56. 
The effect of the different ignition tests on the ignition parameter value ?b?, which is 
the slope of the best fit line can be seen, as well as the preheating time t
*
, where (t
*
)
1/2
 
is the intercept where the ignition parameter line crosses 
"
.
e
q /
"
min,
.
ig
q  = 1 . 
Ignition parameter for  Pynefloor particle board
LIFT = 0.0509x
R
2
 = 0.9797
ISO = 0.0364x
R
2
 = 0.9935
RIFT = 0.0559x
R
2
 = 0.9769
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
?(t
ig
) ( s
0.5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 56:  Ignition parameter for Pynefloor particle board 
Ignition parameter for Superflake particle board
ISO
y = 0.0332x
R
2
 = 0.8569
RIFT
y = 0.0507x
R
2
 = 0.9202
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
?(t
ig
)  (s
0.5
)
ISO5657
RIFT ign
 
Figure 57: Ignition parameter for Superflake particle board 
 100
 
The critical ignition flux for the two brands of particle board (Figure 58 for Pynefloor, 
and Figure 59 for Superflake) gives very similar results.  
 
Critical ignition flux for Pynefloor particle board
ISO
y = 0.003x - 0.0104
R
2
 = 0.9882
LIFT
y = 0.0029x - 0.0047
R
2
 = 0.9866
RIFT
y = 0.0035x - 0.0152
R
2
 = 0.9878
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 10203040506070
Incident flux   (kW/m
2
)
?
(t
ig
)  (s
-0
.
5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 58: Critical ignition flux for Pynefloor particle board 
Critical ignition flux for Superflake particle board
ISO
y = 0.0032x - 0.0109
R
2
 = 0.9938
RIFT
y = 0.0035x - 0.0185
R
2
 = 0.9687
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 10203040506070
Incident flux q"
e
  (kW/m
2
)
1/
?
(t
i
g
)  
(s
-0
.
5
)
ISO5657
RIFT ign
 
Figure 59: Critical ignition flux for Superflake particle board 
 101
 
As a comparison between Janssen?s ignition theory and that of Quintiere, the critical 
ignition flux 
"
crit
q  is shown in Figure 58 and Figure 60. Typically, Janssen?s 
correlation gives a slightly higher value for the critical ignition flux; due to the steeper 
slope of the data fit line. In this case the values for the Quintiere model and the 
Janssen?s correlation are 5.5 and 6 kW/m
2 
respectively for Pynefloor particle board. 
The Quintiere model give 3.4kW/m
2
 for Superflake, against 5.8kW/m
2
 for the 
Janssen?s? model for the same material.  
 
Janssen's critical ignition flux for Pynefloor particle board
ISO
y = 0.0026x - 0.0151
R
2
 = 0.9892
LIFT
y = 0.0025x - 0.0112
R
2
 = 0.9839
RIFT
y = 0.0031x - 0.0229
R
2
 = 0.9878
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 10203040506070
(t
ig
)
-0
.
5
5
  
s
-0
.
5
5
LIFT
ISO
RIFT
 
Figure 60: Janssen's critical ignition flux for Pynefloor particle board 
 102
Janssen's critical ignition flux for Superflake particle board
LIFT
y = 0.0028x - 0.0162
R
2
 = 0.9959
RIFT
y = 0.0031x - 0.0247
R
2
 = 0.9684
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 10203040506070
(t
ig
)
-
0
..5
5
  s
-0
.
5
5
ISO
RIFT
 
Figure 61: Janssen's critical ignition flux for Superflake particle board 
 
8.2.2 Flame spread for particle board  
Flame spread in RIFT 
A preheat time of 80 seconds was used for the low preheat tests. The t
*
 time of 755 
seconds from the ISO 5657 ignition was used for the full preheat time for the RIFT 
tests, and the t
*
 time of 386 seconds from the LIFT ignition test was used for the LIFT 
flame spread tests. 
A comparison of the flame spread between the 2 brands of particle board in the RIFT 
shows a minor difference in the flame spread rate (Figure 62 and Figure 63), which 
affects the final flame spread properties. This reflects the ignition test results, where 
the Superflake board had a shorter time to ignition at for any given heat flux. From the 
flame spread theory, this would give a faster flame spread rate, as shown here.  
Given that particle board is a common material used in flame spread testing, this 
shows the limitation in comparing ?equivalent? materials.  
The effect of preheating the material on the variation of the flame spread rate 
measured in the RIFT can be seen by comparing Figure 62 and Figure 63. It can also 
 103
be seen in the amount of data scatter in the flame spread correlation (Figure 64) when 
compared to the same material which is fully preheated (Figure 65).  
 
Flamespread for Superflake and Pynefloor particle board in RIFT - 80s preheat time
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
on (
s
)
Superflake
Pynefloor
Error bars = 2 std deviations
 
Figure 62: Comparison of flame spread of 2 brands of particle board ? low preheat time 
Flame spread for Pynefloor and Superflake particle board in RIFT - full preheat time
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
g
n
i
t
i
on (s
)
Superflake
Pynefloor
Error bars = 2 std deviations
 
Figure 63: Comparison of flame spread for 2 brands of particle board - full preheat time 
The flame spread correlation for the Pynefloor in the RIFT is affected by outliers at 
the end of the test (Figure 65) ? i.e. at the period of low flame spread rate. Without 
 104
these, the results would be a better match to those obtained in the LIFT (Figure 68). 
The Superflake board was not tested in the LIFT as there was insufficient material to 
conduct a full suite of LIFT tests.  
Flame spread parameter for Pynefloor and Superflake particle board 
in RIFT with low(80s) preheating time
Superf lake
y = -24.769x + 258.66
R
2
 = 0.7712
Pynef loor
y = -18.369x + 216.54
R
2
 = 0.3647
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
02468101214
1/
?
V
f
  
(s
-0.
5
)
Superflake
Pynefloor
 
Figure 64: Flame spread parameter for Superflake and Pynefloor particle board in RIFT with a 
80s preheat time. 
 
 105
Flame spread correlation for  2 brands of particle board in RIFT with 
full preheating time
Pynefloor
y = -8.0585x + 153.24
R
2
 = 0.63
Superflake
y = -7.5808x + 141.11
R
2
 = 0.9178
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0.
5
Pynefloor
Superflake
Pynefloor
Superflake
 
Figure 65: Flame spread correlation for 20mm Particle board in RIFT with full pre-heating time. 
 
Flame spread for particle board in the LIFT 
The LIFT was set to the flux profile shown in Figure 66 and the samples preheated for 
the preheating time based on the LIFT ignition results of t
*
= 386 seconds prior to 
ignition. 
Flux profile for particle board LIFT test
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
u
x
 (k
W
/
m
2
)
 
 106
Figure 66: Heat flux profile for LIFT flame spread tests on particle board 
The resulting flame spread along the sample is shown in Figure 67. 
Flame spread in LIFT for Pynefloor particle board in LIFT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500
Position along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
on (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 67: Flame spread in LIFT for Pynefloor particle board 
The resulting flame spread correlation for Pynefloor is compared to the same material 
in the LIFT in Figure 68, where the value of the minimum flux for flame spread is 
similar, but the RIFT gives a lower correlated value of the minimum ignition flux. In 
both tests, the material was fully preheated, with the RIFT test using the ISO 5657 
ignition test data, and the LIFT using the ignition data from the LIFT ignition tests.  
 
 107
Flamespread correlation for Pynefloor particle board
LIFT
y = -3.6294x + 92.518
R
2
 = 0.8742
RIFT
y = -8.0585x + 153.24
R
2
 = 0.63
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1/
?
V
f
  
(
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
LIFT
RIFT
 
Figure 68: Flame spread correlation for 20mm Pynefloor particle board in LIFT and RIFT 
 
 108
8.3 Plywood 
All samples were from a single sheet of IPL ?Tuffply? 17mm untreated Radiata Pine 
C/D grade plywood. The smooth (C grade) face was used for the ignition and flame 
spread tests.  
 
8.3.1 Ignition of plywood 
 
The time to ignition for varying flux levels is shown in Figure 69. 
Time to ignition vs heat flux for plywood in ISO5657, RIFT and LIFT
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
1440
1560
1680
1800
10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 
t
o
 i
gni
t
i
o
n
 t
ig
 
(s
)
LIFT
ISO5654
RIFT
Time limit for 
ASTMe1321-
97a = 1200s
 
Figure 69: Time to ignition for 17mm plywood 
 
As can be seen in Figure 69, the fact that the sample does not ignite within the time 
limit does not mean that the minimum ignition flux is the lowest point that ignition 
will occur. In the case of this ignition test, the sample had a glowing spot before 
finally igniting, and there was considerable charring.  
The critical ignition flux (Figure 70) for plywood by the 3 ignition methods gave a 
range of results from 4.6kW/m
2
 to 10kW/m
2
, compared with 13.75kW/m
2
 for the 
 109
minimum ignition flux in the ISO 5657 test and 16.25kW/m
2
 for the RIFT and LIFT 
ignition tests.  
The chart for the ignition parameter (Figure 71) shows less spread of the results than 
with the particle board (Figure 56), largely due to the minimum ignition flux being 
similar for all test methods. Values above 
"
min,
.
ig
q /
"
.
e
q <0.8 were ignored to improve the 
data fit.  
 
Critical ignition flux for plywood
LIFT= 0.0046x - 0.0332
R
2
 = 0.9657
RIFT= 0.005x - 0.0493
R
2
 = 0.9628
ISO= 0.004x - 0.0181
R
2
 = 0.9752
-
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 10203040506070
1/
?
(t
ig
) s
-0
.
5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 70: Critical ignition flux for plywood 
 
 110
Ignition parameters for plywood in ISO565,  RIFT and LIFT, 
LIFT = 0.0584x
R
2
 = 0.924
ISO= 0.0481x
R
2
 = 0.9594
RIFT = 0.0605x
R
2
 = 0.8893
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
?(t
ig
)  s
0.5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 71: Ignition parameter for plywood 
 
8.3.2 Flame spread of plywood 
Flame spread in RIFT 
The flame spread in the RIFT shows the expected behaviour, with the preheated 
sample having a faster flame spread rate, due to the higher initial surface temperature. 
The low preheat time was approximately 65 seconds., compared with the  preheat 
time for the LIFT at 293 seconds, and the full preheat  time for the RIFT , based on 
the ISO 5657 ignition data of 432 seconds.  
The flame spread along the sample is given in Figure 72, showing the effect of 
preheating on the flame spread rate and the extent of flame spread. The flame spread 
rate is sufficiently slow compared with the preheating time that the sample can 
preheat to equilibrium at the extent of flame spread. The extent of flame spread along 
the sample is therefore the same in both cases. The velocity of the flame front is less 
for the sample which is not preheated, reflecting the lower initial surface temperature 
prior to ignition.   
 111
Flame spread  for 17mm plywood in RIFT
0
120
240
360
480
600
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 fr
o
m
 i
g
n
i
ti
o
n
 
(s
)
Plyw ood - full preheat
Plyw ood - low  preheat
error bars = 2 std 
 
Figure 72: Flame spread of 17mm plywood in RIFT 
Both 9mm and 17mm plywood were tested without a preheating period, to check if 
the material thickness had any significant effect on the flame spread. In this case, the 
difference in the flame spread is within the limits of error and there is no significant 
difference (Figure 73). Different materials and a long preheating time may alter this 
result, if the material thickness is less than the thermal penetration depth.  
 112
Comparison of flame spread of plywood in RIFT
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Dista nce  a long sa mple  (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
o
m
 i
g
ni
t
i
on (
s
)
17mm plyw ood
9mm plyw ood
Error bars = 2 std deviations
 
Figure 73: Comparison of flame spread with different thicknesses of plywood 
The resulting flame spread correlation from the RIFT flame spread tests is shown in 
Figure 74.  
Flamespread correlation of plywood using ISO ignition data in RIFT
y = -10.716x + 137.54
R
2
 = 0.799
y = -7.7432x + 127.44
R
2
 = 0.8361
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
Ply - full preheat
Ply - low  preheat
Best fit - full preheat
Best fit - low  preheat
 
Figure 74: Flame spread correlation for 17mm plywood in RIFT 
 113
 
Flame spread in LIFT 
The flame spread tests in the LIFT used the heat flux profile shown in Figure 75 with 
the resulting flame spread along the sample shown in Figure 76.  
Heat flux distribution for hardboard and plywood tests in LIFT
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
eat fl
u
x
 (k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 75: LIFT heat flux profile for plywood and hardboard flame spread tests 
Flame spread for 17mm plywood in LIFT
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
600
660
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
g
ni
t
i
on
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 76: Flame spread for 17mm plywood in LIFT 
 114
The flame spread correlation (Figure 77 and Figure 78) shows that the RIFT and LIFT 
gave similar results, however the RIFT has more data scatter than the LIFT.  
Flame spread correlation for 17mm plywood in RIFT and LIFT
RIFT = -4.727x + 95.641
R
2
 = 0.6853
LIFT = -3.6501x + 78.73
R
2
 = 0.7502
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
RIFT - full preheat
LIFT
RIFT
LIFT
 
Figure 77: Flame spread correlation for 17mm plywood in RIFT and LIFT 
Flamespread correlation for plywood in LIFT
best fit = -3.6501x + 78.73
R
2
 = 0.7502
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1/
?
V (
s
-0.
5
)
(correlation)
 
Figure 78: Flame spread correlation for plywood in LIFT 
 115
 
8.4 Hardboard 
The material used here was a generic unbranded material from a builders supply 
merchant, with a thickness of 5mm.  
 
8.4.1 Ignition of hardboard 
The sample in the ISO 5657 ignition test was backed with 20mm lightweight 
Kaoboard low density insulating board. The RIFT ignition test used 12mm 
lightweight Kaoboard. The LIFT uses a higher density CaSi board, and this may affect 
any time to ignition comparison, as the material is physically thin in comparison to the 
other materials tested. Attempts to calculate the thermal thickness of the hardboard 
showed to much variation to be successful.  Quintiere and Harkleroad (1984) found 
little difference attributable to the density of the backing board ? the expected result 
for a thermally thick material.  
 
Time to ignition vs. heat flux for hardboard in LIFT and ISO5657 
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
1440
1560
10203040506070
T
i
m
e
 t
o
 
ig
n
i
t
i
o
n
 t
ig
 (s) 
LIFT
ISO5654
RIFT
Time limit for 
ASTMe1321-97a = 
1200 s
 
Figure 79: Time to ignition of hardboard 
 
 116
Critical heat flux for 5mm hardboard
ISO
y = 0.0029x + 0.0017
R
2
 = 0.9947
LIFT = 0.0028x - 0.006
R
2
 = 0.8957
RIFT = 0.0035x - 0.0089
R
2
 = 0.9818
-
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 10203040506070
1/
?
(t
ig
)  s
-0
.
5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 80: Critical heat flux for hardboard 
The ignition parameter (Figure 81) shows considerable spread between the LIFT and 
ISO ignition results. The calculated preheat time t
*
 
from the ISO 5657 ignition tests of 
944 seconds is unrealistically long, as the material chars and collapses before this time 
can be achieved in the flame spread test. The ignition test conducted in the RIFT gave 
a preheat time of 977 seconds, compared with the LIFT calculated preheating time of 
375s.
Ignition parameter for hardboard with LIFT, RIFT 
and ISO5657 ignition test
LIFT = 0.0516x
R
2
 = 0.919
RIFT = 0.032x
R
2
 = 0.9737
ISO = 0.0325x
R
2
 = 0.9787
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
 ?(t
ig
) s
0.5
q"
ig
.m
in
/q
"
e
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 81: Ignition parameters for hardboard 
 117
8.4.2 Flame spread of hardboard 
Flame spread of hardboard in the RIFT 
Five repeat runs were conducted with hardboard in the RIFT, and they produced 
consistent flame spread results between runs in the RIFT and LIFT (Figure 83 and 
Figure 86), in spite of the behaviour of the material during preheating and burning. 
The material cracks behind the flame front area (Figure 82) which allows the 
pyrolised material to open and potentially allow flames to the rear of the sample.  
With low preheat times, the area of the flame front appears to be unaffected until after 
the flame has passed and it does not appear to affect the flame spread correlation 
(Figure 85). The correlation is less accurate with more scatter when the material is 
given the full preheat time (Figure 87), possibly due to both the material cracking and 
increasing thermal penetration of the material, making the assumption that the 
material is thermally thick less valid. 
A particular problem is the long preheat time dictated by the RIFT and ISO 5657 
ignition results and the calculated ignition parameter (Figure 81) was unobtainable in 
the RIFT, as the sample charred to such an extent that pieces of the sample fell out 
and the sample self ignited. The preheating time used was therefore the time 
calculated from the LIFT ignition tests. 
 
 
 118
 
Figure 82: Cracking behind the flame front on hardboard 
The consistent flame spread performance during the initial part of the flame spread 
test gives a good correlation result (Figure 85), with less data scatter for low preheat 
times, unlike the other products tested; where the data scatter is greater with a low 
preheat time. The data scatter in the correlation also increases significantly at the end 
of the flame spread test, possibly due to thermal penetration, and the material cracking 
and flames getting behind the sample. 
Flame spread for 5mm hardboard in RIFT - full preheat
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
g
ni
t
i
on
 
(
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5 
 
Figure 83: Flame spread of hardboard in RIFT ? full preheat time 
Comparing the flame spread for the different preheating times shows the expected 
behaviour, where the preheated sample has a higher flame spread rate (Figure 84).  
 119
Flamespread for 5mm  hardboard in RIFT - low preheat time
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
g
ni
t
i
on 
(
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5 
Full preheat
 
Figure 84: Flame spread for hardboard in RIFT ? low preheat time  
 
Flamespread correlation for 5mm hardboard in RIFT 
Low preheat
y = -13.346x + 147.53
R
2
 = 0.8969
Full preheat
y = -5.7127x + 109.41
R
2
 = 0.5258
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0123456789101121314151617181920212
1/
?
V 
f
 (s
-0
.
5
)
 
Figure 85: Flame spread correlation for hardboard in RIFT 
The flame spread correlation for the RIFT with a full preheat period is compared to 
the results from the LIFT in Figure 87.  
 120
Flame spread for hardboard in the LIFT 
The heat flux distribution for the LIFT tests is shown in Figure 75, and the resulting 
flame spread for hardboard in the RIFT is given in Figure 86.  
Flame spread for hardboard in LIFT
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 
f
r
om
 i
g
ni
t
i
o
n
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 86: Flame spread of hardboard in LIFT 
The results for the flame spread correlation from the RIFT closely match those for the 
LIFT (Figure 87), although the LIFT results have much less data scatter.  
Flamespread correlation for 5mm hardboard in RIFT and  LIFT
LIFT = -4.8559x + 94.732
R
2
 = 0.6981
RIFT = -5.7127x + 109.41
R
2
 = 0.5258
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f
  
(s
-0
.
5
)
LIFT
RIFT
LIFT
RIFT
 
Figure 87: Flame spread correlation for hardboard in RIFT and LIFT 
 121
8.4.3 Melteca 
The flame spread of two samples of melamine sheet products were compared in the 
RIFT to determine the variation between materials. One was a generic white Melteca 
faced board, using a MDF substrate, manufactured by Fletcher Wood Panels, and sold 
through builder?s merchants and panel suppliers. The other was ?Regal? brand 
shelving with a particle board substrate, sold as prefinished and clashed boards in 
hardware and builders supplies.  
Only the Melteca- MDF sheet was tested in the LIFT, due to the amount of material 
available from the shelving product. The results from the RIFT tests and the Melteca-
MDF results from the LIFT indicated that further testing in the LIFT of the Melteca ? 
particle board material was not required due to the inconsistent flame spread results. 
 
The ignition and flame spread behaviour of Melteca shown in Figure 88 is typical. 
The facing material starts to bubble at relatively low heat fluxes, insulating the 
substrate material. The flame front only progresses as the facing peels off or the 
bubbles split, allowing the pyrolised substrate to escape, and this gives erratic flame 
spread rates and ignition times.  
 122
 
 
Figure 88: Flame spread behaviour of Melteca faced board 
 
8.4.4 Ignition of Melteca faced boards 
The addition of the melamine (Melteca) facing affects the ignition and hence the 
flame spread of the samples. The facing board bubbles and chars at lower flux levels 
than the underlying material, thus insulating the underlying substrate, however it does 
not ignite easily. The substrate pyrolizes and as the surface bubbles split, the gas 
escapes and can ignite. As a result, at low flux levels, the ignition time can become 
erratic. This behaviour also affects the flame spread, giving erratic flame spread 
results. 
The insulating property of the facing material is apparent when comparing the ignition 
flux to that of the bare substrate material.  
 
 123
Time to ignition vs heat flux for Melteca faced MDF
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
0 10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 t
o
 i
g
ni
t
i
on
 t
ig
 
(s
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 89: Time to ignition vs. heat flux of Melteca/MDF board 
 
Time to ignition vs. heat flux for Melteca faced particle board
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
10203040506070
T
i
m
e
 t
o
 i
g
ni
t
i
on (
s
)
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 90: Time to ignition for Melteca faced particle board 
 124
 
Critical heat flux for melteca faced MDF
LIFT = 0.0018x + 0.0115
R
2
 = 0.9841
ISO = 0.0023x - 0.0059
R
2
 = 0.9736
RIFT
y = 0.0024x + 0.0025
R
2
 = 0.9671
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
1/
?
(t
ig
)   (s
-0
.
5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 91: Critical ignition flux for Melteca faced MDF 
The results are given in Appendix 3.  
Ignition parameter for LIFT, RIFT and ISO5657 for Melteca/ MDF
ISO = 0.0429x
R
2
 = 0.9806
LIFT = 0.0423x
R
2
 = 0.9171
RIFT = 0.0512x
R
2
 = 0.9921
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
?(t
ig
)  s
0.5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 92: Ignition parameter for Melteca/ MDF board  
 125
Comparison of ignition results between two substrate materials 
Comparing the time to ignition of the two Melteca boards with the different substrate 
materials (Figure 93) shows that the particle board based material ignited faster than 
the MDF based board, and this is reflected in the flame spread rate, as discussed in the 
following section.  
Comparison of time to ignition vs heat flux for Melteca faced 
boards in ISO5657 test 
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
0 10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 t
o
 i
g
ni
t
i
on
 (
s
)
P/ board substrate
MDF substrate
 
Figure 93: Time to ignition vs. heat flux for Melteca faced boards 
 
8.4.5  Flame spread of Melteca 
Flame spread in RIFT 
Six samples of each material were tested in the RIFT, both with a preheating period 
and with no preheating prior to ignition. It was not possible to derive a flame spread 
correlation for Melteca faced boards in the RIFT with no preheating, as there was no 
linearity and it was not possible to fit a line to the data. The effect of the substrate can 
be seen in Figure 94, where the MDF based board has a slower flame spread rate than 
the particle board based material, reflecting the ignition results.  
 126
Comparison of  flame spread for melteca faced board
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
g
ni
t
i
on
 
(
s
)
Melteca-MDF
Melteca- particle board
 
Figure 94: Flame spread of Melteca faced boards in RIFT 
 
The difference between the two board types is greater than that of the substrate alone, 
indicating that the surface material is having a greater effect, as seen in Figure 95, 
where the time to a point on the sample for Melteca faced boards (MDF and particle 
board substrate) and for the MDF and particle board (Pynefloor) alone.  This could be 
a factor of the manufacturer of the boards, as the facing material was not controlled 
and the boards come from different manufacturers.  
 127
 
Comparison of flame spread on substrates(with and without Melteca facing) in RIFT
-
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
- 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
MDF sheet or substrate  (time to point) (s)
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
- b
o
a
r
d
 sh
eet o
r
 su
b
s
tr
ate (s)  .
Melteca substrate
MDF vs Particle board
 
Figure 95: Comparison of flame spread time to point for MDF vs. particle board, with and 
without Melteca facing in RIFT 
 
The erratic nature of the burning behaviour gives inconsistent results for the flame 
spread measurements. The correlation shows a large scatter (Figure 96 and Figure 97), 
with the Melteca- particle board being noticeably worse.  
The greater sample size and resolution of the LIFT gives a better correlation than the 
RIFT for the same material. The data scatter in the RIFT results makes it more 
difficult to obtain accurate and consistent results for the flame spread correlation for 
Melteca faced boards.  
Tests with the Melteca faced boards without preheating gave no useable result ? there 
was no correlation of the data. Figure 98 shows the results for Melteca-MDF, where 
the data fit uses the measured value for the minimum ignition flux, and an estimated 
fit to the data and should be treated with caution. A mathematical fit to the data shows 
the slope of the best fit line being in the opposite direction.  
 128
 
Flame spread correlation for Melteca faced board in RIFT 
Melteca-PB
y = -1.7756x + 110.11
R
2
 = 0.0263
Meltec a- MDF
y = -6.4377x + 197.88
R
2
 = 0.4845
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1/
?
V 
f
 (m
/
s
)
-0
.
5
Melteca - particle board
Metleca - MDF
 
Figure 96: Flame spread correlation for Melteca faced board in RIFT 
 
Flamespread correlation for Melteca/MDF
RIFT
y = -6.4377x + 197.88
R
2
 = 0.4845
LIFT
y = -4.3019x + 141.96
R
2
 = 0.8721
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
RIFT
LIFT
Linear (RIFT)
Linear (LIFT)
 
Figure 97: Flame spread correlation for Melteca/ MDF 
 129
Flame spread correlation for Melteca/MDF in RIFT - low preheat
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
Data fit estimate based on 
measured q"
ig,min
 value. 
Slope=-13.4
 
Figure 98: Flame spread correlation for Melteca-MDF with a low preheating period 
 
Flame spread of Melteca faced boards in LIFT 
The heat flux profile used in the LIFT test of Melteca- MDF is shown in Figure 99.  
The flame spread results for Melteca-MDF (Figure 97 and Figure 100) shows less 
data scatter than the same material in the RIFT. This is due to the larger scale of the 
LIFT test, making the variation due to the burning behaviour of the facing material 
less significant.  
 
 
 130
LIFT heat flux distribution for Melteca faced MDF 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
e
a
t
 fl
u
x
 
(k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 99: LIFT heat flux profile for Melteca faced MDF flame spread test  
Flame spread correlation for Melteca-MDF in LIFT
Best fit
y = -4.3019x + 141.96
R
2
 = 0.8721
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1/
?
V 
f
  
(
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
 
Figure 100: Flame spread correlation for Melteca-MDF in LIFT 
 
 131
9 Material test results for natural timbers 
Natural timbers showed greater variation in the results between tests of identical 
materials than for manufactured boards, due to the greater variation in the material 
from the grain, knots or other features in the timber.  The flame spread rates along the 
sample are generally higher for natural timbers than for the manufactured boards. 
 
9.1 New Zealand Beech 
9.1.1 Ignition of Beech 
The time to ignition for New Zealand Beech is shown in Figure 101.which shows 
greater variation in the time to ignition, than the other timber products (e.g. particle 
board Figure 54 and Figure 55) especially at low flux levels,  
 
Time to ignition vs heat flux for NZ Beech
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
1440
1560
1680
10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 t
o
 
i
g
n
i
t
i
on  t
ig
 
(s)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
Time limit for test in 
ASTMe1321-97a 
LIFT test
 
Figure 101: Time to ignition vs. heat flux for NZ Beech 
 
The ignition parameter from ASTM E 1321-97a is shown below in Figure 102. While 
the ignition parameter results for the ISO 5657 and LIFT tests were similar at 0.050 
s
0.5
  for the ISO 5657 results, and 0.053 s
0.5
 for the LIFT, the RIFT showed a wide 
 132
variation, due to the higher minimum ignition flux and shorter times to ignition than 
produced by the other methods.  
 
Ignition parameter for NZ Beech 
ISO = 0.0531x
R
2
 = 0.7253
LIFT = 0.0503x
R
2
 = 0.919
RIFT = 0.0344x
R
2
 = -0.5432
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
?(tig)   (s
0.5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 102: Ignition parameter for Beech 
 
The ISO 5657 and LIFT gave similar results for the critical ignition flux (Figure 103) 
and there is greater variation for the critical flux calculated from the RIFT ignition 
test. 
 
 133
Critical ignition flux for NZ Beech
ISO = 0.0044x - 0.0526
R
2
 = 0.9925
LIFT = 0.0042x - 0.0384
R
2
 = 0.9777
RIFT = 0.0057x - 0.0725
R
2
 = 0.8641
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 10203040506070
1/
?
(t
ig
) (s
-0
.
5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 103: Critical ignition flux for NZ Beech 
 
9.1.2 Flame spread of Beech 
Flame spread of NZ Beech in the RIFT 
The flame spread showed vide variations between runs in the RIFT, whether or not it 
was preheated prior to ignition (Figure 104 and Figure 105) and the flame spread in 
the RIFT was less consistent than in the LIFT (Figure 108). The low preheat time was 
55 seconds, against a full preheat time for the RIFT of 844 seconds, and 395 seconds 
for the LIFT, using the ignition data from the LIFT ignition tests for this material.  
 134
Flame spread for 16mm NZ Beech in RIFT - low (55s) preheat time
0
60
120
180
240
300
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
on (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5 
Test 6
 
Figure 104: Flame spread of Beech in RIFT with 55 second preheating period 
 
The extent of flame spread is less if the material is not preheated and hence the 
experimental value for the minimum heat flux for flame spread is higher than for a 
fully preheated sample. As can be seen from time to reach each point on the sample in 
Figure 104, the rate of flame spread was very rapid in comparison to the other 
materials tested, indicating that the flame spread was faster than the surface of the 
material could reach the minimum ignition temperature, hence the extent of flame 
spread is less when the material has not been preheated fully prior to ignition.  
 
 135
Flame spread for Beech in RIFT - full preheat time
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
o
m
 
i
g
ni
t
i
on
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
 
Figure 105: Flame spread for Beech in RIFT with full preheat 
The effect that the ignition data has on the flame correlation is shown in Figure 106, 
where the same flame velocity measurements are used, but with the ?b? value and 
thermal equilibrium time ?t
*
? from the ignition tests in the RIFT and ISO 5657 
ignition apparatus.  
Flame spread correlation for NZ Beech - low (55s) preheating time
RIFT ign
y = -7.5996x + 80.027
R
2
 = 0.7174
ISO ign
y = -4.9302x + 80.027
R
2
 = 0.7174
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
024681012141618
1/
?
V
f
 (s
-0.
5
)
ISO ign data
RIFT ign data
 
Figure 106: Flame spread correlation for NZ Beech in RIFT - low preheat time 
 136
The flame spread correlation for the RIFT with the full preheating period is compared 
with the LIFT in Figure 110.  
Flame spread of NZ Beech in the LIFT 
The heat flux profile used for the LIFT tests of NZ Beech is shown in Figure 107.  
Heat flux profile for LIFT tests for NZ Beech
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
Hea
t
 f
l
u
x
 (
k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 107: Heat flux profile for LIFT tests for NZ Beech 
 
The flame spread along the sample (Figure 108) showed much less variation than for 
the same material in the RIFT (Figure 105). 
 
 137
Flame spread for NZ Beech in LIFT
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gnt
i
o
n 
(
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 108: Flame spread for NZ Beech in LIFT 
The resulting flame spread correlation, shown in Figure 109 shows some curvature in 
the fit of the data, indicating that the material may not have reached thermal 
equilibrium, despite being preheated to the time given by the ignition results. 
 
Flamespread correlation for beech in LIFT
y = -2.6644x + 61.304
R
2
 = 0.8484
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
sq
r
t
(V
)
 
Figure 109: Flame spread correlation for NZ Beech in LIFT 
The RIFT and LIFT gave similar results for the flame spread correlation (Figure 110) 
at 74.8 for the RIFT and 58.3 for the LIFT, although the RIFT has more scatter in the 
 138
data, shown by the lower R
2
 value. The results for the correlated values for the 
minimum heat flux for flame spread and the minimum ignition flux are similar with 
both methods. 
Flame spread correlation for NZ Beech in RIFT and LIFT
RIFT= -2.459x + 54.938
R
2
 = 0.714
LIFT = -2.6644x + 61.304
R
2
 = 0.8484
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1/
?
V
f
  (
s
-0
.
5
)
RIFT
LIFT
RIFT
LIFT
q"
s
 
Figure 110: Flame spread correlation of Beech in RIFT and LIFT.  
 139
 
9.2 Macrocarpa 
9.2.1 Ignition of Macrocarpa 
The three ignition test methods produced similar results for Macrocarpa (Figure 111), 
with the LIFT having longer times to ignition at low heat flux levels. 
 
 
Time to ignition for Macrocarpa
0
240
480
720
960
1200
1440
1680
1920
10203040506070
T
i
m
e
 t
o
 
i
gni
t
i
on (
s
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
Limit for ignition 
test of 1200s in 
ASTMe1321-97a
 
Figure 111: Time to ignition for Macrocarpa 
 
The ignition parameter (Figure 112) and the critical ignition flux (Figure 113) show 
much more scatter in the data than the manufactured boards, such as MDF (Figure 46 
and Figure 45) or particle board (Figure 56 - Figure 59).  
 140
Ignition parameter for Macrocarpa 
ISO = 0.0479x
R
2
 = -0.846
LIFT = 0.0589x
R
2
 = 0.7755
RIFT = 0.0555x
R
2
 = -0.1189
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
?(t
ig
)    s
0.5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 112: Ignition parameter for Macrocarpa 
 
Critical ignition flux for Macrocarpa
LIFT = 0.0053x - 0.078
R
2
 = 0.9609
ISO
y = 0.0064x - 0.0963
R
2
 = 0.929
RIFT
y = 0.0064x - 0.099
R
2
 = 0.9271
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
10203040506070
1/
?
(t
ig
) (s
-0.
5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 113: Critical heat flux for Macrocarpa 
 
 141
9.2.2 Flame spread of Macrocarpa 
The resinous streaks in Macrocarpa can make the flame spread erratic, as the flame 
front can tend to follow a resin streak on the face of the timber, rather than spreading 
evenly over the face of the material. This gives more erratic flame spread than for a 
more consistent material, seen in the variation of the flame spread results between 
runs in Figure 115 and Figure 117. 
The preheating time was 40 seconds for the low preheating tests, and 436 seconds for 
a full preheating time in the RIFT, based on the ISO 5657 ignition tests, and 288 
seconds for the LIFT ignition tests  
Flame spread in RIFT 
The flame spread for Macrocarpa showed wide variation between tests of the same 
material under the same conditions (Figure 114 and Figure 115), particularly towards 
the end of the sample.  
 
Flamespread for 16mm  Macrocarpa in RIFT - low (40s) preheat time
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 
i
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5 
Test 6
 
Figure 114: Flame spread of Macrocarpa in RIFT with low (40s) preheat time 
 
 142
Flame spread for 16mm Macrocarpa in RIFT with full preheat
0
60
120
180
240
300
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
on (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3 
Test 4
 
Figure 115: Flame spread of Macrocarpa in RIFT ? full preheat of 436 seconds 
The resulting flame spread correlation for the RIFT results shows a lot of data scatter 
and the linear fit is a relatively poor match (Figure 116). The fit of the data, shown by 
the R
2
 values seen on the chart, improves with preheating the sample prior to ignition, 
but is still poor.  
Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa in RIFT
Low  preheat
y = -7.7358x + 98.182
R
2
 = 0.4179
Full preheat
y = -2.9391x + 66.422
R
2
 = 0.6474
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f
  
(
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
Low  preheat
Full preheat 
Low  preheat
Full preheat
 
Figure 116: Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa in RIFT 
 143
Flame spread of Macrocarpa in LIFT 
The flame spread for Macrocarpa in the LIFT showed similar variation between tests 
to the samples in the RIFT.  
Flame spread for 16mm  Macrocarpa in LIFT
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance along sample (mm)
Tim
e
 f
r
o
m
 igni
t
i
on (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 117: Flame spread for Macrocarpa in LIFT 
The curve to the LIFT results in the flame spread correlation (Figure 118) indicates 
that the material was not preheated sufficiently, based on the work by Quintiere 
(1981), despite the preheating time coming from the LIFT ignition results. 
 144
Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa in LIFT
Best fit
y = -2.5085x + 47.508
R
2
 = 0.6125
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
 
Figure 118: Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa in LIFT 
 
The comparison of the RIFT and LIFT results (Figure 119) for the flame spread 
correlation shows the RIFT gives a higher value for the correlated value of the 
minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q although the flame spread modulus C (the slope of the 
best fit line) is similar. In this case, the value of the minimum flux for spread 
"
.
s
q is 
higher for the RIFT than the LIFT.  
 145
Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa
RIFT= -2.9328x + 66.296
R
2
 = 0.6755
LIFT = -2.5085x + 47.508
R
2
 = 0.6125
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f 
 (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
RIFT
LIFT
RIFT
LIFT
 
Figure 119: Flame spread correlation for Macrocarpa 
  
 146
9.3 Radiata Pine 
9.3.1 Ignition of Radiata Pine 
The time to ignition for the three ignition test methods is given in Figure 120, where 
the ISO 5657 and RIFT gave similar results. As can be seen in the results, in some 
cases, the material still ignited after the limiting ignition test period. .During the 
course of the test, the material noticeably charred over the long test intervals, with 
some surface cracking. Localised surface hot spots formed, where an area around 2cm 
across would be glowing, when the rest of the sample showed no signs of heating.  
 
Heat flux vs time to ignition for Radiata Pine
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
1440
1560
1680
10203040506070
Ti
m
e
 t
o
 i
gni
t
i
on t
ig
 (s)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
Time limit for test in 
ASTMe1321-97a 
LIFT test
 
Figure 120: Time to ignition of Radiata Pine 
The three methods gave similar results for the critical ignition flux (Figure 121).  
 147
Critical ignition flux for Radiata Pine
ISO = 0.0054x - 0.0643
R
2
 = 0.9933
LIFT = 0.0044x - 0.0431
R
2
 = 0.9886
RIFT = 0.0054x - 0.0592
R
2
 = 0.9401
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
10203040506070
Incident heat flux q"
e
  (kW/m
2
)
1/
?
(t
ig
)  (s
-0
.
5
)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 121: Critical ignition flux for Radiata Pine 
The ignition parameter chart (Figure 122) shows that the three different methods gave 
widely different values for the equilibrium time t
*
 despite eliminating the values for 
8.0
"
.
"
min,
.
<
e
ig
q
q  for calculating the data fit.  
Ignition parameter for Radiata Pine
LIFT = 0.0397x
R
2
 = 0.94
ISO = 0.0394x
R
2
 = 0 .5113
RIFT = 0.0434x
R
2
 = 0.3235
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
?(t
ig
) s
0.5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
v
 
Figure 122: Ignition parameter for Radiata Pine 
 148
 
9.3.2 Flame spread of Radiata Pine 
The low preheat time for the flame spread tests was 40 seconds. The full preheat time 
was 643 seconds in the RIFT and 341 seconds in the LIFT. Radiata Pine noticeably 
charred during the preheating period, and the area up to 180mm along the sample was 
difficult to ignite just by using the pilot flame.  
Flame spread of Radiata Pine in RIFT 
The flame spread along the Radiata Pine samples in the RIFT is shown in Figure 123 
and Figure 124. The effect of preheating of the sample can be seen in Figure 125 - the 
preheated sample has a larger flame spread distance, with a lower time to reach each 
point on the sample, giving a higher flame front velocity.  
Flame spread for 16mm Radiata Pine in RIFT - low (40s) preheat
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
o
n
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5 
Test 6
 
Figure 123: Flame spread for Radiata Pine in RIFT ? low (40s) preheat 
 149
Flame spread for Radiata Pine in RIFT - full preheat
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along sample (mm)
Tim
e
 f
r
om
 ignit
i
o
n
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
 
Figure 124: Flame spread for Radiata Pine in RIFT - full preheat 
The effect of preheating on the flame spread can be seen in Figure 125, where 
preheating increases the flame spread rate.  
Comparison of flame spread of Radiata Pine in RIFT
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 to
 p
o
i
n
t (s
)
Full preheat
Low preheat
2 std devn
 
Figure 125: Comparison of flame spread of Radiata Pine 
 150
 
Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT - low preheat
Best fit 
y = -12.271x + 125.4
R
2
 = 0.4469
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0123456789101121314
1/
?
V
f
  
(
m
/s
)
-0.
5
 
q"
ig,min
q"
s
 
Figure 126: Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT ? low preheat time 
Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT - full preheat
Best fit
y = -5.0101x + 88.025
R
2
 = 0.6254
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1/
?
V
f
 (m
/
s
)-
0.
5
 
Figure 127: Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT - full preheat 
Flame spread for Radiata Pine in LIFT 
The heat flux distribution for the flame spread tests in the LIFT is the same as that for 
Rimu, shown in Figure 135. 
 151
The flame spread rate (Figure 128) for Radiata pine shows less variation than some of 
the other material tested, such as Macrocarpa (Figure 117) or Beech (Figure 108).  
Flamespread of Radiata Pine in LIFT
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance along sample (mm)
T
i
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
g
ni
t
i
o
n
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 128: Flame spread of Radiata Pine in LIFT 
The more consistent flame spread behaviour (when compared to macrocarpa) gives a 
more accurate correlation for the flame spread (Figure 127) with less scatter in the 
data.  
Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in LIFT 
Best fit
y = -3.9818x + 71.815
R
2
 = 0.8034
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
1/
?
V
f
  
 (
m
/s
)
0.
5
 
Figure 129: Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in LIFT 
 152
The RIFT gives a similar match for the flame spread correlation (Figure 130) but with 
more data scatter, shown by the lower R
2
 value.  
Flame spread correlation for Radiata Pine in RIFT and LIFT
RIFT = -5.0101x + 88.025
R
2
 = 0.6254
LIFT = -3.9818x + 71.815
R
2
 = 0.8034
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
RIFT
LIFT
RIFT
LIFT
 
Figure 130: Flame spread correlation for RIFT and LIFT 
 
 153
 
9.4  Rimu 
9.4.1 Ignition of Rimu 
The time to ignition for Rimu is shown in Figure 131. Rimu charred less than the 
softer woods such as Radiata Pine, but the samples tended to bow during the low heat 
flux tests, where the sample was exposed to long heating periods.  It did not appear to 
have had a significant effect on the ignition results.  
 
Time to ignition for Rimu
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
1440
1560
1680
10203040506070
T
I
m
e
 t
o
 ig
n
i
t
i
o
n
 
t
ig
 (s)
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
q"
ig,min
 
Figure 131: Time to ignition of Rimu 
 
The resulting critical ignition flux (Figure 132) shows all the test methods gave 
similar results. The spread of the data was typical of the timber products tested.   
 154
Critical ignition flux for Rimu
LIFT = 0.0042x - 0.0399
R
2
 = 0.9844
ISO= 0.0045x - 0.0575
R
2
 = 0.9915
RIFT = 0.005x - 0.0691
R
2
 = 0.9524
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
10203040506070
1/
?
(t
ig
)  (s
-0
.
5
) LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
 
Figure 132: Critical ignition flux for Rimu 
The fit of the ignition parameter for Rimu (Figure 133) required some data reduction. 
Most noticeably, the results for the RIFT ignition tests have significantly worse fit, 
given by the lower R
2
 value, than those of the other methods.  
 
Ignition Parameter for NZ Rimu
LIFT = 0.0492x
R
2
 = 0.9084
ISO = 0.0502x
R
2
 = 0.6169
RIFT = 0.0465x
R
2
 = 0.4961
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
?(t
ig
) s
0.5
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT
LIFT
ISO
RIFT
 
Figure 133: Ignition parameter of Rimu 
 
 155
9.4.2 Flame spread of Rimu 
Flame spread for Rimu in the RIFT 
There was insufficient flame spread in the RIFT with a full preheat period to get 
accurate data. The extent of flame spread was in the order of 130mm; however the 
initial 90-100mm was unusable, due to excessive charring.  In this respect the extent 
of flame spread is similar to the case with a low preheat period (Figure 134). The low 
preheat period ranged from 67-80 seconds. The range was due to the time taken to get 
the sample to ignite after the preheating period. The full preheating period was 397 
seconds, based on the ISO 5657 ignition data, or 395 seconds based on the LIFT 
ignition tests.  
 
Flame spread for 16mm NZ Rimu in RIFT with low preheat time
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 i
gni
t
i
on (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5 
 
Figure 134: Flame spread along NZ Rimu in RIFT with a low preheat time of 67-80 seconds 
 
Flame spread for Rimu in the LIFT 
With the flux profile used in the flame spread tests in the LIFT, given in Figure 135, 
the resulting flame spread is given in Figure 136.  The extent of flame spread in the 
LIFT results (Figure 136) shows significant variation, covering a range of over 
125mm. Comparing this with the flux profile in Figure 135 gives a flux required for 
 156
flame spread (
"
.
s
q ) of between 5-10kW/m
2
. This material would have benefited from 
more tests to give a more accurate estimate of the average value. The flux required for 
spread from the correlations (Figure 137 and Figure 138) is similar although generally 
lower than that based on the extent of flame spread. Both the RIFT and LIFT gave 
similar values for the correlated values for the minimum heat flux for flame spread, 
despite the lack of preheating in the tests with the RIFT.  
 
Flux profile for flame spread tests of Rimu and Radiata  Pine in LIFT 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along sample (mm)
H
eat
 fl
u
x
 
(kW
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 135: Flux profile of LIFT flame spread test for Rimu and Radiata Pine 
 
 157
Flame spread for 16mm NZ Rimu in LIFT
0
60
120
180
240
300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance along sample (mm)
Ti
m
e
 f
r
om
 
i
g
ni
t
i
on
 (
s
)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
 
Figure 136: Flame spread for Rimu in LIFT 
 
Flamespread correlation for Rimu in RIFT - low preheat  time
Best fit
y = -4.7403x + 75.472
R
2
 = 0.6079
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0
.
5
 
 
Figure 137: Flame spread correlation for Rimu in RIFT with ISO 5657 ignition ?b? value ? 67-90 
seconds preheat time 
 
 158
Flamespread correlation for NZ Rimu in LIFT
Best fit
y = -2.1737x + 56.558
R
2
 = 0.7798
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1/
?
V
f 
 (
m
/s
)
-0.
5
 
 
Figure 138: Flame spread correlation for Rimu in LIFT 
 
 159
10  Discussion of results 
10.1 Equipment specific issues 
10.1.1 LIFT 
The tests conducted for this report were the first results from the new LIFT testing 
machine at the University of Canterbury. In general, after initial teething problems, it 
performed well; however there are some improvements which can be made for future 
work 
The limitation for the upper heat flux is dictated by the air supply. The air compressor 
which feeds the LIFT burner is also used for the air supply for other parts of the 
building. Using an 8cfm compressor in parallel with the main supply improved the 
consistency, and showed that over 
"
50
.
mm
q  = 60kW/m
2
 was possible; however the air 
supply was not consistent enough for extended running over 50kW/m
2
. There are a 
number of alternatives. Another compressor could be mounted in parallel to provided 
additional capacity, or the burner can be redesigned to run on a lower pressure. The 
current burner design, seen in Figure 13, uses a 25mm square supply backbone with 
6mm feeder tubes to the rear of the burner box, and semi circular baffles and Kaowool 
inside the burner box to distribute the gas evenly across the burner face. Replacing 
this with a larger tube would allow the air supply pressure to be reduced and a 
forward curve centrifugal fan could then be used for the air supply. If this is 
controlled with a variable frequency drive with RPM readout, then the air supply 
volume can be calibrated to the fan speed.  
While the gas supply is controlled via a mass flow controller, the air supply is 
currently set with a variable pressure regulator and gauge, with a ball valve allowing 
additional restriction to be added to the regulator to stop fluctuation. The gauge is 
sufficient for crude adjustment, but the final mixture is set by the operator, based on 
the appearance of the flames from the panel and the required flux output. A highly 
precise adjustment has not proven to be necessary in practice, however easily 
repeatable settings would make the setup and changes to the flux levels faster and 
more consistent from run to run. This can be achieved with the current setup by using 
a 350-500 litre/min mass flow controller on the air supply, or changing to a variable 
speed fan with tachometer as described above.  
 160
Changing the burner system or modifying the manifold would also allow the burner to 
run at slightly lower flux levels than can currently be achieved.  With flux levels less 
than 
"
50
.
mm
q  = 25kW/m
2
 the heating of the face of the burner becomes uneven, with a 
cooler section noticeable in the centre. An extra series of gas feed pipes into this area 
from the gas manifold backbone would help to reduce this problem. 
The measurement of the heat flux is critical to accurate results. Due to the narrower 
angle of 15 degrees when compared with the RIFT, as well as the larger scale, with a 
shallower flux profile, this tends to be less critical than the RIFT. The positioning of 
the holes in the LIFT measuring template are specified with a 2mm tolerance. This is 
easily achievable when making the template, however it was noticed with use that the 
holes tended to wear and chip. The flux gauge was bent to allow it to be clamped to 
the rail behind the sample holder. A dedicated holder which would ensure that the 
face of the flux gauge was parallel with the face of the measuring template and not 
canted would give more consistent results. As the 50mm position is used the most, 
making extra templates with just this hole or reinforcing this hole to prevent wear is 
recommended.  
While the calibration curve was within specification over the extent of the flame 
spread, it was outside the limit at the cold end of the sample. Some further adjustment 
of the apparatus may improve the match to the standard curve, however, this appears 
to be a common problem as it was reported by Nisted (1991) and Babrauskas and 
Wetterlund (1999). Pauner (2003) also reported the same issues with the IMO 653/ 
ASTM E 1317 round robin tests, which use the same equipment and calibration curve. 
At low flux levels, the errors in measurement become critical, and although the 
measurement results deviate from the standard value by a large percentage, the 
absolute value is low, and may approach the limits of accuracy of the measurements 
and the effect of variation from the burner. Robertson and Ohlemiller (1995) 
conducted tests to improve the consistency of measurements of the ASTM E 1317 
marine finishes test at low flux levels. The error in measurements increased along the 
sample due to the effect of the convective boundary layer over the face of the sample. 
Their recommendation was that the face of the flux meter is proud of the surface of 
the measuring template to avoid the boundary layer. In practice, this is difficult as the 
refractory board is fragile and a thinner board will not last. The flux meter head 
 161
imposes a maximum thickness of the template board of 12mm in order for the face to 
be level with the template and not shielded inside the hole.  
The observation of the flame front in the LIFT is either directly via marks on the 
sample or via the observation mirror and viewing rake. Measuring the flame front by 
observing the progress directly is easier and more accurate, as the flame front is ill 
defined at the initial stages, and can be difficult to see in the mirror, and errors are 
compounded by the effect of parallax and the width of the pins. . A problem shared by 
both the RIFT and the LIFT for directly observing the flame front is the charring of 
the material during preheating. Lines marked in pen disappear, but those done with a 
graphite pencil can often still be distinguished even though the surface of the material 
has blackened.  
In order to increase the resolution and the number of data points collected, 
Dietenberger (1995) used a system where a pointer was moved via a hand crank 
parallel with the sample, in line with the flame front. The pointer was connected to a 
potentiometer and a data acquisition system, so that data collection is continuous and 
more automated with less chance of error. A modification for the University of 
Canterbury LIFT along these lines is recommended.  
10.1.2 RIFT 
Some of the comments noted for the LIFT also apply to the RIFT. The issue of the 
template holes wearing is more pronounced on the RIFT, as the combination of the 
smaller scale, the rapid decay of the flux profile and steeper angle between the 
element face and the sample makes the setup and calibration both more difficult and 
more critical. The rapid decay of the heat flux along the sample makes location of the 
measuring holes critical, as a small change in the position can make a large change in 
the actual heat flux. It is reasonably straightforward to get the location of the sample 
holder and the angle consistent between different experiment setups by measuring 
from the face of the cone calorimeter element, and the changeover time from the cone 
calorimeter in the horizontal position to the RIFT is usually between 15-20 minutes. 
Modifying the apparatus to use templates and locating stops would reduce this source 
of error further and make the changeover faster. 
It is important when measuring the heat flux that the face of the heat flux gauge is 
parallel with the face of the template. This is easier than in the LIFT, as the operator 
can see the front face of the template. Due to the steeper 60? sample angle of the RIFT 
 162
against the 15? angle of the LIFT, small errors in holding the flux gauge in place can 
have a large effect. A mounting frame to provide consistency would reduce this error.  
The accuracy of the data can be increased by increasing the number of reading points, 
preferably to every 10mm, which would coincide with the data collection points along 
the sample. This is not possible with a single template, due to the proximity of the 
holes. It can be achieved using 3 templates, with measuring holes at 30mm centres, 
and each template is offset by 10mm from the other templates. 
Samples mounted in the LIFT are preset in a sample holder, which is slid into 
position. The RIFT as used in these experiments had a fixed frame, into which the 
sample and backing board was slid into place. This has the advantage of being easier 
to setup the sample, and makes tearing the foil backing less likely, and makes 
positioning the sample into place more consistent and faster.  
The RIFT sample holder frame is mounted on an angle bracket, which allows the 
frame to pivot to change the sample angle, without changing the distance from the 
cone element. This forms a flange along the bottom of the sample holder, seen in 
Figure 38. This affects the airflow over the face of the sample, seen visually during 
the ignition tests from the behaviour of the smoke emitted from the sample. The ledge 
disrupts the airflow, reducing the cooling from the convective airflow ? a flange is 
mounted on the bottom of the ASTM E 1621 ICAL intermediate scale calorimeter 
samples for the same reason (Babrauskas 2003). In the case of the RIFT, it decreases 
the time to ignition to close to that of the ISO 5657 ignition tests, where it would be 
expected to be higher due to the orientation. The minimum ignition flux is also 
increased. The effect of this is discussed in detail in the following sections; however it 
appears that the RIFT with the flange as currently constructed is not suitable for 
conducting the ignition tests which form part of the flame spread experiments.   
The charring of the initial part of the sample in the flame spread tests obliterates the 
surface marks on the face of the sample. A series of pins as markers (Figure 139) was 
used to monitor the flame spread rate. Generally it was found that if the surface was 
too heavily charred, so that the pencil marks were no longer visible, then flame spread 
would be too rapid for accurate measurement, or the material would no longer ignite. 
In addition the error due to parallax and the width of the pins was too large given the 
scale of the sample and measuring positions to be generally worthwhile  
 
 163
 
Figure 139: Marker pins in RIFT 
 
 
10.2 Comparison of LIFT, ISO 5657 and RIFT ignition results 
 
The differences in the details between the apparatus, regarding sample size, 
orientation, pilot and heating source, etc are expected to affect the ignition results, and 
hence the values subsequently calculated. 
The RIFT has a ledge at the front as part of the mounting frame and this affects the 
convective flow across the face of the sample. The ASTM E 1623 ICAL intermediate 
scale calorimeter uses such a ledge to prevent convective cooling of the exposed 
sample surface, as the ignition time results are otherwise far greater than those 
produced by other methods (Babrauskas, 2003).As the radiatve component of the heat 
transfer coefficient is expected to be unaffected by the ledge, it appears that the RIFT 
as used in these experiments appears to have a lower convective coefficient h
c
 than 
the LIFT. This gives a correspondingly reduced heat loss from the face of the sample, 
and consequently the RIFT has shorter ignition times than the LIFT. The ASTM E 
1321-97a standard specifies that the LIFT has a heat transfer coefficient of 
0.015kW/m
2
K, including the convective component, although Dietenberger (1996) 
found the heat transfer coefficient was much higher at the hot end of the sample. This 
 164
was due to the effect of turbulence induced by the gas burner, and was a function of 
the heat flux at the point, and the convection coefficient varied along the sample.  
The heat transfer coefficient for the cone calorimeter is approximately 0.010 kW/m
2
K 
(Janssens et al, 2003), and Babrauskas and Wetterlund (1999) used a value from other 
research of 0.0115kW/m
2
K. Babrauskas (2003) gives the convection coefficient for 
the cone calorimeter in the vertical position as 20% higher than in the horizontal 
position, or 0.012kW/m
2
K. Dietenberger (1995b) found that it was a function of the 
received heat flux, in the same manner as the LIFT.  The RIFT would therefore be 
expected to have longer ignition times than the ISO 5657 apparatus, due to the 
orientation, in the same manner as the LIFT. Since the ignition times for the RIFT 
were similar to the ISO ignition test results, as discussed in more detail below in 
section 10.2.2, then this implies that the convection coefficient for the RIFT is similar 
to the ISO ignitability apparatus. 
The effect of the larger sample size in the LIFT is expected to be less of a cause for 
the difference in results. The main difference in the heat loss from the surface between 
a LIFT and RIFT sample is convective, and the convective coefficient h
c
?  (sample 
height)
1/4
  (Babrauskas, 2003). 
10.2.1 The effect of data reduction of ignition data 
As noted in section 3.4.2, the data reduction undertaken can greatly affect the results 
of the test, by affecting the preheating time t
*
 and the ignition parameter b, from the 
slope of the fitted data points. As given in Equation (32), the thermal equilibrium time 
*
t  equals [1/(ignition parameter b )]
2
, a small change in the fit of the data points leads 
to excessively long or short preheating times. The effect of insufficient preheating is a 
curvature in the flame spread correlation, and a poorer linear data fit. The points 
which are discarded as being a poor fit are generally obvious, and the process given in 
section 3.4.2 appears to give consistent results.  
This is an area recognised by others (Babrauskas and Wetterlund, 1999) as an area 
which is unclear within the standard, and a definite procedure should be included in 
future revisions for consistency and clarity. 
10.2.2 Time to ignition 
The time to ignition between the ISO 5657 apparatus and the LIFT (Figure 140) 
follows the expected behaviour shown by Dietenberger (1995), where the ignition 
 165
times are longer in the LIFT than the ISO 5657 test, although not as marked, as the 
average difference is 4.3% in these tests.  While the difference is greater at lower flux 
levels, the scatter of the results is also greater, and this tends to hide the trend at flux 
levels less than 30kW/m
2
. This is also noted by Babrauskas (2003). 
Shields, Silcock and Murray (1993) investigated the time to ignition for particle 
board, plywood and spruce softwood in the horizontal and vertical positions in the 
ISO 5657 ignition apparatus and in the cone calorimeter, as well as inverted in the 
ISO 5657 apparatus. The cone calorimeter and the ISO 5657 apparatus produced 
similar ignition results. In all cases, where the sample was in the vertical orientation, 
the ignition times were significantly increased for flux levels between 20 and 40 
kW/m
2
.  
 
 
Comparison of time to ignition between ISO5657 and LIFT ignition test 
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
ISO ignition test (s)
LI
FT 
i
g
ni
t
i
o
n
 t
e
s
t
 (
s
)
Plywood
MDF
Melteca
Particle board
Hardboard
Rimu
Pine
Macrocarpa
Beech
Average of all points
Average overall = 4.3% 
longer igntition time in LIFT
 
Figure 140: Comparison of time to ignition for ISO 5657 and LIFT ignition test 
 
 166
The trend is similar with the RIFT vs. the LIFT, with the LIFT having higher times to 
ignition than the RIFT (Figure 141). The time to ignition for the RIFT and ISO 5657 
are similar (Figure 142) 
Comparison of RIFT and LIFT time to ignition
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840
RIFT (s)
LI
F
T
 (
s
)
Plyw ood 17mm
MDF
Meltic a/MDF
Chipboard - Pynefloor
hardboard
Rimu
Pine
Macrocarpa
beech
 
Figure 141: Comparison of time to ignition for tests in RIFT and LIFT 
 
 167
Comparison of RIFT and ISO5657 time to ignition
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
0 120 240 360 480 600 720
RIFT (s)
I
S
O5657 (s
)
Plyw ood - 17mm
MDF
Meltica/MDF
Chipboard - Pynefloor
hardboard
Rimu
Pine
Mac r oc ar pa
beech
 
Figure 142: Comparison of time to ignition for tests in RIFT and ISO 5657 ignition apparatus 
 168
10.2.3 Thermal inertia k?c 
The thermal inertia is compared in Figure 143, where the differences between the 
types of apparatus are apparent. The ISO 5657 apparatus produces higher thermal 
inertial values than the LIFT. The RIFT shows much more variation and spread 
compared with the other methods, giving more inconsistent results when it is applied 
to calculate the flame spread parameter.  
 
Comparison of thermal inertia from ignition in LIFT, ISO5657 and RIFT
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
P
l
y
wo
o
d
M
DF
Me
lt
ec
a f
ac
ed
 
MD
F
H
a
r
d
bo
a
r
d
NZ
 B
e
e
ch
 
R
a
dia
t
a
 
p
in
e
Ri
m
u
M
a
c
r
o
c
arpa
P
y
ne
f
lo
or
 
p
ar
ti
cl
e
 
B
o
ar
d
Material
T
h
e
r
m
al
 i
n
er
t
i
a
 k
p
c 
[(
kW
/
m
2
K)
2
LIFT
ISO5657
RIFT ign
 
Figure 143: Comparison of thermal inertia (k?c) in LIFT, ISO 5657 and RIFT 
 
10.2.4 Minimum ignition flux 
The minimum ignition flux is compared in Figure 144, where the ISO 5657 ignition 
test gives a consistently lower value for 
"
min,
.
ig
q  than the LIFT. The RIFT is generally 
greater than or equal to the LIFT values. 
As a comparison, Dietenberger (1996) found that the minimum ignition flux for 
redwood was 4kW/m
2
 greater in the LIFT when compared to the cone calorimeter in 
the horizontal position.  Given that the ISO 5657 and cone calorimeter tests give 
similar results for the minimum ignition flux (Babrauskas, 2003), then the values from 
 169
ignition tests in the LIFT would be expected be higher than those obtained in the ISO 
5657 ignition tests. This can be seen in Figure 144. 
The higher minimum ignition flux for the RIFT ignition, combined with the lower 
ignition times gives a higher ignition parameter value ?b?, which affects the final 
flame spread parameter ?  value.  
 
 
 
Figure 144: Comparison of minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q   
 
10.2.5 
Comparison of correlation values and measured minimum 
ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q
 
The comparison of the correlated value and the measured value for the minimum 
ignition flux (
"
min,
.
ig
q ) is shown below for both the RIFT (Figure 145) and the LIFT 
(Figure 146). The values of the minimum ignition flux from the flame spread 
correlation, given in the procedure in Section 3.4.4, are consistently higher than the 
 170
experimental values. Babrauskas and Wetterlund (1999) also noted this finding with 
their results, where they used the LIFT for both the ignition tests and flame spread. 
 
Figure 145: Comparison of RIFT flame spread correlation and ISO 5657 ignition test results for 
minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
 171
 
Figure 146: Comparison of LIFT correlation and LIFT ignition test results for minimum ignition 
flux 
 172
10.2.6 Apparatus and flame spread 
 
It is apparent when looking at the flux distribution in the RIFT in Section 6.2, 
reproduced below in Figure 147, that the apparatus is limited to materials with a 
relatively low  value for the minimum flux required for flame spread (
"
.
s
q ), in order to 
get sufficient flame spread along the sample. 
Flux profile for RIFT - (60? sample angle, 850?C element, 45mm 
separation of sample to element
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance along sample (mm)
H
eat
 f
l
ux
 (
k
W
/
m
2
)
 
Figure 147: RIFT irradiance curve 
As the initial 80mm of most timber based samples  in the RIFT was unusable for the 
flame spread test due to excessive charring during the preheat period, the practical 
limit in order to get sufficient data is around 
"
.
s
q  = 7kW/m
2
, giving flame spread 
measurements along to 180mm from the hot end of the sample. The rapid decay of the 
flux profile around this point makes the measurement of the flame spread velocity 
more difficult, as there is a significant change between each measuring point.  
Samples with a lower flame spread parameter ?, which consequently have a lower 
flame spread velocity, will give more accurate results.  
It is important that the markings on the sample match their position. A small variation 
of the actual position against the expected position (with the measured heat flux) will 
introduce errors in the RIFT measurements, due to the more rapid decay of the flux 
profile and the smaller resolution. As the LIFT has a shallower flux profile and a 
 173
longer sample area, it is not as critical in this regard. A tolerance of ?2mm is listed for 
the LIFT. The LIFT uses a sample holder which is slid into place against a stop, 
allowing it to maintain the positioning, whereas the RIFT as currently designed has 
the sample slide directly into a sample holder frame, giving less consistent 
positioning, due to the effect of the aluminium foil backing bunching at the ends of 
the sample. The separate frame allows this to be taken into account when the sample 
is setup in the sample, so it can be zeroed accurately prior to insertion.  
 
10.2.7 Comparison of ignition parameter ?b?  
The ignition parameter ?b?, calculated from the ignition data, depends on the 
minimum ignition flux 
"
min,
.
ig
q , which has been shown to be dependent on the ignition 
apparatus, as well as the data reduction, as excluding data points can make a 
significant difference to the final value. As a result, the value of the ignition parameter 
can be expected to vary between the ignition methods used. Figure 148 shows that the 
data from the LIFT tests tends to give slightly higher ignition parameter values for the 
materials tested. This is expected to be largely due to the higher 
"
min,
.
ig
q  values that this 
ignition test gives compared with the ISO 5657 test.  
 174
Comparison of ignition parameter "b" for ISO5657 and LIFT
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
ISO5657 (s
-?
)
LI
F
T
 (
s
-?
)
Plyw ood
MDF
Melteca faced MDF
Hardboard
NZ Beech 
Radiata pine
Rimu
Macrocarpa
Pynefloor particle Board
 
Figure 148: Comparison of ignition parameter "b" in ISO 5657 and LIFT 
 
10.2.8 Flame spread parameter ? 
From equation (34), reproduced below in equation (46), the flame spread parameter 
depends on the ignition parameter ?b? value. As noted previously, this can vary 
depending on the data reduction used, and the experimental apparatus. The effect this 
has can be seen by a 10% change in the ignition parameter value in the range of the 
materials tested, which leads to approximately a 17% reduction in the resulting flame 
spread parameter.  
2
)(
4
Cb
?
? =
(46) 
 
 
 175
Generally the flame spread parameters calculated from the RIFT tests are higher than 
those from the same material in the LIFT (Figure 149). The results based on the ISO 
5657 ignition data show less scatter than those on the RIFT ignition tests, reflecting 
the variation in the ignition results using the RIFT for ignition testing.  
Comparison of flame spread parameter between LIFT 
and RIFT (ISO ign data)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1020304050607080
LIFT (kW
2
/m
3
)
RI
FT (
k
W
2
/m
3
)
Plywood
MDF
Melteca faced MDF
Hardboard
NZ beech
Radiata pine
Macrocarpa
Particle board
 
Figure 149: Comparison between flame spread parameter for LIFT and RIFT (using ISO 5657 
ign data for RIFT) 
 
 176
Comparison of flame spread parameter for LIFT and RIFT (using RIFT ignition data)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
102030405060
LIFT (kW
2
/m
3
) 
R
I
F
T
 (
u
s
i
ng
 R
I
FT
 i
g
n
i
ti
on
 da
ta
)
 (k
W
2
/m
3
)
Plywood
MDF
Melteca faced MDF
Hardboard
Radiata pine
Macrocarpa
Particle board
 
Figure 150: Comparison of flame spread parameter for LIFT and RIFT (using RIFT ignition 
data) 
 
10.2.9 Minimum heat flux for flame spread  
A limiting factor to the RIFT test is the minimum flux required for flame spread (
"
.
s
q ), 
as if this value is too high, then there is insufficient flame spread distance to give 
accurate results. The results are generally comparable for the LIFT and RIFT (Figure 
151).  The outliers of Rimu and Melteca faced MDF are largely because the flame 
spread stops in the area where the profile is rapidly diminishing with a change of 
4kW/m
2
 over the 25mm measuring interval of the flux measuring template, so  a small 
error in the location can have a large effect on the  final outcome.  
 
 177
Comparison of minimum flux for spread from
extent of flame spread in LIFT and RIFT
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0246810121416
LIFT (kW/m
2
)
RI
F
T
 (
k
W
/
m
2
)
Plyw ood
MDF
Melteca faced MDF
Hardboard
NZ beech
Radiata pine
Rimu
Macrocarpa
Pynefloor particle board
 
Figure 151: Comparison of minimum flux for flame spread 
"
s
q in LIFT and RIFT
 
The results where there is a closer match are for materials where 
"
.
s
q  < 7kW/m
2
, 
giving a practical limit to the RIFT test for materials to get comparable results. This 
limit does depend on the flame spread behaviour of the material, and the effect of 
charring due to the preheating. If the flame spread rate is sufficiently low, and data 
can be obtained over the area that is normally too heavily charred to ignite easily, then 
it may be possible to get useable data above this level. The value for the experimental 
minimum heat flux for flame spread 
"
.
s
q  is still going to have significant error due to 
the rapid change in the flux profile in the RIFT in this area.  
Given that the minimum flux for spread is not known until the material is tested, an 
estimate of the likelihood of success of the RIFT flame spread test is necessary from 
the ignition tests. A comparison of the minimum ignition flux and the flux required 
for spread shows a poor correlation (Figure 152), however the products for which no 
flame spread results were possible (the Melteca faced boards, and Rimu) all have 
highest minimum ignition flux. This indicates there is an approximate limit for the 
 178
minimum ignition flux of 
"
min,
.
ig
q  < 18 - 19kW/m
2
 
for a successful flame spread test in 
the RIFT. 
Minimum ignition flux from ISO5657 test  
vs. minimum flux for flame spread in RIFT
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Minimum ignition flux q"
ig,min
 (kW/m
2
)
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
 f
l
u
x
 fo
r
 
sp
r
ead
 q
"
s
 (kW
/
m
2
)
Plywood
MDF
Melteca faced Particle board
Melteca faced MDF
Pynefloor Particle board flooring
Superflake Particle board flooring
Hardboard
Beech
Radiata pine
Rimu
Macrocarpa
 
Figure 152: Minimum ignition flux from ISO 5657 test vs. minimum flux for spread for RIFT 
 
10.3 Material and operational differences 
10.3.1 Effect of preheating 
Quintiere (1981, 1983, 1984), and the resulting ASTM LIFT standard calls for the 
material to be preheated so that the surface reaches equilibrium, and hence the time 
transient function F(t) =1, simplifying the data reduction. It is also justified for fire 
modelling as the walls are expected to be heated by the fire in the compartment and it 
gives a more conservative approach as the calculated flame spread velocity will be 
higher.  The process of preheating the material changes the material properties, such 
as drying the moisture from the wood, and charring or melting the material. These 
changes are not constant along the sample ? the charring of the sample occurs at the 
hot end of the sample, where as the cold end is close to room temperature. With 
excessive preheating times the material can char to such an extent that the material 
 179
can no longer be ignited. This problem occurred with hardboard in the RIFT, which 
had a longer preheating time than in the LIFT due to the results of the ISO ignition 
test. The material charred to such an extent that it cracked and fell out or self ignited, 
so the shorter LIFT preheating time was used. This issue also occurred for the tests 
conducted by Nisted (1991)  where some materials would not ignite when tested with 
the standard preheating period, so only half the preheat period was used on those 
materials.  
Babrauskas (1999) reports that some of the materials tested, which covered a wider 
range of material types than these tests, gave more consistent results when no 
preheating period was used. The results from these tests indicate the opposite for these 
materials, with the flame spread rate and the correlations showing far more variation 
than when the material is preheated fully, for example, the results for particle board 
given in  Figure 62 - Figure 65. 
The issue of charring of the material during the preheating period makes the first 
80mm in the RIFT, and 150-200mm in the LIFT effectively useless for flame spread 
measurements. The material is above the minimum ignition flux, so that the flame 
spread travels across the material in this region almost instantly.  
The effect of preheating on the flame spread correlation and the slope of the data 
points, from which the flame spread parameter is calculated, is shown in Figure 153. 
The slope, which equates to the flame spread modulus C, decreases as the material is 
preheated until equilibrium is reached (i.e. F(t)=1), due to the scaling effect of the 
F(t) time transient function.  
 
 180
Effect of preheating on flame spread correlation 
for Pynefloor particle board in RIFT
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25
1/
?
V
f
  (
m
/s
)
-0.
5
Low preheat - 80s
Half preheat -  385s
Full preheat - 760s
 
Figure 153: Effect of preheating on the flame spread correlation for Pynefloor in RIFT 
The preheat times for Figure 153 were approximately 80 seconds, 385 and 760 
seconds, where 755 seconds was the calculated time for the surface to reach 
equilibrium from the ISO 5657 ignition tests.  
10.3.2 Effect of substrates on Melteca and facings on boards 
It is apparent from the tests on the Melteca faced boards, outlined in Section 8.4.3 that 
having a layer with a higher minimum ignition flux over the comparatively more 
flammable substrate gives inconsistent results in the LIFT tests (, and these results are 
worse in the RIFT (Figure 97 and Figure 98) due to the smaller scale and more rapid 
decay of the flux profile.  
10.3.3 Effect of thickness 
There is a limitation on the theory given in the ASTM E 1321 LIFT standard that the 
material is assumed to be thermally thick. As an illustration of the effect of the sample 
thickness on the ignition time, 9mm and 17mm plywood with a 12mm lightweight 
Kaoboard insulated backing board were compared with ignition in the RIFT (Figure 
154). At high heat fluxes, the time to ignition is the approximately the same, 
regardless of the thickness, as the thermal penetration depth is less than the sample 
 181
thickness.  As the time to ignition increases, the thermal penetration is greater than the 
thickness of the thin sample, and as the backing board is a good insulator, there is 
little heat loss from the back of the sample into the backing board, hence the sample 
tends to become thermally thin, the sample temperature increases and the ignition 
time is less. With the thicker sample, there is still heat loss into the unheated part of 
the sample, leading to a longer ignition time. 
 
Comparison of ignition times for plywood 
in RIFT ignition test
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
0 120 240 360 480 600 720
17mm plywood (s)
9
m
m
 pl
y
w
ood  (
s
)
 
Figure 154: Comparison of ignition times for plywood in RIFT test 
 
 
 182
 
10.4 Proposal for improved apparatus 
The objective of this research report was to investigate alternative methods to the 
ASTM LIFT for measuring flame spread properties. While the RIFT shows some 
success, the limitation on suitable materials in order to get sufficient and consistent 
flame spread data rules out the use of the RIFT for a lot of cases. 
During the fabrication and use of the LIFT, it became apparent that it would be 
possible to reduce the size and cost of the apparatus and increase the control of the 
radiant panel by using modern elements and thermocouple controllers. 
The flux profile over the first 150mm of the sample is almost constant, allowing the 
LIFT to be used ignition testing. If this section was eliminated, then the length of the 
sample can be reduced without reducing the resolution of the flame spread section. 
This can be achieved by changing the offset of the panel to the sample so that the 
level section of the flux profile is shorter. The panel size can therefore also be 
reduced. The ignition tests can still be done if the radiant panel can turn to be parallel 
with the face of the sample, and is on a slide, similar to the University of Canterbury 
LIFT, so that the spacing between the sample and the elements can be changed.  
The major change would be to use thermocouple controlled radiant electric elements. 
These are capable of reaching 1000?C within 3 minutes and give a black body radiant 
spectrum. The thermocouple controllers will give an output with far less variation 
than that of the gas panel, and the temperature across the face will be more uniform. 
One limitation is that the electrical elements cannot produce the same output as the 
gas panel, with the current supply of 20A/phase giving 
"
50
.
mm
q
 
= 50kW/m
2
. This is 
primarily an issue for the ignition tests where higher heat fluxes are required. Having 
the element bank able to move closer to the sample will allow higher heat fluxes for 
ignition. 
This should allow for a testing method which is only slightly bigger than the ISO 
5657 ignition testing apparatus. This compares with the 1.7m*0.9m footprint of the 
LIFT testing apparatus. 
 
The initial work is to make a full scale replacement of the LIFT gas panel, which can 
also be used as a reduced scale panel by eliminating some of the elements as required. 
 183
This allows the effect of scale to be determined, and would easily allow the use the 
current LIFT apparatus for direct comparison. The full scale radiant panel measures 
490mm x 300mm and uses 15 Elstein SHTS elements. Each element measures 95mm 
square and is mounted at 100mm centres, and has a maximum continuous temperature 
of 900?C and an output of 800W. This would give a 
"
50
.
mm
q  = 56kW/m
2
 at the standard 
LIFT layout, as shown in Appendix 2.  
 184
11 Comparison of data with published literature 
 
There is little published data available from LIFT flame spread tests, reflecting the 
narrower focus of the test when compared to the cone calorimeter. As can be seen 
from the results, the variations between nominally similar materials can be significant 
if the preheating time is not adequate to get the material to equilibrium before 
ignition.  Even within materials of the same type or source, the variation can be 
significant.  
There is a greater availability of ignition data for materials, some of which is 
summarised in Babrauskas (2003). Again, nominally identical materials can give 
different results for the same properties, depending on the testing apparatus, procedure 
and correlations or ignition theory used (Babrauskas, 2003) 
Comparisons have to be treated with caution, since apart from the materials used 
within the tests conducted for this report, they were not controlled. The materials 
often have a different base for the same nominal material. As an example the material 
basis is given as Douglas fir or Southern Pine for much of the literature which uses 
US construction plywood, and European plywood tests where the material details are 
specified are birch based. New Zealand plywood is generally Radiata Pine, other than 
specialty furniture and marine plywood.  
There is little data on NZ native timbers, other than that published by Ngu (2002) and 
Henderson (1998). The complete list of thermal properties and comparisons is given 
in Appendix 5. The list of properties from the literature is limited to those 
approximately the same as those tested for this report, in regard to material 
composition and surface finish.  
Not all the results can be compared, as much of the literature does not give the data 
for values such as
"
min,
.
ig
q . 
 
 185
11.1 Comparison of Ignition results with published literature 
11.1.1 Thermal inertia (k?c) 
The thermal inertia from the ignition tests generally compares well with the published 
data, as shown in Figure 155 - Figure 156 and Appendix 5 
The thermal inertia plays a direct part in the flame spread calculation, given in 
equation (33). As can be seen from the results, there can be significant variation even 
with the same material, due to the correlations used and the effect of different testing 
methods. The detail of each material is given in Appendix 5 if it was specified in the 
original reference. 
The round-robin test report by Fowell of the LIFT apparatus, reported that a 2:1 
spread of results was not uncommon, despite testing the same material, using the same 
methods in different laboratories.  
The thermal inertia for plywood could be expected to vary more than more 
homogeneous materials, due to the presence of voids in the material from bonding the 
ply. As this plywood was rated C/D grade, then some internal voids could be expected  
 
Comparison of effective thermal inertia for plywood
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
IS
O
5
6
57
L
I
FT
RIF
T
N
g
u,
 
C
K.
 
200
2
As
a
ka
s
an e
t
a
l 199
8
Ji
a
n
m
i
n,
 1
990
Ni
s
t
ed,
 
19
9
1
F
ang
r
a
t
 
e
t a
l
,
 19
96
F
an
g
ra
t
 e
t a
l
, 1
9
96
F
an
g
ra
t e
t 
al
, 1
9
96
F
a
ng
ra
t e
t
 al
, 
19
9
6
F
a
ng
r
at
 e
t
 al
,
 19
9
6
D
ie
t
enb
ur
g
e
r,
 1
9
9
5
 (a
)
Gr
e
xa
, 
W
h
it
e
 a
nd
 
Di
e
t
en
b
er
g
er
,
 1
99
6
G
r
ex
a
, W
h
it
e
 an
d
 D
ie
te
n
be
r
ge
r,
 1
99
6
Gr
e
xa
, 
W
h
it
e
 a
nd
 
Di
e
t
en
b
er
ge
r,
 1
99
6
Qu
int
i
e
re
 
&
 H
a
rk
l
e
ro
a
d
, 1
9
8
3
D
ie
te
n
bu
rg
e
r,
 
19
9
5 
( 
c)
F
o
w
e
ll
,
 1
993
 
(
N
I
ST
)
Fo
w
el
l
,
 19
93 
(
UL
)
Fo
w
e
ll
,
 
19
9
3 
(S
a
fe
ty
 E
n
g L
a
b)
F
o
we
ll
, 1
9
93
 
(
N
RC
C)
Source
kp
c
 ((
kW
/
m
2
k
2
)
2
 
Figure 155: Comparison of thermal inertia of plywood 
 186
 
Particle board and fibreboard products, such as MDF and hardboard show much more 
consistent results than plywood, due to the more homogeneous nature of the material.  
Despite being made from the same base material, there is a significant difference 
between the thermal inertia of Pynefloor and Superflake particle board and between 
the results from different test methods on the same material.  
 
Comparison of effective thermal inertia for particle board
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Py
n
e
fl
o
or
 IS
O
5
65
7
Py
n
e
f
l
o
o
r L
I
F
T
Py
n
e
f
lo
o
r RI
F
T
S
u
pe
r
f
l
a
k
e
 I
S
O5
65
7
Su
p
e
r
f
l
a
k
e
 RI
F
T
Di
e
t
e
n
be
rg
er a
n
d 
G
re
x
a
, 19
9
9
Ja
n
ns
en
s
 
M
, 
1
99
2
Qui
n
t
ier
e 
&
 H
a
r
k
l
e
r
o
ad
,
 19
83
B
a
br
au
s
k
as
 a
n
d 
W
e
t
t
e
rl
u
n
d
,
Cl
ea
ry
 & Q
u
in
ti
e
re
. 1
9
9
1
Di
et
e
nb
e
rg
er
,
 1
9
9
5 
(a
)
F
a
ng
ra
t e
t
 a
l
, 1
9
9
6
Source
kp
c
 ((
k
W
/
m
2
k
2
)
2
 
Figure 156: Comparison of thermal inertia of particle board 
 
 187
Comparison of effective thermal inertia for MDF
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
ISO LIFT RIFT Ngu, CK. 2002 Asakasan etal
1998
Cleary &
Quintiere,
1991
Henderson, A.
1998
Source
kp
c
 ((kW
/
m
2
k
2
)
2
 
Figure 157: Comparison of thermal inertia of MDF 
 
Since the definition of ?hardboard? is not necessarily clearly defined, then some 
variation can be expected for this material (Figure 158). The results for Dietenberger 
come from a report on siding materials, so it may not be?hardboard? of the same type 
as tested in this report. 
 188
Comparison of effective thermal inertia of hardboard
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
ISO LIFT RIFT Asakasan etal
1998
Dietenberger,
1995 (b)
Dietenberger,
1995 (a)
Quintiere &
Harkleroad,
1985 from
Quintiere,
2002
Quintiere &
Harkleroad,
1985 from
Quintiere,
2002
Source
kp
c  
((k
W
/
m
2
k
2
)
2
 
Figure 158: Comparison of thermal inertia of hardboard 
 
When the thermal inertia for natural timbers is compared, there is much more 
variation. 
The value for thermal inertia from Moghtaderi et al. (1997) for Radiata Pine, shown in 
Figure 159, is for US grown specimens at 15% moisture content. The others are for 
New Zealand grown Radiata Pine, and the results for Henderson (1998) were at 11% 
moisture content, and both were measured in the cone calorimeter.  
Henderson (1998) got identical results for thermal inertia and ignition temperature for 
Rimu heart wood and sapwood, although the critical ignition flux was 20% higher for 
the heart wood over the sap wood.  
 189
Comparison of effective thermal inertia of radiata pine
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
ISO LIFT RIFT Ngu, CK. 2002 Henderson, A.
1998
Moghtaderi, B et
al. 1997
Source
kp
c
 (
(
k
W
/m
2
k
2
)
2
(Cone calorimeter)(ISO5657)
 
Figure 159: Comparison of thermal inertia of Radiata (Monterey) Pine 
 
Comparison of effective thermal inertia for
 macrocarpa and NZ rimu
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
ISO LIFT RIFT Ngu, CK. 2002 Henderson, A.
1998
Source
k
?
c
 (k
W
/
m
2
K)
2
macrocarpa
Rimu
 
Figure 160: Comparison of thermal inertial of Macrocarpa and NZ Rimu 
 190
11.2 Comparison of published flame spread results 
The significant effect of preheating on the results for the flame spread parameter has 
been covered previously in Section 10.3.1. 
The results from Huynh (2003) should be taken with care, as the correlation obtained 
by Huynh of the flame spread results was poor, and the material was not preheated. 
The results from Jinmen (1990) was calculated using the data given in the report by 
Jinmen as the flame spread parameter was not specifically stated as an outcome.  
11.2.1 Flame spread parameter 
The results for plywood show that the flame spread parameter results in these tests on 
New Zealand Radiata based plywood are generally higher than the published values in 
the literature for plywood.  
The non-preheated results in the RIFT are comparable with those obtained by Huynh 
(2002), who also used Radiata pine plywood without preheating.  
Comparison of flame spread parameter ? for Plywood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
RI
F
T 
F
u
ll
 p
re
h
e
a
t
 - 
I
SO
 i
g
n
 
da
t
a
R
I
FT
 Fu
l
l 
p
r
e
h
ea
t
 
-
 RI
F
T
 i
g
n d
a
t
a
RI
F
T
 Lo
w 
p
r
eh
ea
t
 - 
I
SO
 i
g
n
 
da
t
a
RI
F
T
 L
o
w 
p
re
h
ea
t
 
- R
I
F
T
 i
g
n
 
d
a
ta
L
IFT
Hy
u
n
h
,
 20
0
2
P
ea
r
c
e
 
(f
r
o
m
 H
y
u
n
h
,
 2
0
0
2
)
As
a
k
a
s
an
 
e
t 
a
l 
1
99
8
Ji
a
n
m
i
n
, 
1
9
9
0
Ni
s
t
e
d
,
 
1
99
1
Qu
i
n
t
ie
r
e
 
&
 Ha
rk
le
r
o
a
d
,
 19
84
Fo
we
l
l
, 
1
99
3 (
N
I
S
T
)
F
o
we
l
l,
 
19
9
3
 (U
L
)
F
o
we
l
l
, 
1
99
3 (
S
a
f
et
y
 E
n
g
 
L
a
b)
Fo
we
l
l
,
 1
9
9
3
 
(
NRCC
)
Source
?
 (kW
2
/m
3
)
RIFT bas ed 
data
LIFT 
based 
data
 
Figure 161: Flame spread parameter for plywood 
 
 191
The results for medium density fibreboard (Figure 162) show that the flame spread 
parameter for this material is greatly affected by the preheating time. Fibreboard is an 
ill-defined material, as it can cover a range of materials made from wood fibre, 
including low density ceiling panel material as wall as medium and high density 
fibreboard, and the material specified as ?fibreboard? by Azhakesan et al (1998) is not 
clearly defined as MDF. No density information was available in the original 
publication, and a comment was made that the value they obtained was lower than 
expected, and this value was expected to be around 13 kW
2
/m
3
. 
 
Comparison of flame spread parameter      for MDF 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
RIFT Full
preheat -
ISO ign data
RIFT Full
preheat -
RIFT ign
data
RIFT Low
preheat -
ISO ign data
RIFT Low
preheat -
RIFT ign
data
LIFT Asakasan
et al, 1998
Hyunh,
2002
Cleary &
Quintiere,
1991
Source
?
 (kW
2
/m
3
)
RIFT 
based data
LIFT 
based 
data
 
Figure 162: Comparison of flame spread parameter for MDF 
 
 192
Particle board is a commonly tested material in the LIFT literature, and much of the 
initial work on developing the theory was based on results for this material (Quintiere 
et al, 1981, 1983, 1984) 
The results for the RIFT are similar to the published data, but significantly less than 
the results from the LIFT with the same material.  
The results for a low preheating period are similar to Huynh (2002), which were also 
not preheated.  
The particle board used by Cleary (1991), Quintiere and Harkleroad (1984) and 
Babrauskas (1999) were Douglas Fir based, as opposed to the results from these tests, 
and Huynh (2002), which were all Radiata Pine based.  
 
Flame spread parameter  ?  for particle board
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
P
/
f
l
o
o
r
 R
I
FT Fu
l
l
pr
ehe
at
 -
 I
S
O
 i
g
n
P
/
f
l
o
o
r
 R
I
FT Fu
l
l
pr
ehea
t
 -
 RI
F
T
 i
g
n
P
/
f
l
oo
r
 RI
F
T
 Low
pr
ehe
at
 -
 I
S
O
 i
g
n
P
/
f
l
oor
 RI
F
T
 Low
pr
ehea
t
 -
 RI
F
T
 i
g
n
P
/
f
l
oor
 LI
F
T
S
/
f
l
a
k
e
 R
I
FT Fu
l
l
pr
ehe
at
 -
 I
S
O
 i
g
n
S
/
f
l
a
k
e
 R
I
FT Fu
l
l
pr
ehea
t
 -
 RI
F
T
 i
g
n
S
/
f
l
ak
e RI
F
T
 Low
pr
ehe
at
 -
 I
S
O
 i
g
n
S
/
f
l
ak
e
 RI
F
T
 Low
pr
ehea
t
 -
 RI
F
T
 i
g
n
Hy
unh,
 2
003 (
R
I
F
T
)
Q
u
i
n
t
i
er
e &
Har
k
l
e
r
oad,
 198
4
B
abr
a
u
s
k
a
s
 and
W
e
t
t
e
r
l
und,
 1999
Cl
ear
y
 &
 Q
u
i
n
t
i
er
e
.
1
991
Source
?
 (k
W
2
/m
3
)
LIFT based data
 
Figure 163: Flame spread parameter for particle board 
 
 193
 
12  Conclusions 
A full-scale ASTM E 1321 Lateral ignition and Flame Transport (LIFT) apparatus 
was constructed and a reduced scale ignition and flame spread apparatus (RIFT) was 
built to fit the cone calorimeter in the vertical position. A series of lateral flame spread 
tests with 9 different types of timber based products were conducted, and Quintiere?s 
flame spread model was applied to the results to obtain material properties. These 
materials included plywood, medium density fibreboard (MDF), hardboard, particle 
board flooring, Melteca covered MDF, Radiata Pine, NZ Rimu, Macrocarpa and New 
Zealand Beech. Further limited tests were conducted on Melteca covered particle 
board, and a second brand of particle board.  
As only timber based products were tested, the conclusions regarding the suitability of 
the RIFT can only be in relation to these materials. Other materials may give different 
results from those obtained in these tests.  
 
Test methodology 
These tests were based on the procedures given in the ASTM standard, and were 
conducted using common materials with both sets of equipment, so the results could 
be compared. Ignition tests were conducted in the LIT, RIFT and ISO 5657 
ignitability apparatus. The flame spread tests in the RIFT were done with a preheating 
period, as required by the ASTM standard, and also without the preheating period, to 
gauge the effect of preheating on the results. 
 
The effect of sample preheating 
If the sample was not preheated to equilibrium before the flame spread test, the 
resulting values for the flame spread parameter are lower than with a fully preheated 
sample. This reflects the lower flame front velocity across the sample due to the 
greater difference between the surface temperature and the material ignition 
temperature. Non preheated samples also had more scatter in the correlation results, 
and the extent of flame spread was less than for preheated samples, if the flame spread 
was faster than the material in ahead of the flame front could reach equilibrium. This 
gives a higher value for the heat flux required for flame spread (
"
.
s
q ) than is actually 
 194
achievable, hence in a fire situation, where some preheating can be expected, the 
flame front will spread further than anticipated.  
For comparable values to the LIFT, the testing method must be the same, so 
preheating is required in the RIFT in the same manner as the LIFT results.  
 
The reduced scale flame test method 
The RIFT method of flame spread testing has been shown to be successful for 
measuring flame spread properties; however, there are limitations on materials which 
can be reliably tested. These limitations are dictated by the smaller scale, such that the 
effects of errors on the results are more pronounced. The shape of the flux distribution 
profile along the sample has a sharp decay due to the directionality of the cone 
element, which leads to insufficient flame spread for accurate results for materials 
where the flux required for flame spread 
"
.
s
q  >7kW/m
2
. 
This equates to a maximum 
limit in the minimum flux for ignition 
"
min,
.
ig
q  of 18-19 kW/m
2
, although this limit is 
not clearly defined. It was not possible to get flame spread results for Rimu, yet 
Macrocarpa gave acceptable results, despite both materials having the same value of 
"
min,
.
ig
q
. 
 
Allied to the limitation of suitable materials dictated above, the material behaviour 
during flame spread is more critical. The smaller scale increases the effect of errors 
and erratic burning behaviour. The tests for Melteca covered MDF showed that the 
erratic behaviour caused buy the Melteca facing meant that no reliable correlation was 
possible in the RIFT, even though a result was obtained in the LIFT.  
Using the RIFT for the ignition tests proved to give inconsistent results and this most 
likely due to the design of the apparatus, which disrupts the airflow over the face of 
the sample. The ignition results which gave the best results when combined with the 
RIFT flame spread data came from the tests in the ISO 5657 ignitability apparatus. 
A view factor calculation was developed for the RIFT, based on earlier work by 
Huynh (2002), and compared against experimental findings. The simplifications in the 
view factor model led to results than were consistently to low against the experimental 
findings, although the match of the shape of the resulting curve was good. 
 
Flame spread parameter 
 195
The LIFT gives values for the ignition parameter ?b?, used in calculating the flame 
spread parameter values, which are generally higher than those obtained in the ISO 
5657 ignition test, leading to higher values for the flame spread parameter ? for 
similar flame spread test results.  
The flame spread parameter ? calculated from the results in the RIFT, using the ISO 
ignition data is generally comparable to those obtained in the LIFT, although on 
average, the value tends to be higher than the value obtained in the LIFT. The more 
erratic ignition results for ignition tests in the RIFT give a wide variation in the flame 
spread parameter results, and this ignition method is not recommended. 
The values for the minimum flux for heat spread are comparable between the RIFT 
and the LIFT, for values which are under the recommended limit for successful RIFT 
tests.  
Ignition tests in the ISO 5657 apparatus generally gave faster times to ignition than 
the same material in the LIFT, with a difference of 4% overall. This difference is 
expected, but the magnitude of the difference is less than other tests in the literature. 
To get a more definitive result would require more ignition tests.  
Generally, the flame spread correlation gave the expected results for the minimum 
ignition flux against the experimental values. The correlated value is higher than the 
experimental values, in line with the findings of Quintiere et al, 1983. 
 
The University of Canterbury LIFT apparatus and future developments 
This report also gives the first results of the new LIFT testing machine, built at the 
University of Canterbury in the first half of 2005. After initial teething problems, it 
has proven to give a consistent output. The burner is running on LPG, rather than 
methane, originally specified in the ASTM standard, due to problems with supply of 
methane or natural gas.  
Due to the limitations imposed by LPG on the lowest flux levels possible by the 
burner, the burner position is adjustable using a 7/8? leadscrew to allow the burner to 
be positioned further away from the sample for lower flux levels during ignition tests. 
This has proven to be successful, achieving a minimum flux level at the sample face 
of 11kW/m
2
, and the lead screw allows for consistent positioning and fine adjustment.  
 196
The current air supply limits the burner output to a maximum sustained output of 
50kW/m
2
 
at the sample face, although tests have shown that over 60kW/m
2
 is possible 
if the air supply is available.  
A modification to the design is proposed, using a thermocouple controlled radiant 
electric panel instead of the gas burner, which will give a more consistent output, and 
greater control than the gas panel can provide. Allied to this is a proposed 
intermediate/ bench scale test apparatus, which will give the same sample resolution 
and flame spread testing flux profile, yet allow the use of a smaller and less expensive 
apparatus than the current LIFT. 
 
 197
References 
Anon. Elstein SHTS IR elements  http://www.elstein.de/english/index_shts.htm.. 
Accessed 02-11-2005 
 
Anon. Index of Species Information - species:  Cupressus Macrocarpa. US Dept of 
Agriculture. US Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/cupmac/  
Accessed 14-01-2006 
 
Anon. Superflake materials safety data sheet. Fletcher Wood Panels, New Zealand. 
Issued 1 December 2004 
 
Anon. Production of Planted Production Forest Rough Sawn Timber for Year Ended 
31 March 2004 for All Species.  Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand. 
http://www.maf.govt.nz/statistics/primaryindustries/forestry/production/annual-sawn-
timber-highlights/aprodplantspec.htm. Accessed 14-11-2005 
 
Anon; Pynefloor Materials Safety Data sheet. Fletcher Wood Panels, New Zealand. 
Issued 1 December 2004 http://www.fwp.co.nz/pdf/products/Pynefloor%20MSDS.pdf 
 
Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. Ignition and opposed flow flame spread using a 
reduced scale attachment to the cone calorimeter. Fire Technology, Vol 14, No. 2. 
1998. 
 
Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. Combustibility parameters for enclosure lining 
materials obtained during surface flame spread using reduced scale ignition and flame 
spread technique. Fire Technology, Vol 34, No.3. 1998. 
 
Azhakesan, A. Shields, T. Silcock, G. On the nature, influence and magnitude of 
flame heat transfer during surface flame spread. Fire Safety Journal, Vol 35. pp189 -
222. 2000. 
 
ASTM E 1623 Standard Test Method for Determination of Fire and Thermal 
Parameters of Materials, Products, and Systems Using an Intermediate Scale 
 198
Calorimeter. American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM International, West 
Conshohocken, PA. USA. 2004. 
 
ASTM E 1354. Standard test method for heat and visible smoke release rates for 
materials using an oxygen consumption calorimeter. American Society of Testing and 
Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. USA. 2004. 
 
ADJE1317. Adjunct to ASTM E 1321-97a. American Society of Testing and 
Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. USA. 2004. 
 
ASTM E 1317-97a. Standard Test Method for Flammability of Marine Surface 
Finishes. American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM Iinternational, West 
Conshohocken, PA. USA. 1997 
 
Babrauskas, V. Cone calorimeter annotated bibliography 1982-1991, technote 1296. 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, 1991. 
 
Babrauskas, V. Ten years of heat release research with the cone calorimeter. National 
Institute of Standards and Technology. Gathersburg, MD. USA. 1992. Also available 
from http://www.doctorfire.com/cone 
 
Babrauskas, V. Flame fluxes in opposed flow flame spread; a review of the literature. 
SP report 1995:06, SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Sweden. 
1995. 
 
Babrauskas, V., Ignition of Wood: A Review of the State of the Art. Interflam 2001, 
Interscience Communications Ltd., London. 2001. pp. 71-88 
 
Babrauskas, V. The cone calorimeter. Section 3, Chapter 3. SFPE Handbook of Fire 
Protection Engineering, 3
rd
 edition. Editor Beyler C et al.  Publ. NFPA, Quincy, MA. 
2002. 
 
Babrauskas, V. Ignition Handbook. Fire Science Publishers, Fire Science and 
Technology, Inc, Issaquah, WA, USA. 2003 
 199
 
Babrauskas, V. Wetterlund, I. Comparative data from LIFT and cone calorimeter tests 
on 6 products, including flame flux measurements. SP report 1999:14, SP Swedish 
National Testing and Research Institute, Sweden. 1999 
 
Beyler, Craig L. Hunt, Sean P. Lattimer, Brian Y. Prediction of ISO 9705 
Room/Corner Test Results. Volume 1. CGR/DC-215-99-I. Coast Guard Research and 
Development Centre, Groton CT, USA. November 1999. http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A378408&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf 
 
Cleary, T. Flammability Characterization with the LIFT Apparatus and the Cone 
Calorimeter. Fire Retardant Chemicals Association. Technical and Marketing Issues 
Impacting the Fire Safety of Building and Construction and Home Furnishings 
Applications. Spring Conference, 1992. Orlando, FL, Publ. Technomic Publishing 
Co., Lancaster, PA, 99-115 pp, 1992. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire92/art046.html 
 
Cleary, T. Quintiere, J. Framework for Utilizing Fire Property Tests - NISTIR 4619 
.International Association for Fire Safety Science. Fire Safety Science. Proceedings. 
3rd International Symposium. July 8-12, 1991, Edinburgh, Scotland, Publ. Elsevier 
Applied Science, New York, Editors Cox, G.; Langford, B. pp 647-656, 1991. 
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire91/art009.html. 
 
Comeford, J. The spectral distribution of radiant energy of a gas fired radiant panel 
and some diffusion flames. Combustion and Flame, vol 18, pp 125-132. 1972 
 
Delichatsios, MA. A new interpretation of data from LIFT (Lateral Ignition and 
Flame Transport) apparatus and modifications for creeping flame spread. Interflam 
99. Interscience Communications Ltd., London. 1999 
 
Dietenberger, M. Protocol for Ignitability, Lateral Flame Spread, and Heat Release 
Rate Using Lift Apparatus. Nelson, G., editor. Fire and polymers II. Materials and 
tests for hazard prevention: Proceedings of 208th National meeting of the American 
Chemical Society; 1994 August 21-26; Washington, DC. ACS symposium series 599. 
 200
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1995A. Chapter 29. 
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1995/diete95c.pdf 
 
Dietenberger, M. Experimental and analytical protocol for ignitability of common 
materials. Fire and Materials Journal, vol 19, pp89-94. 1995B. 
www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1995/diete95b.pdf 
 
Dietenberger, M. Ignitability Analysis of Siding Materials Using Modified Protocol 
for Lift Apparatus. Fire and Materials, VOL. 20, 115-121. 1996A. 
www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1996/diete96a.pdf 
 
Dietenberger, M.  Ignitability analysis using the cone calorimeter and lift 
apparatus Proceedings of the International Conference on Fire Safety: July 22-26, 
1996, Columbus, OH. Volume 22. pp 189-197. 1996B 
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/8878 
 
Drysdale, D. An introduction to fire dynamics, 2
nd
 edition. J Wiley & sons, 
Chichester, UK. March 2003. 
 
Fowell, A. Interlaboratory test program on ASTM E 1321: Standard test method for 
measuring material ignition and flame spread properties. Second edition, American 
Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 
USA. November 1994 
 
Grand AF, Mehrafza, M. Evaluation of the effectiveness of fire resistant durable 
agents on residential siding using an ICAL based testing protocol. Fire and materials 
2001. 7th international conference and exhibition. Proceedings. Interscience 
communications limited. January 22- 
24, 2001, San Antonio, Texas, USA. pp 241-248, 2001.  
 
Goransson, U. Using the cone calorimeter to predict flame spread.  Nordtest project 
882-90. SP Report AR1991:32. Fire Technology, Boras, Sweden, 1990 
 
 201
Hagge, M. Bryden, K, Dietenberger, M. Effects of backing board materials on wood 
combustion. Wood & fire safety : proceedings, 5th international scientific conference, 
April 18-22, 2004 . Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Technical University 
of Zvolen, Slovak Republic. pp51-58.2004. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7019 
 
Henderson, A. Predicting Ignition Time Under Transient Heat Flux Using Results 
from Constant Flux Experiments. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New 
Zealand . 1998 
Hilado, C. Flammability test methods handbook. Technomic Publishing Co. Westport, 
Conn, USA. 1973 
 
Howell, J. A catalog of radiation heat transfer view factors, 2
nd
 edition. 
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~howell/index.html. Accessed 14-01-2006 
 
Huynh. CK. Flame spread measurements of New Zealand timber using a modified 
cone calorimeter. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2003.  
 
ISO 5657  ? 1986. Method of Measuring the Ignitability of Products Subjected to 
Thermal Irradiance. International Organisation of Standards, Geneva, Switzerland 
1986 
 
ISO5660. Reaction to fire tests ? heat release rate, smoke production and mass loss 
rate ? part 1. Cone calorimeter method. International Organisation of Standards, 
Geneva, Switzerland. 2002 
 
ISO 9705. Full scale room fire test for surface finishes. International Organisation of 
Standards, Geneva, Switzerland. 1993 
 
Janssens, M. Fire test and evaluation methods. APEC Timber and Fire conference, 
BRANZ New Zealand. Wellington 2005. 
http://www.branz.co.nz/branzltd/pdfs/MarcJanssens.pdf 
 
Janssens, M. L.; Kimble, J.; Murphy, D. Computer Tools to Determine Material 
Properties for Fire Growth Modelling From Cone Calorimeter Data. Fire and 
 202
Materials 2003. 8th International Conference. Conference Papers. Proceedings. 
.January 27-28, 2003, San Francisco, CA, pp 377-387, 2003. Interscience 
Communications Limited, New York. USA  
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire03/art044.html 
 
Jianmin, Q. Prediction of flame spread test results using the test data from the cone 
calorimeter. SP Report 1990:38. Fire Technology, Boras, Sweden, 1990 
 
Leung, C. Yuen W. Chow. W. A practical model of flame spreading over materials. 
Proceedings of the 6
th
 ASME-JSME Thermophysics Conference, March 16-23, 
Hawaii, USA. 2003. http://www.engineering.ucsb.edu/~yuen/current_paper/TED-
AJ03-128.pdf 
 
Ngu. Ignition of New Zealand timber University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New 
Zealand. 2002 
 
Nisted, T. Flame spread experiments in bench scale: project 5 of the Eurfic fire 
research programme. Dantest. Denmark. April 1991 
 
Karlsson, B and Quintiere, J. Enclosure Fire Dynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 
Florida. USA. 2000 
 
Pauner, MA. Nordic Round Robin and Investigation on IMO Resolution A. 653 (16) 
TR 529. Nordtest. Finland. April 2003.  
 
Pease, T. ?A study of surface flame spread using a modified cone calorimeter?. 
Undergraduate final year project. Department of Chemical Engineering. University of 
Newcastle, Australia. 2001 
 
Perrin, M. A comparison between cone calorimeter and LIFT flame spread data. 
Undergraduate final year project. Department of Chemical Engineering. University of 
Newcastle, Australia. 2002 
 
 203
Persson, B. On the prediction of lateral flame spread based on cone calorimeter data. 
SP Report 1993:28. Fire Technology, Boras, Sweden, 1993 
 
Quintiere, J. A simplified theory for generalizing results from a radiant panel rate of 
flame spread apparatus. Fire and Materials, Vol 5, No. 2. 1981 
 
Quintiere, J. Harkleroad. Walton, D. Measurement of flame spread properties. 
Combustion Science and Technology, Vol 32. pp 67-89. 1983 
 
Quintiere, J. Harkleroad, M. New concepts for Measuring flame Spread Properties 
NBSIR 84-2943. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gathersburg, MD. 
USA. November 1984.  
 
Quintiere, J. Principles of fire behaviour. Delmar publishers, USA. 1998 
 
Quintiere, J.  Surface flame spread. Chapter 12, Section 2, SFPE Handbook of Fire 
Protection Engineering, 3
rd
 edition. Editor Beyler C et al.  Publ. NFPA, Quincy, MA. 
2002 
 
Rasbash, D. Ramachandran, G. Kandola, B. Watts, J. law. M. Evaluation of fire 
safety. J Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. 2004.  
 
Robertson, A. Ohlemiller, T. Low heat flux measurements: some predictions. Fire 
Safety Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, 109-124, September 1995 
 
Shields, T. Silcock,G. Murray, J. The effects of geometry and ignition mode on 
ignition times obtained using a cone calorimeter and ISO ignitability apparatus. Fire 
and Materials, Vol 17, pp 25-32. 1993 
 
Shields TJ. Silcock, G. Murray, J. Evaluating ignition data using the flux time 
product. Fire and Materials, Vol 18. pp 243-354. 1993 
 
Spearpoint, M. Huynh, M. Moghtaderi, B. Merryweather, G. Flame spread 
measurements of New Zealand timber using an adaptation of the cone calorimeter. 
 204
APEC Timber and Fire conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 2005.  
http://www.branz.co.nz/branzltd/pdfs/MichaelSpearpoint.pdf 
 
Smith, S. Effects of moisture on combustion characteristics of live California 
chaparral and Utah foliage. A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young 
University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of 
Science. Department of Chemical Engineering Brigham Young University, Utah, 
USA. August 2005  
 
Simpson, W and TenWolde, A. Physical properties and moisture relations of wood. 
Ch. 3. Wood handbook - Wood as an engineering material. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-
GTR-113. Forest Products Laboratory Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 1999 
 
White, R and Dietenberger, M. Fire Safety. Ch 17, Wood handbook - Wood as an 
engineering material.  Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-113. Forest Products Laboratory 
Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products 
Laboratory. 1999  
 
White, R and Dietenberger, M. Cone Calorimeter evaluation of wood products. 15th 
Annual conference on flame retardancy 2004. 
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2004/fpl_2004_white002.pdf (accessed Jan 
2006) 
 
Wilson MT; Dlugogorski BZ and Kennedy EM, ?Uniformity of Radiant Heat Fluxes 
in Cone Calorimeter?, Process Safety and Environmental Protection Group, The 
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia, 7th Symposium in Fires Science in 
Worcester, USA, 2002. 
 
Younquist, J. Wood based products and panel products. Chapter 10. Wood handbook 
- Wood as an engineering material. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-113. Forest Products 
Laboratory, Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 
Products Laboratory. 1999 
 
 205
Appendix 1:     Procedure for operating University of Canterbury LIFT 
The gas supply to the main radiant panel is controlled by a mass flow controller, and 
the compressed air supply is adjusted through an air regulator and ball valve (Figure 
164). The ball valve allows the regulator to be used in the optimum range by 
providing a bulk adjustment to the output restriction. Without the ball valve set to give 
a minimum of 6-8 psi on the gauge, the regulator will fluctuate. The limiting flux 
output without preloading the regulator is where 
"
50
.
mm
q < approximately 26kW/m
2
. 
Closing the ball valve part way loads up the regulator to 6-8psi and gives a stable 
output.  
The pilot burner uses a mass flow controller for the air supply, and a separate LPG 
supply. 
Starting the LIFT panel 
? Insert the measurement template into the sample holder and fit the flux gauge 
in the 50mm position, so the face of the flux gauge is level and parallel with 
the face of the template.  
? Turn on the water supply to the flux gauge.  
? Close the ball valve so the air is turned off.   
? Turn on gas and ignite the panel and set the gas output to the desired value on 
the mass flow controller by adjusting the set point adjustment (Figure 165).  
? Slowly open the ball valve and adjust the air supply with the regulator and ball 
valve so that the regulator reads a minimum of 8 psi.  Leave the mixture 
slightly rich, shown by the yellow flame tips, until the temperature and flux 
output has stabilised. As the burner heats up, it tends towards a leaner gas 
mixture and can flash back inside the burner. 
 
Adjustments are made by either increasing the gas flow or decreasing the air so that 
gas mixture is rich during the flux alteration, so it doesn?t flash back inside the burner.  
Once the burner is stable, which usually takes around 5 minutes, then the gas mixture 
can be adjusted for a neutral mix. Monitor the flux meter for a further time of 
approximately 5 minutes to ensure that it is stable. 
Extinguish the radiant panel by turning off the air supply first and then the gas supply 
 206
 
Figure 164: Regulator and ball valve. 
LIFT settings for gas supply and air restriction ball valve
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 102030405060
q"
50
 Heat flux (kW/m
2
) 
Gas a
n
d
 b
a
l
l
 v
a
l
ve set
t
i
n
g
 %
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
A
i
r
 p
r
essu
r
e
 (p
si
)
Gas controller
Ball valve
Air pressure
 
Figure 165: LIFT settings 
Setting the pilot flame 
Set the air supply flow rate to minimum and turn off the pilot air supply mass flow 
controller and turn on the pilot burner gas supply and ignite the pilot flame. Turn on 
the air supply and adjust the gas needle valve and regulator and air supply to give a 
blue pilot flame approximately 180mm long. The flame mixture usually has to be 
slightly rich to be stable with the air turbulence during an ignition test. Once the pilot 
flame is set, further adjustment is not usually required. 
 207
Appendix 2:   Electrical power and current requirements for an electric LIFT radiant panel  
 
 
   
   
Angle of sample to element 15 deg 
Flux at 50mm point on sample 50.5 kW/m
2
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
Standard LIFT panel dimensions:        
  
    
  
Burner  
140 
301.8 181.2 
140 
 208
 
 
 
 
From: Howell, http://www.me.utexas.edu/~howell/index.html     
  
Area of panel segment (in line with 50mm point)      
A1 = A2 0.042252 m
2
  
a3=a4 0.025368 m
2
   
Panel width 0.28 m     
Panel length 0.483 m     
Element temp 1140.5 K     
  
Stefan-Boltzman const. ? 5.67E-08 Wm
2
/K
4
     
Emissivity ? 0.99 (from Wilson et al for a cone calorimeter element) 
"
2:1
.
AA
q =F. ??.(T)
4
 
      
a 0.140 m
b 0.302 m
c 0.172 m
  
 209
F
(A1,A2) 
(View factor) 0.147      
"
2:1
.
AA
q  
13979 W/m
2 
    
  
"
4:3
.
AA
q
)
=F.??(T)
4
 
      
a 0.14 m
b 0.181 m
c 0.172 m
  
F
(A3,A4)
 (View factor)  0.128      
"
4:3
.
AA
q  
12143 W/m
2
     
"
.
e
q = 
52243      
  
Radiation received at point (angled 15 deg) 50463 W/m
2
 received at point   
Radiation on sample 50.5 kW/m
2
 at 50mm sampling point   
 
     
Element emitted heat flux 95.0 kW/m
2
 emitted from surface of element  
Element area 0.135 m
2
    
Element power 12.8 kW     
current (240v) 54 Amps if electrically powered at 240v  
 210
 
Appendix 3:  Results of material tests 
Ignition test results 
MDF ? 18mm LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ngu (ISO 5657) Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.047 0.053 0.043 0.053 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 21 19 23 19 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 456 355 544 357 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
3.4 3.7 4.7 -0.3 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 1.10 0.86 1.04 0.86 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
16.25 16.25 13.5 16.25 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.044 0.044 0.039 0.043 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  391 391 348 391 ?C
     
Plywood - 17mm LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ngu (ISO 5657) Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.058 0.048 0.034 0.061 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 17 21 29 17 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 293 432 870 273 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
crit
q  
7.2 4.6 7.2 9.9 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 0.71 0.93 1.76 0.66 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
.
crit
q  
16.3 13.8 12.0 16.3 kW/m
2
 
 211
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.044 0.041 0.040 0.043 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  391 352 321 391 ?C
    
Melteca faced MDF LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.0423 0.0429 0.051 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 24 23 19.5 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 560 542 382 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
-6.44 2.58 1.06 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 1.475 1.474 1.07 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
18.75 20 21.25 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.045 0.046 0.047 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  440 425 454 ?C
     
Melteca/ Particle board LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b Not tested 0.044 0.057 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 Not tested 22.6 17.5 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* Not tested 512 308 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
Not tested 2.00 10.1 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc Not tested 1.27 0.97 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
Not tested 18.75 23.75 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h Not tested 0.044 0.050  kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  Not tested 425 478 ?C
     
 212
     
Pynefloor particle Board LIFT ISO 5657-1986 
Ignition parameter b 0.0509 0.0364 0.063 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 19.6 27.5 16 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 385.6 754.6 250 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
1.7 3.5 4.3 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 0.96 1.64 0.70 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
18.75 13.75 21.25 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.044 0.041 0.047 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  425 352 454 ?C
     
 Superflake particle board LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b Not tested 0.0327 0.05 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 Not tested 30.6 19.72 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* Not tested 935 389 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
Not tested 3.44 5.24 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc Not tested 2.11 1.05 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
Not tested 13.75 18.75 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h Not tested 0.042 0.05  kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  Not tested 352 424.87 ?C 
    
 213
Hardboard LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.052 0.033 0.032 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 19 31 31.3 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 375 944 977 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
2.172 -   0.588 2.6 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 0.88 1.83 1.67 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
17.5 11.25 11.25 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.043 0.039 0.037 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  409 307 307 ?C
     
NZ Beech LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ngu (ISO 5657) Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.050 0.053 0.025 0.034 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 20 19 40 29.1 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 395 355 1,618 844 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
9.24 11.83 11.14 12.8 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 0.98 0.85 3.27 2.30 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
18.75 18 12 18.75 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.044 0.043 0.040 0.046 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  425 415 321 425 ?C
 214
Radiata Pine LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ngu (ISO 5657) Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.054 0.039 0.047 0.043 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 18 25 21 23 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 341 643 460 531 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
9.7 12.0 7.8 10.9 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 0.92 1.54 1.08 1.45 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
18.75 16.25 15.5 18.75 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.046 0.043 0.043 0.046 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  425 391 380 425 ?C
     
Rimu LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ngu (ISO 5657) Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.050 0.050 0.033 0.047 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 20 20 30 21.5 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 395 397 893 462 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
9.62 12.75 7.52 13.9 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 1.06 1.03 1.93 1.41 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
18.5 18 13.5 21.25 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.046 0.045 0.041 0.049 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  422 415 348 454 ?C
 215
Macrocarpa LIFT ISO 5657-1986 Ngu (ISO 5657) Ignition in RIFT  
Ignition parameter b 0.059 0.048 0.055 0.056 s
0.5
 
intercept of ignition parameter graph (t*)
0.5
 17 21 18 18.0 s
0.5
 
Preheat time t* 288 436 337 325 sec 
Critical ignition flux 
"
.
crit
q  
14.7 15.2 12.9 15.6 kW/m
2
 
Thermal inertia kpc 0.78 1.13 0.79 0.89 (kW/m
2
K)
2
 
Minimum ignition flux  
"
min,
.
ig
q  
18.75 18 15.5 18.75 kW/m
2
 
Heat transfer coefficient at ignition h 0.046 0.045 0.043 0.046 kW/m
2
K 
Ignition temperature T
ig
  425 415 380 425 ?C
 
 
 216
Ignition test data 
 
Plywood - 
17mm 
       
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
10 no ignition  12.5 No ign  12.5 No ign 
12.5 1690  15 No ign  15 No ign 
15 1125 17.5 663 17.5 760 
20 229  20 611  20 173 
30 69 30 82 30 114.7 
40 49 40 52.8 40 42.4 
50 28.7  50 19.5  50 26 
60 23.3 60 18.5   
  
Medium Density fibreboard (MDF)       
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
15 no ignition  17.5 343  15 No ign 
17.5 723 20 215 17.5 760 
20 239  30 92  20 173 
30 101 40 60.5 30 114.7 
40 56.4  50 30  40 42.4 
50 39.2 60 28 50 26 
60 25.4      
      
 217
Melteca / MDF       
 ISO 5657 RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
20 No ign  20 No ign  17.5 No ign 
21 977 22.5 349 20 401 
22.5 467  30 188  30 257 
25 354 40 108 40 153 
30 204  50 58.1  50 93.5 
40 126 60 53.4   
50 84 
60 62     
        
Melteca / particle board shelving   
 ISO 5657 RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
17.5 No ign  22.5 No ign   Not tested 
20 558 25 292  
22.5 356  30 221   
25 255 40 95  
30 170  50 54.2   
35 128 60 30.2  
40 93 
50 59     
60 45.4   
  
 218
Pynefloor particle board      
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m2) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
12.5 No ign  20 No Ign  17.5 No ign 
15 1166 22.5 226 20 315 
17.5 575  30 140  30 175 
20 368 40 64.8 40 86.5 
25 215  50 35  50 50.5 
30 154 60 27.5   
35 98 
40 93    
50 47    
60 38.4    
     
Superflake particle board   
 ISO 5657 RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
12.5 No ign  17.5 No ign   Not tested 
15 1090 20 404  
17.5 525  30 123   
20 333 40 75  
25 210  50 33   
30 128 60 39.4  
35 88 
40 75    
50 48    
60 31.4    
  
 219
Hardboard       
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
10 1378  12.5 886  15 1403 
12.5 712 15 605 17.5 1223 
15 402  17.5 338  20 259 
20 285 20 273 30 108.5 
30 127  30 117  40 96 
40 74 40 62 50 64.5 
50 52 50 30   
60 35  60 28.4  
  
Rimu      
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
17.5 No ign  20 No ign  15 1549 
18.5 1358 22.5 544 17.5 1308 
20 1134  30 219.5  20 366 
30 186 40 53 30 187.5 
40 61 50 24.1 40 61 
50 31.5  60 22.4  50 34.4 
60 24   
 220
        
Pine 
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s)) 
15 No ign  17.5 No ign  15 1490 
17.5 1154 20 660 17.5 1348 
18.5 982  30 96.6  20 331 
20 586 40 37 30 131 
30 109  50 16.9  40 61 
40 43 60 17.5 50 29.5 
50 21.3       
60 16.6
        
Macrocarpa   
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s)) 
17.5 No ign  17.5 No ign  17.5 No ign 
18.5 1767 20 976 20 1439 
20 1077  30 182  30 114 
30 237 40 43.6 40 74.5 
40 32.5  50 14.3  50 26 
50 14.2 60 15.4   
60 15.9   
  
        
 221
NZ Beech        
 ISO 5657   RIFT   LIFT 
Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to ignition 
(s) 
 Heat flux 
(kW/m
2
) 
Time to 
ignition (s) 
17.5 glowing at 1800  20 No ign  17.5 No ign 
18.5 1526 22.5 901 20 366 
20 774  30 104  30 176.4 
30 162 40 33.5 40 62.5 
40 52.8  50 15.2  50 33.2 
50 35 60 19.5   
60 23  
 
 222
Appendix 4  Flame spread results 
12.1 Summary of flame spread results 
 
Plywood                                                       
-    
RIFT (using RIFT 
ignition data) - 17mm 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data) - 17mm 
RIFT (using RIFT 
ignition data) - 17mm 
RIFT (using ISO 5657 
ignition data) - 17mm 
LIFT 
                                                                 -    
low preheat time low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
7.74 10.72 4.37 4.37 3.7 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
5.80 4.79 18.23 28.84 28.0 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  
16.25 13.75 16.25 13.75 16.3 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  
16.46 12.83 20.23 20.23 21.6 
"
s
q  (correlation)  
5.25 5.25 4.62 4.62 5.4 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
6.47 
Std Dev 1.32 
6.47 
Std Dev1.32 
4.74 
Std Dev0.33 
4.74 
Std Dev 0.33 
5.3 
Std Dev 0.65 
    
Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) RIFT - 18mm MDF with 
ISO ign data 
RIFT - 18mm MDF with 
RIFT ignition data 
RIFT - 18mm MDF with 
ISO ign data 
RIFT - 18mm MDF with 
RIFT ignition data 
LIFT 
 
Low preheating time Low preheating time Full preheating time Full preheating time Full preheating time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
17.01 17.10 4.9 4.9 4.0 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
1.56 1.55 18.6 18.5 36.
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  
16.25 16.25 16.3 16.3 16.3 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  
14.85 14.82 24.3 24.3 23.6 
 223
"
s
q  (correlation)  
8.67 8.67 6.7 6.7 6.0 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
8.23 
Std Dev 0.26 
8.23 
Std Dev 0.26 
6.3 
Std Dev0.2 
6.3 
Std Dev 0.2 
5.9 
Std Dev 0.4 
    
Melteca faced Particle board                 RIFT (using ISO 5657 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (Using ISO 5657  
ign data 
LIFT 
 
Low preheat time Low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
2.76 2.72 1.78 1.78 Not tested
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
90.72 65.54 154.28 206.73 No tested
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  
18.75 23.75 23.75 18.75 Not tested 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  
36.60 39.26 62.01 62.01 Not tested
"
s
q  (correlation)  
11.30 11.30 9.61 9.61 Not tested 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
12.41 
Std Dev 1.18 
12.41 
Std Dev 1.18 
11.57 
Std Dev1.38 
11.57 
Std Dev 1.38 
Not tested 
    
Melteca faced MDF RIFT (using ISO 5657 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (Using ISO 5657  
ign data 
LIFT 
 
Low preheat time Low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
13.40 2.32 6.44 6.44 4.3 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
3.85 90.36 11.74 16.67 38.5 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  
20.00 21.25 21.25 20.00 18.8 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  
20.00 46.10 30.74 30.74 33.0 
"
s
q  (correlation)  
11.30 12.91 11.48 11.48 10.9 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
14.16 
Std Dev 1.63 
14.16 
Std Dev 1.63 
13.96 
Std Dev 1.78 
13.96 
Std Dev 1.78 
9.9 
Std Dev 0.16 
 
 
 224
Pynefloor Particle board flooring 
RIFT - with ISO 5657 
ign data 
RIFT - with RIFT 
ignition data 
RIFT -  with ISO 5657 
ignition data 
RIFT ? with RIFT 
ignition data LIFT 
 Low preheating time Low preheating time Full preheating time Full preheating time Full preheating time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
19.5 9.3 8.1 8.1 3.6 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
2.8 3.7 14.8 4.9 37.3 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  0.0 0.0 18.8 21.3 0.0 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  11.8 20.2 19.0 19.0 25.5 
"
s
q  (correlation)  6.6 8.4 7.5 7.5 6.2 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  8.7 
Std Dev 0.74 
8.7 
Std Dev 0.74 
7.6 
Std Dev 0.61 
7.6 
Std Dev 0.61 
6.3 
Std Dev 0.73 
 
Superflake Particle board  
RIFT - 20mm particle 
board with ISO 5657 
ign data 
RIFT - 20mm particle 
board with RIFT 
ignition data 
RIFT - 20mm particle 
board with ISO 5657 
ignition data 
RIFT - with RIFT 
ignition data LIFT 
 Low preheating time Low preheating time Full preheating time Full preheating time Full preheating time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
24.77 13.79 7.58 7.58 Not Tested
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
1.94 2.61 20.71 8.62 Not tested 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  13.75 18.75 13.75 18.75 
Not tested 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  10.44 16.70 18.61 18.61 
Not tested 
"
s
q  (correlation)  6.60 8.39 7.48 7.48 
Not tested 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
9.75 
Std Dev 1.58 
9.75 
Std Dev 1.58 
7.41 
Std Dev 0.71 
7.41 
Std Dev 0.71 
Not tested 
 
 225
Hardboard 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data LIFT 
 Low preheat time Low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
13.3 13.6 5.7 5.7 4.9 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
6.7 6.7 36.8 38.1 20.3 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 17.5 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  11.1 10.9 19.2 19.2 19.5 
"
s
q  (correlation)  3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
4.1 
Std Dev  0.9 
4.1 
Std Dev 0.9 
3.2 
Std Dev 0.3 
3.2 
Std Dev 0.3 
3.4 
Std Dev 0.4 
NZ Beech  
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data LIFT 
 Low preheat time Low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
4.7 7.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
20.2 20.2 74.8 177.7 70.9  
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  18.0 18.75 18.00 18.75 18.75 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  16.2 10.5 22.3 22.3 23.7 
"
s
q  (correlation)  6.5 4.2 2.9 2.9 3.7 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
9.6 
Std Dev  2.0 
9.6 
Std Dev  2.0 
3.3 
Std Dev  0.3 
3.3 
Std Dev  0.3 
4.8 
Std Dev  0.9 
  
 226
Radiata Pine 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (Using ISO 5657  
ign data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data) LIFT 
 Low preheat time Low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
12.3 11.1 5.0 5.0 4.0 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
5.4 5.4 32.6 26.9 27.4 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  16.25 18.75 16.25 18.75 18.75 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  10.2 11.2 17.6 17.6 18.0 
"
s
q  (correlation)  4.9 5.3 3.8 3.8 4.2 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
7.5 
Std Dev  1.0 
7.5 
Std Dev  1.0 
3.8 
Std Dev  0.1 
3.8 
Std Dev  0.1 
4.5 
Std Dev  0.7 
   
Rimu 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data 
RIFT (using ISO 
ignition data 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data LIFT 
 Low preheat time Low preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheat time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
4.7 5.1 Insufficient flame spread Insufficient flame spread 2.2 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
22.5 22.5 - - 106 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  18.0 21.25 18.0 21.25 18.5 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  15.9 14.8 Insufficient flame spread Insufficient flame spread 26.0 
"
s
q  (correlation)  5.4 5.0 Insufficient flame spread Insufficient flame spread 6.0 
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
11.7 
Std Dev  2.3 
11.7 
std Dev  2.3 12.7 12.7 
7.6 
Std Dev  2.7 
 227
Macrocarpa 
RIFT (using ISO 5657 
ignition data) 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data) 
RIFT (Using ISO 5657  
ign data) 
RIFT (Using RIFT ign 
data LIFT 
 Low preheating time Low preheating time Full preheat time Full preheat time Full preheating time 
 Flame spread modulus C  
7.7 6.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 
 Flame spread parameter  ?  
9.3 8.6 64.5 48.0 58.3 
"
min,ig
q  (ignition test)  18.0 18.8 18.0 18.8 18.8 
"
min,ig
q  (correlation)  12.7 14.5 22.6 22.6 18.9 
"
s
q  (correlation)  4.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 2.2 
.
"
s
q  ( from extent of flame spread)  
6.1 
Std Dev  1.0 
6.1 
Std Dev  1.0 
5.0 
Std Dev  0.8 
5.0 
Std Dev  0.8 
2.2 
Std Dev  0.2 
 
 228
12.2 Flame spread data and correlation results 
Plywood, 17mm 
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f 
LIFT Plywood Test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
295      m/s mm/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50        
75       
100        
125       
150        
175 305 10     1.000 19.66 19.66  
200 312 17 939 600 294053 881721 188225 0.0029 2.9110 1.000 19.05 19.05 18.535 
225 322 27 967 675 311917 935089 218100 0.0024 2.3792 1.000 18.25 18.25 20.502 
250 333 38 996 750 330854 992016 249475 0.0026 2.6099 1.000 17.45 17.45 19.574 
275 341 46 1030 825 353906 1060900 283825 0.0021 2.1088 1.000 15.86 15.86 21.776 
300 356 61 1073 900 384393 1151329 322775 0.0014 1.4189 1.000 14.28 14.28 26.547 
325 376 81 1138 975 432948 1295044 371100 0.0010 0.9868 1.000 12.89 12.89 31.833 
350 406 111 1218 1050 496308 1483524 427800 0.0008 0.8333 1.000 11.50 11.50 34.641 
375 436 141 1323 1125 586293 1750329 498000 0.0007 0.6579 1.000 10.17 10.17 38.987 
400 481 186 1454 1200 709826 2114116 584125 0.0005 0.4931 1.000 8.83 8.83 45.033 
425 537 242 1630 1275 894274 2656900 696025 0.0004 0.3790 1.000 7.59 7.59 51.365 
450 612 317 1862 1350 1171282 3467044 842300 0.0003 0.2820 1.000 6.35 6.35 59.545 
475 713 418      1.000 5.42 5.42  
500 870 575      
         
 229
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f 
LIFT Plywood Test 2 
Ignition 
Time 307 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
(m/s)
-0.5 
50        
75       
100        
125       
150        
175       
200        
225 319 24      1.000 18.25 18.25  
250 328 33 987 750 324945 974169 247275 0.0024 2.3649 1.000 17.45 17.45 20.563 
275 340 45 1021 825 347793 1042441 281400 0.0020 1.9989 1.000 15.86 15.86 22.367 
300 353 58 1060 900 374898 1123600 318675 0.0019 1.8510 1.000 14.28 14.28 23.243 
325 367 72 1108 975 409842 1227664 360975 0.0014 1.4098 1.000 12.89 12.89 26.633 
350 388 93 1169 1050 456629 1366561 410325 0.0011 1.0598 1.000 11.50 11.50 30.717 
375 414 119 1245 1125 518189 1550025 468250 0.0009 0.9082 1.000 10.17 10.17 33.183 
400 443 148 1338 1200 599006 1790244 536875 0.0007 0.7418 1.000 8.83 8.83 36.716 
425 481 186 1470 1275 725726 2160900 627325 0.0005 0.4746 1.000 7.59 7.59 45.904 
450 546 251 1678 1350 953278 2815684 759350 0.0003 0.2888 1.000 6.35 6.35 58.845 
475 651 356 1945 1424 1281421 3783025 928177 0.0002 0.2425 1.000 5.42 5.42 64.214 
499 748 453   1.000 4.53 4.53  
         
 230
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f 
LIFT Plywood Test 3 
Ignition 
Time 295 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
(m/s)
-0.5 
50        
75       
100        
125       
150        
175       
200        
225 307 12      1.000 18.25 18.25  
250 314 19 943 750 296529 889249 236125 0.0033 3.3284 1.000 17.45 17.45 17.333 
275 322 27 969 825 313169 938961 266950 0.0026 2.6099 1.000 15.86 15.86 19.574 
300 333 38 1001 900 334289 1002001 300900 0.0021 2.0785 1.000 14.28 14.28 21.934 
325 346 51 1041 975 361649 1083681 339050 0.0017 1.7180 1.000 12.89 12.89 24.126 
350 362 67 1091 1050 397449 1190281 382775 0.0013 1.3432 1.000 11.50 11.50 27.286 
375 383 88 1160 1125 449958 1345600 436325 0.0009 0.9300 1.000 10.17 10.17 32.791 
400 415 120 1255 1200 527763 1575025 503850 0.0007 0.6716 1.000 8.83 8.83 38.588 
425 457 162 1424 1275 685778 2027776 608625 0.0003 0.3476 1.000 7.59 7.59 53.635 
450 552 257 1772 1340 1095722 3139984 797420 0.0001 0.1208 1.000 6.35 6.35 90.983 
465 763 468     1.000 5.79 5.79  
         
 
 231
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x   
t (s) 
time from ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 9mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 1 
Ignition Time 
66 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  
10       
20     
30  
40       
50 66 0    0.320 27.20 
60 78 12 227 180 17329 51529 13790 0.0011 0.348 24.94 8.68 
70 83 17 254 210 21622 64516 17930 0.0013 0.359 22.89 8.22 
80 93 27 279 240 26147 77841 22520 0.0010 0.380 20.84 7.92 
90 103 37 309 270 32027 95481 28010 0.0010 0.400 18.76 7.50 
100 113 47 346 300 40278 119716 34870 0.0007 0.419 16.68 6.99 
110 130 64 399 330 54005 159201 44320 0.0005 0.449 15.08 6.77 
120 156 90 483 360 80045 233289 58630 0.0003 0.492 13.96 6.87 
130 197 131 591 390 119789 349281 77650 0.0002 0.553 12.83 7.10 
140 238 172 699 420 165149 488601 98530 0.0003 0.608 11.74 7.14 
150 264 198 785 450 206429 616225 118200 0.0004 0.640 10.65 6.81 
160 283 217 899 480 273689 808201 144720 0.0002 0.663 9.56 6.33 
170 352 286 1357 510 725277 1841449 235080 0.0000 0.739 8.47 6.26 
180 72 656   1.000 7.39 7.39
  
       
 232
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x   
t (s) 
time from ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 9mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 2 
Ignition Time 
81s 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  
       
10      
20
30            
40 81 0 0.355 29.67 
50 85 4 257 150 22067 66049 12950 0.0020 0.363 27.20 9.88 
60 91 10 271 180 24531 73441 16360 0.0020 0.376 24.94 9.37 
70 95 14 285 210 27107 81225 20030 0.0025 0.384 22.89 8.79 
80 99 18 299 240 29851 89401 24020 0.0020 0.392 20.84 8.17 
90 105 24 318 270 33822 101124 28770 0.0013 0.404 18.76 7.57 
100 114 33 346 300 40150 119716 34820 0.0009 0.421 16.68 7.02 
110 127 46 386 330 50150 148996 42770 0.0006 0.444 15.08 6.70 
120 145 64 441 360 65715 194481 53340 0.0005 0.474 13.96 6.62 
130 169 88 512 390 88790 262144 67090 0.0004 0.512 12.83 6.57 
140 198 117 589 420 117049 346921 82990 0.0004 0.554 11.74 6.51 
150 222 141 671 450 151489 450241 101180 0.0004 0.587 10.65 6.25 
160 251 170     0.624 9.56 5.97
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x   
t (s) 
time from ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 9mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 3 
Ignition Time 
69s 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  
10        
20     
30
 233
40            
50    
60 69 0 0.327 24.94 
70 72 3 216 210 15570 46656 15180 0.0033 0.334 22.89 7.65 
80 75 6 229 240 17533 52441 18420 0.0019 0.341 20.84 7.11 
90 82 13 252 270 21374 63504 22880 0.0010 0.357 18.76 6.69 
100 95 26 287 300 27849 82369 28980 0.0007 0.384 16.68 6.41 
110 110 41 339 330 39081 114921 37680 0.0005 0.413 15.08 6.23 
120 134 65 400 360 54392 160000 48460 0.0004 0.456 13.96 6.37 
130 156 87 471 390 75053 221841 61700 0.0004 0.492 12.83 6.31 
140 181 112 540 420 98306 291600 76070 0.0004 0.530 11.74 6.22 
150 203 134 603 450 121931 363609 90830 0.0005 0.561 10.65 5.98 
160 219 150 666 480 148706 443556 106970 0.0005 0.583 9.56 5.57 
170 244 175 742 510 185338 550564 126740 0.0003 0.615 8.47 5.21 
180 279 210 842 535 239138 708964 150715 0.0002 0.658 7.39 4.86 
185 31 250     0.704 7.02 4.94
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x   
t (s) 
time from ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 9mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 4 
Ignition Time 
66s 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  
10        
20     
30 66 0      
40 75 9 218 120 15910 47524 8830 0.0016 0.341 29.67 10.12 
50 77 11 231 150 17795 53361 11590 0.0050 0.346 27.20 9.40 
60 79 13 239 180 19059 57121 14400 0.0032 0.350 24.94 8.73 
 234
70 83 17 248 210 20526 61504 17430 0.0028 0.359 22.89 8.22 
80 86 20 262 240 22934 68644 21060 0.0019 0.365 20.84 7.61 
90 93 27 280 270 26246 78400 25350 0.0013 0.380 18.76 7.13 
100 101 35 305 300 31171 93025 30680 0.0011 0.396 16.68 6.60 
110 111 45 338 330 38398 114244 37430 0.0008 0.415 15.08 6.26 
120 126 60 393 360 52533 154449 47610 0.0004 0.442 13.96 6.17 
130 156 90 452 390 69112 204304 59200 0.0004 0.492 12.83 6.31 
140 170 104 512 420 87832 262144 71980 0.0007 0.514 11.74 6.03 
150 186 120 563 450 106345 316969 84820 0.0005 0.537 10.65 5.72 
160 207 141 683 480 161545 466489 110320 0.0002 0.567 9.56 5.42 
170 290 224 841 510 245285 707281 144340 0.0001 0.671 8.47 5.68 
180 344 278 1019 533 350661 ###### 181675 0.0001 0.731 7.39 5.40 
183 385 319       0.773 7.17 5.54 
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x   
t (s) 
time from ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 9mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 5 
Ignition Time 
67s 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  
10        
20     
30        
40    
50 67 0 140 150 9818 19600 7730 0.0002 0.323 27.20 8.77 
60 73 6 221 180 16379 48841 13400 0.0014 0.337 24.94 8.39 
70 81 14 245 210 20171 60025 17330 0.0011 0.355 22.89 8.12 
80 91 24 276 240 25658 76176 22310 0.0009 0.376 20.84 7.83 
90 104 37 313 270 33021 97969 28440 0.0007 0.402 18.76 7.54 
 235
100 118 51 359 300 43509 128881 36230 0.0006 0.428 16.68 7.14 
110 137 70 417 330 58937 173889 46310 0.0005 0.461 15.08 6.95 
120 162 95 482 360 78502 232324 58300 0.0004 0.501 13.96 7.00 
130 183 116 556 390 104254 309136 72770 0.0004 0.533 12.83 6.84 
140 211 144 634 420 135610 401956 89330 0.0004 0.572 11.74 6.72 
150 240 173 723 450 176105 522729 109060 0.0003 0.610 10.65 6.50 
160 272 205 825 480 229553 680625 132730 0.0003 0.650 9.56 6.21 
170 313 246 951 510 305909 904401 162610 0.0002 0.697 8.47 5.91 
180 366 299 1102 540 410854 1214404 199460 0.0002 0.754 7.39 5.57 
190 423 356 1257 570 531909 1580049 239850 0.0002 0.810 6.66 5.40 
200 468 401 1423 600 680977 2024929 285690 0.0002 0.852 5.93 5.06 
210 532 465 1600 630 862048 2560000 337320 0.0002 0.909 5.25 4.77 
220 600 533 1805 660 1095953 3258025 398510 0.0001 0.965 4.62 4.46 
230 673 606 2003 690 1345829 4012009 461990 0.0002 1.022 3.99 4.08 
240 730 663 2246 715 1696478 5044516 536525 0.0001 1.000 3.74 3.74 
245 843 776   1.000 3.62 3.62
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x   
t (s) 
Time from ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 9mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 6 
Ignition Time 
66s 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  
10        
20     
30        
40    
50            
60 67 0  0.0002 0.323 24.94 
70 78 11 239 210 19409 57121 17000 0.0007 0.348 22.89 7.96 
 236
80 94 27 281 240 26801 78961 22790 0.0006 0.382 20.84 7.96 
90 109 42 330 270 36846 108900 30030 0.0006 0.411 18.76 7.72 
100 127 60 381 300 49035 145161 38460 0.0006 0.444 16.68 7.41 
110 145 78 435 330 63723 189225 48210 0.0006 0.474 15.08 7.15 
120 163 96 503 360 85619 253009 60860 0.0004 0.503 13.96 7.02 
130 195 128 586 390 116578 343396 76830 0.0003 0.550 12.83 7.06 
140 228 161 713 419 174109 508369 100480 0.0002 0.595 11.74 6.98 
149 290 223     0.671 10.75 7.22
 
 
 237
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 1 
Ignition Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 69 0   37.09  
20 69.5 0.5 208 60 14422 43264 4165 0.0300 0.401 34.62 13.89 
30 9.5 0. 209 90 14561 43681 6275 0.0300 0.401 32.14 12.8
40 70 1 213 120 15059 45156 8535 0.0049 0.403 29.67 11.94 
50 73 4 219 150 16005 47961 11010 0.0033 0.411 27.20 11.18 
60 76 7 234 180 18330 54756 14160 0.0015 0.419 24.94 10.46 
70 85 16 253 210 21465 64009 17870 0.0012 0.444 22.89 10.15 
80 92 23 280 240 26298 78400 22580 0.0011 0.461 20.84 9.62 
90 103 34 310 270 32298 96100 28130 0.0009 0.488 18.76 9.16 
100 115 46 350 300 41258 122500 3529 0.0007 0.516 16.68 8.61
110 132 63 397 330 53149 157609 44020 0.0006 0.553 15.08 8.34
120 150 81 454 360 69508 206116 5488 0.0005 0.589 13.96 8.22 
130 172 103 520 390 91288 270400 68080 0.0004 0.631 12.83 8.10
140 198 129 600 420 121688 36000 8458 0.0003 0.677 11.74 7.95
150 230 161 704 450 168280 495616 106380 0.0003 0.730 10.65 7.77 
160 276 207 815 480 224557 664225 131190 0.0003 0.799 9.56 7.64 
170 309 240 946 510 301978 894916 161670 0.0002 0.846 8.47 7.17 
180 361 292 1082 540 395546 1170724 195790 0.0002 0.914 7.39 6.75 
190 412 343 1194 570 477306 1425636 227460 0.0003 0.977 6.66 6.50 
200 421 352 1401 598 669609 1962801 280624 0.0001 0.987 5.93 5.85 
208 568 499    5.39
         
 238
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 2 
Ignition Time 
50      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 50 0   0.340 37.09  
20 52 2 155 60 8013 24025 3130 0.0064 0.347 34.62 12.01 
30 53 3 159 90 8429 25281 4790 0.0100 0.350 32.14 11.26 
40 54 4 162 120 8750 26244 6500 0.0100 0.354 29.67 10.49 
50 55 5 169 150 9541 28561 8510 0.0029 0.357 27.20 9.70 
60 60 10 181 180 10981 32761 10970 0.0018 0.373 24.94 9.29 
70 66 16 201 210 13581 40401 14220 0.0013 0.391 22.89 8.95 
80 75 25 229 240 17725 52441 18540 0.0009 0.417 20.84 8.68 
90 88 38 264 270 23570 69696 24020 0.0008 0.451 18.76 8.47 
100 101 51 305 300 31401 93025 30780 0.0007 0.484 16.68 8.06 
110 116 66 349 330 41081 121801 3870 0.0006 0.518 15.08 7.81
120 132 82 400 360 53984 160000 48360 0.0006 0.553 13.96 7.71
130 152 102 461 390 71857 212521 6038 0.0004 0.593 12.83 7.61 
140 177 127 536 420 97282 287296 75590 0.0004 0.640 11.74 7.51
150 207 157 626 450 132742 39187 9455 0.0003 0.692 10.65 7.37
160 242 192 732 480 181502 535824 117880 0.0003 0.748 9.56 7.15 
170 283 233    0.809 8.47
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 3 
Ignition Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 50 0   0.340 37.09  
20 52 2 155 60 8013 24025 3130 0.0064 0.347 34.62 12.01 
30 53 3 159 90 8429 25281 4790 0.0100 0.350 32.14 11.26 
40 54 4 162 120 8750 26244 6500 0.0100 0.354 29.67 10.49 
50 55 5 169 150 9541 28561 8510 0.0029 0.357 27.20 9.70 
 239
60 60 10 181 180 10981 32761 10970 0.0018 0.373 24.94 9.29 
70 66 16 201 210 13581 40401 14220 0.0013 0.391 22.89 8.95 
80 75 25 229 240 17725 52441 18540 0.0009 0.417 20.84 8.68 
90 88 38 264 270 23570 69696 24020 0.0008 0.451 18.76 8.47 
100 101 51 305 300 31401 93025 30780 0.0007 0.484 16.68 8.06 
110 116 66 349 330 41081 121801 3870 0.0006 0.518 15.08 7.81
120 132 82 400 360 53984 160000 48360 0.0006 0.553 13.96 7.71
130 152 102 461 390 71857 212521 6038 0.0004 0.593 12.83 7.61 
140 177 127 536 420 97282 287296 75590 0.0004 0.640 11.74 7.51
150 207 157 626 450 132742 391876 94550 0.0003 0.692 10.65 7.37 
160 242 192 732 480 181502 535824 117880 0.0003 0.748 9.56 7.15 
170 283 233 859 510 250209 737881 146950 0.0002 0.809 8.47 6.86 
180 334 284 999 539 337569 998001 180428 0.0002 0.879 7.39 6.50 
189 382 332    0.940 6.73
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 4 
Ignition Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 50 0   0.340 37.09  
20 52 2 156 60 8120 24336 3160 0.0050 0.347 34.62 12.01 
30 54 4 164 90 8984 2689 4980 0.0032 0.354 32.14 11.36 
40 58 8 173 120 10001 29929 6990 0.0028 0.366 29.67 10.87 
50 61 11 186 150 11574 34596 9390 0.0021 0.376 27.20 10.22 
60 67 17 204 180 13986 41616 12390 0.0013 0.394 24.94 9.82 
70 76 26 229 210 17661 52441 16220 0.0011 0.419 22.89 9.60 
80 86 36 259 240 22581 67081 20930 0.0010 0.446 20.84 9.30 
90 97 47 297 270 29801 88209 27010 0.0007 0.474 18.76 8.89 
100 114 64 343 300 39829 117649 3465 0.0006 0.514 16.68 8.57
 240
110 132 82 395 330 52621 156025 43800 0.0006 0.553 15.08 8.34 
120 149 99 456 360 70250 207936 5515 0.0005 0.587 13.96 8.20
130 175 125 531 390 95675 281961 69610 0.0003 0.636 12.83 8.17
140 207 157 615 420 127763 378225 86680 0.0003 0.692 11.74 8.13 
150 233 183 708 450 168962 501264 106810 0.0003 0.734 10.65 7.82 
160 268 218 807 480 219749 651249 129850 0.0003 0.788 9.56 7.53 
170 306 256 901 510 272389 811801 153760 0.0003 0.842 8.47 7.13 
180 327 277    0.870 7.39
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 5 
Ignition Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 50 0   0.340 37.09  
20 52.5 2.5 158 60 8281 24806 3200 0.0040 0.349 34.62 12.07 
30 55 168 90 938 2805 5100 0.0026 0.357 32.14 11.4
40 60 10 184 120 11386 33856 7500 0.0014 0.373 29.67 11.06 
50 69 19 205 150 14137 42025 10410 0.0012 0.400 27.20 10.87 
60 76 26 227 180 17261 51529 13750 0.0015 0.419 24.94 10.46 
70 82 32 247 210 20421 61009 17420 0.0015 0.436 22.89 9.97 
80 89 39 271 240 24645 73441 21860 0.0011 0.454 20.84 9.46 
90 100 50 304 270 31146 92416 27620 0.0008 0.481 18.76 9.03 
100 115 65 352 300 41994 123904 3557 0.0005 0.516 16.68 8.61
110 137 87 406 330 55710 164836 45050 0.0005 0.563 15.08 8.49
120 154 104 469 360 74169 219961 5669 0.0005 0.597 13.96 8.33 
130 178 128 545 390 100769 297025 71440 0.0003 0.642 12.83 8.24
140 213 163 638 420 138062 407044 90010 0.0003 0.702 11.74 8.24 
 241
150 247 197 750 450 190478 562500 113270 0.0003 0.756 10.65 8.05 
160 290 240 880 480 262758 774400 141760 0.0002 0.819 9.56 7.83 
170 343 293 1027 510 356985 1054729 175630 0.0002 0.891 8.47 7.55 
180 394 344 1188 540 476286 1411344 214920 0.0002 0.955 7.39 7.06 
190 451 401 1357 570 620781 1841449 259010 0.0002 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 512 462    1.000 5.93
         
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
low preheat time Test 6 
Ignition Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 51 0   0.344 37.09  
20 52 1 158 60 8330 24964 3200 0.0046 0.347 34.62 12.01 
30 55 4 167 90 9329 27889 5090 0.0024 0.357 32.14 11.47 
40 60 9 182 120 11114 33124 7400 0.0017 0.373 29.67 11.06 
50 67 16 204 150 14018 41616 10370 0.0012 0.394 27.20 10.71 
60 77 26 234 180 18518 54756 14270 0.0009 0.422 24.94 10.53 
70 90 39 267 210 24029 71289 18920 0.0009 0.456 22.89 10.45 
80 100 49 305 240 31325 93025 24650 0.0008 0.481 20.84 10.03 
90 115 64 345 270 40125 119025 3135 0.0007 0.516 18.76 9.68 
100 130 79 397 300 53229 157609 40070 0.0005 0.549 16.68 9.15
110 152 101 455 330 69933 207025 5048 0.0005 0.593 15.08 8.94
120 173 122 531 360 95469 281961 64260 0.0004 0.633 13.96 8.83 
130 206 155 615 390 128061 378225 8058 0.0003 0.691 12.83 8.86
140 236 185 715 420 172661 511225 100770 0.0003 0.739 11.74 8.68 
150 273 222 818 450 225706 669124 123430 0.0003 0.795 10.65 8.46 
160 309 258 934 480 293914 872356 150230 0.0003 0.846 9.56 8.08 
 242
170 352 301 1065 510 382601 1134225 182000 0.0002 0.903 8.47 7.65 
180 404 353 1216 540 498720 1478656 219960 0.0002 0.967 7.39 7.15 
190 460 409 1378 570 639012 1898884 262920 0.0002 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 514 463 1550 600 807572 2402500 311160 0.0002 1.000 5.93 5.93 
210 576 525 1710 625 980372 2924100 357060 0.0001 1.000 5.25 5.25 
215 620 569    1.000 4.94
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
full preheat time Test 1 
Ignition Time 
291      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 0 0          
20 0 0 
30 0 0          
40 0 0 
50 0 0          
60 0 0 
70 0 0          
80 0 0 
90 296 5        18.76  
100 301 10 906 300 273698 820836 90730 0.0015 1.000 16.68 16.68
110 309 18 932 330 289766 868624 102730 0.0009 1.000 15.08 15.08 
120 322 31 964 360 310054 929296 115920 0.0008 1.000 13.96 13.96 
130 333 42 1000 390 333598 1000000 130230 0.0009 1.000 12.83 12.83 
140 345 54 1071 420 384363 1147041 150540 0.0003 1.000 11.74 11.74 
150 393 102 1155 450 447363 1334025 173970 0.0003 1.000 10.65 10.65 
160 417 126 1249 480 521059 1560001 200300 0.0004 1.000 9.56 9.56 
170 439 148 1323 510 584699 1750329 225410 0.0004 1.000 8.47 8.47 
180 467 176 1399 540 653859 1957201 252360 0.0004 1.000 7.39 7.39 
190 493 202 1498 570 750582 2244004 285330 0.0003 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 538 247 1624 598 884142 2637376 324614 0.0002 1.000 5.93 5.93 
 243
208 593 302       1.000 5.39  
     
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
full preheat time Test 2 
Ignition Time 
329      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 0 0          
2   
30          
4   
50          
6   
70          
8   
90          
100 337 8 1.000 16.68 
110 340 11 1026 330 350970 1052676 112980 0.0015 1.000 15.08 15.08 
120 349 20 1048 360 366282 1098304 125950 0.0011 1.000 13.96 13.96 
130 359 30 1079 390 388323 1164241 140490 0.0009 1.000 12.83 12.83 
140 371 42 1115 420 414747 1243225 156360 0.0008 1.000 11.74 11.74 
150 385 56 1159 450 448275 1343281 174170 0.0006 1.000 10.65 10.65 
160 403 74 1276 480 548778 1628176 205190 0.0002 1.000 9.56 9.56 
170 488 159 1408 510 667842 1982464 240500 0.0002 1.000 8.47 8.47 
180 517 188 1497 540 747497 2241009 269500 0.0001 1.000 7.39 7.39 
190 492 163 1538 570 789194 2365444 292340 0.0002 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 529 200 1588 600 843394 2521744 318350 0.0003 1.000 5.93 5.93 
210 567 238 1699 630 964939 2886601 357530 0.0003 1.000 5.25 5.25 
220 603 274 1796 653 1076974 3225616 391328 0.0002 1.000 4.62 4.62 
 244
223 626 297       1.000 4.43  
     
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
full preheat time Test 3 
Ignition Time 
432      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10            
2
30            
4
50            
60            
7
80            
9
100 435 3       1.000 16.68  
110 442 10 1328 330 587990 1763584 146240 0.0012 1.000 15.08 15.08 
120 451 19 1358 360 614990 1844164 163190 0.0009 1.000 13.96 13.96 
130 465 33 1397 390 650987 1951609 181910 0.0007 1.000 12.83 12.83 
140 481 49 1449 420 700595 2099601 203240 0.0005 1.000 11.74 11.74 
150 503 71 1511 450 762099 2283121 227110 0.0004 1.000 10.65 10.65 
160 527 95 1584 480 837654 2509056 253950 0.0004 1.000 9.56 9.56 
170 554 122 1673 510 935109 2798929 285060 0.0003 1.000 8.47 8.47 
180 592 160 1795 540 1078581 3222025 324050 0.0002 1.000 7.39 7.39 
190 649 217 1955 570 1281461 3822025 372670 0.0002 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 714 282 2126 600 1513166 4519876 426340 0.0002 1.000 5.93 5.93 
210 763 331 2306 630 1779206 5317636 485410 0.0002 1.000 5.25 5.25 
 245
220 829 397       1.000 4.62  
     
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
full preheat time Test 4 
Ignition Time 
455      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 0 0          
20 0 0          
30 0 0 
40 0 0          
50 0 0 
60 0 0          
70 0 0 
80 0 0          
90 0 0 
100 462 7        16.68  
110 467 12 1402 330 655262 1965604 154330 0.0018 1.000 15.08 15.08 
120 473 18 1420 360 672218 2016400 170530 0.0015 1.000 13.96 13.96 
130 480 25 1442 390 693250 2079364 187620 0.0012 1.000 12.83 12.83 
140 489 34 1469 420 719521 2157961 205860 0.0010 1.000 11.74 11.74 
150 500 45 1505 450 755377 2265025 226020 0.0007 1.000 10.65 10.65 
160 516 61 1550 480 801412 2402500 248340 0.0006 1.000 9.56 9.56 
170 534 79 1609 510 863893 2588881 273960 0.0005 1.000 8.47 8.47 
180 559 104 1678 540 939862 2815684 302550 0.0004 1.000 7.39 7.39 
190 585 130 1766 570 1041590 3118756 336170 0.0003 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 622 167 1864 600 1160758 3474496 373520 0.0003 1.000 5.93 5.93 
210 657 202 1961 630 1283657 3845521 412410 0.0003 1.000 5.25 5.25 
220 682 227       1.000 4.62  
 246
            
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
full preheat time Test 5 
Ignition Time 
432      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 0 0          
20 0 0 
30 0 0          
40 0 0 
50 0 0          
60 0 0 
70 0 0          
80 0 0 
90 0 0          
100 439 7  16.68 
110 443 11 1331 330 590571 1771561 146510 0.0020 1.000 15.08 15.08 
120 449 17 1350 360 607614 1822500 162150 0.0013 1.000 13.96 13.96 
130 458 26 1375 390 630389 1890625 178940 0.0011 1.000 12.83 12.83 
140 468 36 1405 420 658229 1974025 196910 0.0010 1.000 11.74 11.74 
150 479 47 1441 450 692501 2076481 216410 0.0008 1.000 10.65 10.65 
160 494 62 1483 480 733577 2199289 237590 0.0006 1.000 9.56 9.56 
170 510 78 1537 510 788225 2362369 261680 0.0005 1.000 8.47 8.47 
180 533 101 1611 540 866813 2595321 290560 0.0003 1.000 7.39 7.39 
190 568 136 1714 570 982482 2937796 326460 0.0002 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 613 181 1842 600 1135314 3392964 369330 0.0002 1.000 5.93 5.93 
210 661 229 2006 629 1348514 4024036 421718 0.0002 1.000 5.25 5.25 
219 732 300       1.000 4.68  
     
 247
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
Time from 
ignition (s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
RIFT ? 17mm plywood 
full preheat time Test 6 
Ignition Time 
432      m/s  kW/m
2
  
10 0 0          
20 0 0 
30 0 0          
40 0 0 
50 0 0          
60 0 0 
70 0 0          
80 0 0 
90 0 0          
100 439 7 1.000 16.68 
110 443 11 1331 330 590571 1771561 146510 0.0020 1.000 15.08 15.08 
120 449 17 1350 360 607614 1822500 162150 0.0013 1.000 13.96 13.96 
130 458 26 1375 390 630389 1890625 178940 0.0011 1.000 12.83 12.83 
140 468 36 1405 420 658229 1974025 196910 0.0010 1.000 11.74 11.74 
150 479 47 1441 450 692501 2076481 216410 0.0008 1.000 10.65 10.65 
160 494 62 1483 480 733577 2199289 237590 0.0006 1.000 9.56 9.56 
170 510 78 1537 510 788225 2362369 261680 0.0005 1.000 8.47 8.47 
180 533 101 1611 540 866813 2595321 290560 0.0003 1.000 7.39 7.39 
190 568 136 1714 570 982482 2937796 326460 0.0002 1.000 6.66 6.66 
200 613 181 1842 600 1135314 3392964 369330 0.0002 1.000 5.93 5.93 
210 661 229 2006 629 1348514 4024036 421718 0.0002 1.000 5.25 5.25 
219 732 300       1.000 4.68  
 248
Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x    
t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? 18mm MDF Test 1 
Ignition Time 
 
479 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50 479            
7
10 479            
25
10 479            
75
20 479            
225 482 3 18.54 
250 488 9 1462 750 712532 2137444 365750 0.0049 1.000 17.25 17.25 14.236 
275 492 13 1510 825 761108 2280100 416300 0.0010 1.000 15.85 15.85 31.992 
300 530 51 1598 900 854740 2553604 481500 0.0006 1.000 14.45 14.45 41.050 
325 576 97 1746 975 1022276 3048516 570200 0.0005 1.000 12.84 12.84 47.113 
350 640 161 1924 1050 1242640 3701776 67670 0.0004 1.00 11.23 11.23 51.389
375 708 229 2159 1125 1568585 4661281 813900 0.0003 1.000 9.64 9.64 58.888 
400 811 332 2461 1200 2046349 6056521 990250 0.0002 1.000 8.05 8.05 68.574 
425 942 463 2887 1275 2831041 8334769 1235050 0.0002 1.000 7.01 7.01 80.850 
450 1134 655 3308 1335 3691144 10942864 1477370 0.0001 1.000 5.97 5.97 90.534 
460 1232 753       1.000 5.56 5.56
             
 249
Flame Front Position x 
Time to position x    
t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
(s) 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 x 
LIFT ? 18mm MDF Test 2 
Ignition Time 
 
478 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
             
50 478
7             
10 478
25             
10 478
75             
20 478
5             
20 478
275 487 9        15.85   
300 515 37 1558 900 811530 2427364 469125 0.0007 1.000 14.45 14.45 37.367 
325 556 78 1678 975 942810 2815684 547650 0.0005 1.000 12.84 12.84 42.980 
350 607 129 1850 1050 1149554 3422500 650775 0.0004 1.00 11.23 11.23 51.602
375 687 209 2098 1125 1486834 4401604 791675 0.0003 1.000 9.64 9.64 63.137 
400 804 326 2418 1200 1977714 5846724 973200 0.0002 1.000 8.05 8.05 69.289 
425 927 449 2820 1266 1712770 7952400 738325 0.0005 1.000 7.01 7.01 45.570 
441 1089 611       1.000 6.35 6.35
             
Flame Front Position x Time to position t 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V F(t) q? q?.F(t) 1/?V 
LIFT ? 18mm MDF Test 3 
Ignition Time 
 
455s 
     m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50 45            
7
10 45            
 250
125 45            
0
175 45            
20
5 45            
20
275 466 11        15.85   
300 487 32 1478 900 729950 2184484 444875 0.0008 1.000 14.45 14.45 34.823 
325 525 70 1589 975 845723 2524921 518675 0.0006 1.000 12.84 12.84 42.597 
350 577 122 1740 1050 1015598 3027600 61182 0.0004 1.00 11.23 11.23 47.590
375 638 183 1950 1125 1280198 3802500 735200 0.0003 1.000 9.64 9.64 56.698 
400 735 280 2232 1200 1685150 4981824 898325 0.0002 1.000 8.05 8.05 66.648 
425 859 404 2618 1275 1278106 6853924 659075 0.0005 1.000 7.01 7.01 47.107 
450 1024 569 2992 1332 1786457 8952064 825875 0.0004 1.000 5.97 5.97 48.815 
457 1109 654       1.000 5.69 5.69
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF-RIFT - low preheat ISO ign data test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
69s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 69 0   34.0 
20 207 60 14283 42849 4140 #DIV/0! 0.441 33.1 14.57 
30 69 0 207 90 14283 4284 6210 #DIV/0 0.441 32.5 14.31
40 211 120 14851 44521 8480 0.0038 0.441 30.0 13.22 16.330 
50 73 4 226 150 17146 51076 11450 0.0012 0.453 27.5 12.48 28.363
60 84 15 256 180 22186 6553 15620 0.0008 0.486 25.3 12.31 36.197
70 99 30 301 210 30781 90601 21410 0.0006 0.528 23.4 12.33 41.326 
80 118 49 356 240 43046 126736 28880 0.0005 0.576 21.4 12.33 44.740
90 139 70 428 270 62486 183184 39050 0.0004 0.625 19.2 11.99 51.846
100 171 102 516 300 90998 266256 52270 0.0003 0.694 16.9 11.75 57.899 
110 206 137 626 330 133678 39187 69640 0.0003 0.761 15.0 11.45 62.559
 251
120 249 180 751 360 192053 564001 91020 0.0002 0.837 13.5 11.29 67.104 
130 296 227 893 390 270721 797449 117080 0.0002 0.913 11.9 10.90 70.386
140 348 279 1052 420 375184 11067604 148400 0.0002 0.990 10.8 10.72 74.897
150 408 339 1243 450 524737 1545049 187840 0.0001 1.000 9.7 9.72 83.626 
160 487 418 1.000 8.7 8.67 
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF-RIFT - low preheat ISO ign data test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
   34.9  
10 60 0  0.411 34.0 13.96
20 61 1 184 60 11290 33856 3710 0.0064 0.414 33.1 13.70 12.472 
30 63 3 190 90 12046 36100 5750 0.0039 0.421 32.5 13.67 15.916
40 66 6 203 120 13801 41209 8230 0.0017 0.431 30.0 12.93 24.246
50 74 14 227 150 17401 5152 11560 0.0009 0.456 27.5 12.57 32.708 
60 87 27 263 180 23449 69169 16060 0.0007 0.495 25.3 12.53 37.448
70 102 42 306 210 31662 93636 21720 0.0007 0.536 23.4 12.52 38.730
80 117 57 355 240 42589 126025 28740 0.0006 0.574 21.4 12.28 41.326 
90 136 76 422 270 60746 178084 38500 0.0004 0.619 19.2 11.86 51.603
100 169 109 498 300 84306 24800 50370 0.0003 0.690 16.9 11.68 53.607
110 193 133 594 330 119634 352836 65970 0.0003 0.737 15.0 11.08 56.653 
120 232 172 704 360 168914 49561 85340 0.0002 0.808 13.5 10.90 65.669
130 279 219 842 390 241226 708964 110450 0.0002 0.886 11.9 10.58 70.386
140 331 271 999 42 338723 998001 140960 0.0002 0.965 10.8 10.45 74.199 
150 89 329 1183 450 475251 1399489 178770 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 81.439
160 463 403 1341 32 369171 1798281 133020 0.0000 1.00 8.7 8.67 151.590
164 489 429  1.000 8.1 8.08  
  
 252
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF-RIFT - low preheat ISO ign data test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
59s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 59 0   0.407 34.0 
20 177 60 10443 31329 3540 #DIV/0! 0.407 33.1 13.47 ! 
30 59 0 183 90 11187 3348 5550 0.0025 0.407 32.5 13.23 20.000 
40 65 6 199 120 13331 39601 8120 0.0012 0.428 30.0 12.83 28.577
50 75 16 228 150 17594 51984 11630 0.0009 0.459 27.5 12.65 34.008
60 88 29 266 180 23978 70756 16240 0.0007 0.498 25.3 12.60 37.448 
70 103 44 310 210 32514 96100 22010 0.0006 0.538 23.4 12.58 39.377
80 119 60 360 240 43814 12960 29150 0.0006 0.579 21.4 12.39 41.884
90 138 79 422 270 60430 178084 38440 0.0004 0.623 19.2 11.94 48.199 
100 165 106 499 300 84685 249001 50480 0.0003 0.681 16.9 11.54 53.894
110 196 137 598 330 121810 357604 66500 0.0003 0.743 15.0 11.17 60.193
120 237 178 713 360 172985 508369 86400 0.0002 0.817 13.5 11.02 64.814 
130 280 221 847 390 243469 717409 111040 0.0002 0.888 11.9 10.60 68.255
140 330 271 1001 42 340181 1002001 141250 0.0002 0.964 10.8 10.44 74.620
150 91 332 1199 450 490265 1437601 181330 0.0001 1.000 9.7 9.72 86.465 
160 478 419 1397 37 388761 1951609 140290 0.0001 1.00 8.7 8.67 90.437
164 528 469   1.000 8.1 8.08 
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
t 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V F(t) q? q?.F(t) 1/?V 
MDF-RIFT - low preheat ISO ign data test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
66s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 66 0   0.431 34.0 
20 67 1 60 13469 0 4040 0.0003 0.434 33.1 14.36 57.740
30 68 2 90 14013 6180 0.0004 0.437 32.5 14.20 47.618 
40 70 4 212 120 15000 44944 8540 0.0032 0.444 30.0 13.32 17.638
50 74 8 230 150 17772 52900 11660 0.0012 0.456 27.5 12.57 29.439
 253
60 86 20 260 180 22872 67600 15860 0.0008 0.492 25.3 12.46 36.091 
70 100 34 304 210 31320 92416 21600 0.0006 0.530 23.4 12.39 40.104
80 118 52 355 240 42693 126025 28770 0.0005 0.576 21.4 12.33 43.017
90 137 71 422 270 60582 178084 38470 0.0004 0.621 19.2 11.90 49.911 
100 16 101 502 300 85862 25200 50810 0.0003 0.686 16.9 11.61 55.229
110 198 132 602 330 123262 362404 66920 0.0003 0.746 15.0 11.23 59.289
120 237 171 714 360 173214 509796 86490 0.0002 0.817 13.5 11.02 63.654 
130 279 213 853 390 247579 727609 111890 0.0002 0.886 11.9 10.58 71.012
140 337 271 1010 42 346646 1020100 142550 0.0002 0.974 10.8 10.55 75.830
150 94 328 1257 450 545481 1580049 190440 0.0001 1.000 9.7 9.72 99.730 
160 526 460 1460 473 723512 2131600 231280 0.0001 1.00 8.7 8.67 109.287
163 540 474 1.000 8.2 8.23 
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF-RIFT - low preheat ISO ign data  test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
61s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 61 0   0.414 34.0 14.08 
20 62 1 187 60 11661 34969 3770 0.0064 0.418 33.1 13.81 12.472
30 64 3 195 90 12701 38025 5920 0.0027 0.424 32.5 13.78 19.272 
40 69 8 207 120 14333 42849 8380 0.0020 0.441 30.0 13.22 22.361
50 74 13 229 150 17633 52441 11620 0.0011 0.456 27.5 12.57 29.967
60 86 25 259 180 22673 6708 15790 0.0008 0.492 25.3 12.46 35.365 
70 99 38 305 210 31597 93025 21690 0.0006 0.528 23.4 12.33 41.610
80 120 59 360 240 44082 129600 29220 0.0005 0.581 21.4 12.44 45.826
90 141 80 432 270 63522 186624 39390 0.0004 0.630 19.2 12.07 50.759 
100 17 110 513 300 89523 263169 51900 0.0003 0.694 16.9 11.75 54.772
110 201 140 614 330 128206 376996 68250 0.0003 0.752 15.0 11.31 59.820
120 242 181 731 360 181909 534361 88590 0.0002 0.825 13.5 11.13 65.991 
130 288 227 875 390 260533 765625 114780 0.0002 0.900 11.9 10.75 71.900
140 345 284 1037 42 365185 1075369 146340 0.0002 0.985 10.8 10.67 76.162
 254
150 404 343 1230 450 513602 1512900 185860 0.0001 1.000 9.7 9.72 82.703 
160 81 420 1439 472 701493 2070721 227308 0.0001 1.00 8.7 8.67 111.487
162 554 493 1.000 8.4 8.37 
           
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF-RIFT - low preheat. ISO ign data test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
68s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 68 0   0.437 34.0 14.86 
20 68.5 0.5 206 60 14077 42230 4120 0.0200 0.439 33.1 14.52 7.071 
30 69 1 208 90 14353 43056 6240 0.0129 0.441 32.5 14.31 8.819 
40 70 2 215 120 15437 46225 8670 0.0024 0.444 30.0 13.32 20.237
50 76 8 237 150 18957 56169 12060 0.0009 0.462 27.5 12.74 33.381
60 91 23 271 180 24873 73441 1654 0.0007 0.506 25.3 12.82 37.448 
70 104 36 315 210 33497 99225 22340 0.0007 0.541 23.4 12.64 38.147
80 120 52 366 240 45380 133956 29660 0.0005 0.581 21.4 12.44 43.770 
90 142 74 433 270 63805 187489 39480 0.0004 0.632 19.2 12.12 50.656 
100 171 103 515 300 90209 265225 52100 0.0003 0.694 16.9 11.75 54.782 
110 202 134 614 330 128126 376996 6824 0.0003 0.754 15.0 11.34 59.289
120 241 173 725 360 178409 525625 87800 0.0002 0.824 13.5 11.11 63.252
130 282 214 857 390 249161 734449 11234 0.0002 0.891 11.9 10.64 68.350 
140 334 266 1012 420 347896 1024144 142820 0.0002 0.969 10.8 10.50 75.595
150 396 328 1196 450 485528 1430416 18072 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 81.290
160 466 398 1389 475 651701 1929321 220915 0.0001 1.000 8. 8.67 93.171 
165 527 459       1.000 7.9 7.93 
 
 255
 
Flame Front Position x Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) Vf F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF ? RIFT ?Full preheat Test 1 Ignition 
Time 
364s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20             
30
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 369 5   1.000 16.9
110 382 18 1154 330 444494 1331716 127280 0.0006 1.000 15.0 15.04 41.610 
120 403 39 1221 36 498429 1490841 14706 0.0004 1.000 13.5 13.49 52.387
130 436 72 1317 390 580989 1734489 171960 0.0003 1.000 11.9 11.95 61.384
140 478 114 1441 42 696309 2076481 20265 0.0002 1.000 10.8 10.83 67.520 
150 527 163 1593 450 851957 2537649 240050 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 74.309
160 588 224 1774 48 1057754 3147076 28516 0.0002 1.000 8. 8.67 81.318
170 659 295 1969 510 1301309 3876961 336070 0.0001 1.000 7.7 7.68 81.902 
180 722 358   6.  
           
 256
Flame Front Position x Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) Vf F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF ? RIFT ?Full preheat Test 2 Ignition 
Time 
357s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20             
30
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 365 8   16.9
110 382 25 1149 330 440753 1320201 126760 0.0005 1.000 15.0 15.04 43.059 
120 402 45 1222 36 499372 1493284 14720 0.0003 1.000 13.5 13.49 53.630
130 438 81 1313 390 577177 1723969 171400 0.0003 1.000 11.9 11.95 59.584
140 473 116 1434 42 689102 2056356 20161 0.0002 1.000 10.8 10.83 65.530 
150 523 16 1574 450 831342 2477476 237150 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 72.484
160 578 221 1742 48 1018494 3034564 27990 0.0002 1.000 8. 8.67 76.870
170 641 284 1920 340 744965 3686400 201450 0.0000 1.000 7.7 7.68 173.086 
180 701 34 2091 535 1463283 4372281 373715 0.0001 1.000 6. 6.70 84.507
185 749 392    6.2 
            
Flame Front Position x Time to 
position 
t 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V F(t) q? q?.F(t) 1/?V 
MDF ? RIFT ?Full preheat Test 3 Ignition 
Time 
359s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20             
30
 257
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 365 6   1.000 16.9
110 378 19 1165 330 454193 1357225 128720 0.0003 1.000 15.0 15.04 55.955 
120 422 63 1257 36 529817 1580049 15163 0.0003 1.000 13.5 13.49 62.985
130 457 98 1374 390 631958 1887876 179350 0.0003 1.000 11.9 11.95 60.432
140 495 136 1476 42 728450 2178576 20731 0.0003 1.000 10.8 10.83 58.053 
150 524 165 1592 450 847930 2534464 239580 0.0003 1.000 9.7 9.72 63.131
160 573 214 1734 37 602905 3006756 17028 0.0001 1.000 8. 8.67 95.726
170 637 278 1910 510 1224098 3648100 325970 0.0002 1.000 7.7 7.68 79.688 
180 700 341 2085 535 1455273 4347225 37267 0.0001 1.000 6. 6.70 85.644
185 748 389    6.2 
            
Flame Front Position x Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) Vf F(t)
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF ? RIFT ?Full preheat Test 4 Ignition 
Time 
358s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20             
30
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 366 8   16.9
 258
110 380 22 1148 330 439960 1317904 126640 0.0005 1.000 15.0 15.04 42.774 
120 402 44 1213 36 491765 1471369 14607 0.0004 1.000 13.5 13.49 50.656
130 431 73 1304 390 569206 1700416 170210 0.0003 1.000 11.9 11.95 58.985
140 471 113 1423 42 679043 2024929 20012 0.0002 1.000 10.8 10.83 67.220 
150 521 16 1573 450 830843 2474329 237050 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 74.264
160 581 223 1735 48 1009691 3010225 27872 0.0002 1.000 8. 8.67 74.897
170 633 275 1903 510 1212971 3621409 324590 0.0002 1.000 7.7 7.68 73.501 
180 689 331 2046 534 1399586 4186116 364846 0.0002 1.000 6. 6.70 80.027
184 724 366   1.000 6.3 
            
Flame Front Position x Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) Vf F(t)
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF ? RIFT ?Full preheat Test 5 Ignition 
Time 
367s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20             
30
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 377 10   1.000 16.9
110 395 28 1189 330 472043 1413721 131190 0.0005 1.000 15.0 15.04 44.796 
120 417 50 1266 36 536030 1602756 15251 0.0003 1.000 13.5 13.49 54.896
130 454 87 1370 390 629006 1876900 178920 0.0002 1.000 11.9 11.95 64.133
140 499 132 1504 42 758718 2262016 21153 0.0002 1.000 10.8 10.83 69.702 
150 551 184 1664 450 929598 2768896 250750 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 75.944
160 614 247 1848 48 1147086 3415104 29700 0.0002 1.000 8. 8.67 81.268
170 683 316 2050 509 1410494 4202500 349137 0.0001 1.000 7.7 7.68 85.539 
 259
179 753 386       1.000 6.5   
      
Flame Front Position x Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) Vf F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
MDF ? RIFT ?Full preheat Test 6 Ignition 
Time 
358s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20             
30
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 366 8   1.000 16.9
110 381 23 1151 330 442333 1324801 126990 0.0005 1.000 15.0 15.04 43.910 
120 404 46 1219 36 496733 1485961 14681 0.0004 1.000 13.5 13.49 51.628
130 434 76 1328 390 591672 1763584 173500 0.0002 1.000 11.9 11.95 66.566
140 490 132 1454 42 709356 2114116 20452 0.0002 1.000 10.8 10.83 69.602 
150 530 17 1606 450 864396 2579236 241860 0.0002 1.000 9.7 9.72 69.602
160 586 228 1788 48 1075880 3196944 28750 0.0001 1.000 8. 8.67 84.886
170 672 314 1972 510 1304776 3888784 336520 0.0002 1.000 7.7 7.68 81.560 
180 714 356 2160 54 1560456 4665600 38982 0.0002 1.000 6. 6.70 71.784
190 774 41    1.000 6.0 
            
 
 260
Melteca/ MDF 
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT Melteca /MDF- test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
498s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50         
75    0.000 35.4 0.00
100      0.000 35.0 0.00  
125    0.000 33.7 0.00
150      0.000 32.4 0.00  
175    0.000 30.7 0.00
200      0.000 29.0 0.00  
225    0.000 27.4 0.00
250      0.000 25.7 0.00  
275    0.000 23.3 0.00
300 518 20    0.962 20.9 20.10  
325 569 71 1697 975 964185 2879809 553825 0.0005 1.000 19.2 19.20 42.980
350 610 112 1966 1050 1315230 3865156 693550 0.0002 1.000 17.5 17.50 70.183 
375 787 289 2286 1125 1781790 5225796 864225 0.0002 1.000 14.9 14.90 75.594
400 889 391 2840 1200 2764586 8065600 1145425 0.0001 1.000 12.3 12.30 89.829 
425 1164 666 3463 1270 4133317 11992369 1477750 0.0001 1.000 10.9 10.90 107.545 
445 1410 912       1.000 9.8 9.78  
      
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT Melteca /MDF- test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
518s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50         
75     
100 563 45    1.000 35.0 35.00  
125 566 48 1702 375 965654 2896804 213000 0.00475 1.000 33.7 33.70 14.514
 261
150 573 55 1720 450 986246 2958400 258375 0.00333 1.000 32.4 32.40 17.333 
175 581 63 1746 525 1016354 3048516 306025 0.00261 1.000 30.7 30.70 19.574
200 592 74 1773 600 1048025 3143529 355075 0.00261 1.000 29.0 29.00 19.574 
225 600 82 1802 675 1082564 3247204 405900 0.00277 1.000 27.4 27.35 19.013
250 610 92 1830 750 1116500 3348900 458000 0.00250 1.000 25.7 25.70 20.000 
275 620 102 1865 825 1159725 3478225 513500 0.00197 1.000 23.3 23.30 22.509
300 635 117 1969 900 1297421 3876961 593050 0.00046 1.000 20.9 20.90 46.589 
325 714 196 2134 975 1529246 4553956 697300 0.00033 1.000 19.2 19.20 54.798
350 785 267 2387 1050 1914565 5697769 839800 0.00028 1.000 17.5 17.50 59.323 
375 888 370 2743 1125 2549669 7524049 1035750 0.00017 1.000 14.9 14.90 76.459
400 1070 552 3196 1200 3466088 10214416 1287150 0.00014 1.000 12.3 12.30 83.688 
425 1238 720 3826 1265 4981868 14638276 1622070 0.00009 1.000 10.9 10.90 108.058 
440 1518 1000     1.000 10.1 10.06  
          
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT Melteca /MDF- test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50         
75    0.000 35.4 
100      0.000 35.0   
125    0.000 33.7
150      0.000 32.4   
175    0.000 30.7
200      0.000 29.0   
225    0.000 27.4
250      0.000 25.7   
275 580 62      1.000 23.3 
300 605 87 1842 900 1134074 3392964 554525 0.0006 1.000 20.9 20.90 40.039 
325 657 139 1987 975 1323299 3948169 648775 0.0004 1.000 19.2 19.20 49.135
350 725 207 2210 1050 1642858 4884100 777775 0.0003 1.000 17.5 17.50 58.888 
 262
375 828 310 2638 1125 2388434 6959044 998250 0.0001 1.000 14.9 14.90 87.402 
400 1085 567 3383 1200 4023709 11444689 1369250 0.0001 1.000 12.3 12.30 114.062 
425 1470 952      1.000 10.9 10.90  
445 1675 1157  1.000 9.8 9.78 
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT Melteca/MDF 
low preheat-test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
75s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 75 0   0.372 34.25 12.74 
20 78 3 234 60 18270 54756 4740 0.0033 0.379 33.40 12.67 17.321 
30 81 6 243 90 19701 59049 7350 0.0033 0.386 31.99 12.36 17.321
40 84 9 260 120 22642 67600 10540 0.0013 0.394 29.45 11.59 27.860 
50 95 20 351 150 45665 123201 18430 0.0002 0.418 27.00 11.30 72.284
60 172 97 472 180 80634 222784 29420 0.0002 0.563 24.80 13.97 76.114 
70 205 130 628 210 134610 394384 44750 0.0003 0.615 22.75 13.98 63.132
80 251 176 756 240 195026 571536 61430 0.0002 0.680 20.62 14.03 68.932 
90 300 225 896 270 272026 802816 81580 0.0002 0.744 18.39 13.67 68.577
100 345 270 1069 300 388801 1142761 108140 0.0002 0.797 16.28 12.99 79.721 
110 424 349 1331 330 614645 1771561 148580 0.0001 0.884 14.50 12.82 105.439
120 562 487      1.000 12.91 12.91  
       
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position t 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V F(t) q? q?.F(t) 1/?V 
RIFT Melteca/MDF 
low preheat-test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
48s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 48 0      34.25  
20 76 28 227 60 18689 51529 5090 0.00036 0.374 33.40 12.50 52.443 
30 103 55 321 90 36549 103041 10290 0.00030 0.436 31.99 13.94 57.761 
40 142 94 415 120 59673 172225 17270 0.00030 0.512 29.45 15.07 58.139 
 263
50 170 122 505 150 86313 255025 25760 0.00039 0.560 27.00 15.12 50.578 
60 193 145 595 180 119973 354025 36320 0.00032 0.596 24.80 14.79 56.292 
70 232 184 683 210 157637 466489 48460 0.00030 0.654 22.75 14.88 57.388 
80 258 210 786 240 208004 617796 63520 0.00031 0.690 20.62 14.22 56.899 
90 296 248 948 270 309416 898704 86680 0.00014 0.739 18.39 13.58 85.095 
100 394 346 1218 300 521636 1483524 124120 0.00009 0.852 16.28 13.88 108.135 
110 528 480 1522 330 794020 2316484 169480 0.00009 0.987 14.50 14.30 103.010 
120 600 552 1848 359 1157184 3415104 222960 0.00010 1.000 12.91 12.91 101.790 
129 720 672     1.000 12.97 12.97 
         
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT Melteca/MDF- 
low preheat-test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0     
20 94 34 275 60 27077 75625 6110 0.0003 0.416 33.40 13.90 55.348 
30 121 61 358 90 43926 128164 11230 0.0004 0.472 31.99 15.11 49.583
40 143 83 453 120 70811 205209 18800 0.0003 0.513 29.45 15.12 59.508 
50 189 129 558 150 107246 311364 28730 0.0002 0.590 27.00 15.94 64.547
60 226 166 664 180 148798 440896 40440 0.0003 0.645 24.80 16.01 55.267 
70 249 189 758 210 193166 574564 53630 0.0003 0.677 22.75 15.41 53.716
80 283 223 859 240 249019 737881 69500 0.0003 0.722 20.62 14.89 62.621 
90 327 267 985 270 327643 970225 89570 0.0002 0.776 18.39 14.28 67.845
100 375 315 1172 300 468454 1373584 118630 0.0001 0.831 16.28 13.54 86.067 
110 470 410 1389 330 657461 1929321 154480 0.0001 0.931 14.50 13.50 92.160 
120 544 484 1633 353 899997 2666689 193117 0.0001 1.000 12.91 12.91 107.124
123 619 559      1.000 13.35 13.35  
       
 264
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT Melteca/MDF- 
low preheat-test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 60 0 153 30 12249 23409 2460 0.0002 0.333 34.64 11.52 69.142 
20 93 33 273 60 26649 74529 6060 0.0003 0.414 33.67 13.94 54.863
30 120 60 355 90 43213 126025 11140 0.0004 0.470 33.00 15.52 49.583 
40 142 82 448 120 69160 200704 18580 0.0003 0.512 30.46 15.59 58.500
50 186 126 518 150 90860 268324 26380 0.0003 0.586 27.92 16.35 54.365 
60 190 130 596 180 119096 355216 36100 0.0005 0.592 25.63 15.17 45.071
70 220 160 664 210 149016 440896 47120 0.0003 0.637 23.57 15.01 56.605 
80 254 194 779 240 205941 606841 63170 0.0002 0.684 21.51 14.72 65.625
90 305 245 928 270 293702 861184 84670 0.0002 0.750 19.28 14.46 75.990 
100 369 309 1208 300 514342 1459264 123090 0.0001 0.825 17.05 14.06 110.419
110 534 474 1526 329 809446 2328676 169777 0.0001 0.992 15.14 15.02 117.028 
119 623 563    1.000 15.14 15.14 
          
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT Melteca/MDF- 
low preheat-test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
65s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 65 0       
20 105 40 297 60 31379 88209 6560 0.0003 0.440 33.67 14.81 56.454
30 127 62 406 90 57430 164836 12870 0.0003 0.484 33.00 15.97 60.008 
40 174 109 491 120 82505 241081 20270 0.0003 0.566 30.46 17.25 58.346
50 190 125 599 150 121601 358801 30560 0.0003 0.592 27.92 16.53 57.269 
60 235 170 705 180 169725 497025 43200 0.0002 0.658 25.63 16.87 67.082
70 280 215 846 210 243186 715716 60180 0.0002 0.718 23.57 16.93 69.327 
80 331 266 1031 240 364361 1062961 83880 0.0001 0.781 21.51 16.81 84.687
 265
90 420 355 1238 270 523130 1532644 112980 0.0001 0.880 19.28 16.97 88.610 
100 487 422 1563 298 843905 2442969 157348 0.0001 0.947 17.05 16.15 118.971
108 656 591      1.000 17.05 17.05  
       
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT Melteca/MDF- 
low preheat-test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 60       
20 70 70 217 60 16069 47089 4610 0.0007 0.359 33.67 12.09 37.152
30 87 87 258 90 22670 66564 8050 0.0006 0.400 33.00 13.22 39.431 
40 101 101 317 120 34411 100489 13100 0.0005 0.431 30.46 13.14 46.667
50 129 129 408 150 58526 166464 21170 0.0003 0.488 27.92 13.62 62.813 
60 178 178 515 180 91589 265225 31690 0.0002 0.573 25.63 14.68 63.452
70 208 208 635 210 136949 403225 45160 0.0003 0.619 23.57 14.60 59.820 
80 249 249 770 240 203234 592900 62650 0.0002 0.677 21.51 14.58 73.034
90 313 313 943 270 305131 889249 86190 0.0002 0.760 19.28 14.65 81.253 
100 381 381 1135 300 437611 1288225 114780 0.0002 0.838 17.05 14.29 80.052 
110 441 441 1398 330 671418 1954404 155730 0.0001 0.902 15.14 13.65 101.147
120 576 576      1.000 13.54  
 
 
 266
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/MDF 
full preheat, test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
550      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10         
20     
30         
40     
50         
60 564 14      1.000 24.80 
70 579 29 1768 210 1043962 3125824 124370 0.0003 1.000 22.75 22.75 57.555 
80 625 75 1864 240 1161466 3474496 149930 0.0002 1.000 20.62 20.62 63.835
90 660 110 2193 270 1650689 4809249 200200 0.0001 1.000 18.39 18.39 129.699 
100 908 358      1.000 16.28  
        
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/MDF 
full preheat, test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
571      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 0 0     
20 0 0       
30 0 0     
40 0 0       
50 0 0     
60 0 0       
70 579 8   1.000 22.75  
80 592 21 1776 240 1051730 3154176 142340 0.00077 1.000 20.62 20.62 36.056 
90 605 34 1851 270 1144205 3426201 167210 0.00029 1.000 18.39 18.39 58.723
100 654 83 2006 300 1351750 4024036 202020 0.00014 1.000 16.28 16.28 85.599 
110 747 176 2268 330 1737414 5143824 251610 0.00009 1.000 14.50 14.50 103.475
 267
120 867 296 2539 360 2165323 6446521 306460 0.00011 1.000 12.91 12.91 96.229 
130 925 354 2820 385 2664098 7952400 363070 0.00009 1.000 11.48 11.48 106.611
135 1028 457       1.000 11.72   
     
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/MDF 
full preheat, test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
557      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 0 0     
20 0 0       
30 0 0     
40 0 0       
50 0 0     
60 0 0       
70 0 0     
80 566 9     1.000 20.62  
90 610 53 1824 270 1112360 3326976 164980 0.0002 1.000 18.39 18.39 64.088
100 648 91 1983 300 1317629 3932289 199450 0.0002 1.000 16.28 16.28 77.269 
110 725 168 2255 330 1723453 5085025 250390 0.0001 1.000 14.50 14.50 110.254
120 882 325 2604 357 2297558 6780816 312209 0.0001 1.000 12.91 12.91 126.420 
127 997 440      1.000 13.10 13.10 
        
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/MDF 
full preheat, test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
549      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 0 0     
20 0 0       
30 0 0     
40 0 0       
50 0 0     
 268
60 0 0           
70 555 6 1.000 23.57
80 559 10 1720 240 987742 2958400 138110 0.0003 1.000 21.51 21.51 56.163 
90 606 57 1849 270 1147573 3418801 167660 0.0002 1.000 19.28 19.28 79.863
100 684 135 2138 300 1554196 4571044 216220 0.0001 1.000 17.05 17.05 112.291 
110 848 299 2467 330 2061185 6086089 273880 0.0001 1.000 15.14 15.14 113.770
120 935 386       1.000 13.54   
     
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/MDF 
full preheat, test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
565      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 0 0     
20 0 0       
30 0 0     
40 0 0       
50 0 0     
60 0 0       
70 0 0     
80 571 6     1.000 21.51  
90 579 14 1767 270 1041971 3122289 159490 0.0004 1.000 19.28 19.28 51.245
100 617 52 2036 300 1421530 4145296 206210 0.0001 1.000 17.05 17.05 123.432 
110 840 275      1.000 15.14  
 
 269
Melteca/ particle board 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
Melteca/PB low preheat 
ISO ign data RIFT - Test 
1 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0   0.332 34.25 11.38 
20 66 6 204 60 14040 41616 4260 0.0011 0.349 33.40 11.64 30.551 
30 78 18 233 90 18361 54289 7220 0.0009 0.379 31.99 12.12 33.922
40 89 29 289 120 28889 83521 12000 0.0004 0.405 29.45 11.92 48.819 
50 122 62 368 150 47454 135424 19080 0.0003 0.474 27.00 12.80 58.318
60 157 97 477 180 78737 227529 29380 0.0003 0.538 24.80 13.33 61.708 
70 198 138 585 210 116753 342225 41680 0.0003 0.604 22.75 13.73 60.568 
80 230 170 693 240 162329 480249 56110 0.0003 0.651 20.62 13.42 57.899 
90 265 205 895 270 283125 801025 82250 0.0001 0.698 18.39 12.84 97.367 
100 400 340 1121 300 438161 1256641 114010 0.0001 0.858 16.28 13.97 100.472
110 456 396 1355 330 616937 1836025 150040 0.0002 0.916 14.50 13.28 70.558 
120 499 439 1513 360 768301 2289169 182580 0.0002 0.958 12.91 12.37 71.707
130 558 498     1.000 11.48 11.48  
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
Time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
Melteca/PB low preheat 
ISO ign data RIFT - Test 
2 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 60 0     0.332 34.25 11.38  
20 69 9 204 60 13986 41616 4230 0.00132 0.356 33.40 11.90 27.568 
30 75 15 231 90 17955 53361 7110 0.00107 0.372 31.99 11.88 30.551 
40 87 27 272 120 25294 73984 11230 0.00055 0.400 29.45 11.78 42.516 
50 110 50 341 150 40405 116281 17620 0.00035 0.450 27.00 12.15 53.716 
 270
60 144 84 426 180 62420 181476 26180 0.00032 0.515 24.80 12.77 55.764 
70 172 112 523 210 93169 273529 37240 0.00032 0.563 22.75 12.80 56.240 
80 207 147 643 240 142129 413449 52360 0.00021 0.617 20.62 12.73 68.467 
90 264 204 825 270 237861 680625 75720 0.00013 0.697 18.39 12.82 86.449 
100 354 294 1078 300 406612 1162084 109760 0.00010 0.807 16.28 13.14 99.105 
110 460 400 1337 330 610445 1787569 148760 0.00012 0.920 14.50 13.34 92.910 
120 523 463 1602 355 868290 2566404 190735 0.00009 0.981 12.91 12.66 104.910 
125 619 559     13.22   
    
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
Melteca/PB low preheat 
ISO ign data RIFT - Test 
3 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0     
20 76 16 223 60 16945 49729 4730 0.0007 0.374 33.40 12.49 36.952 
30 87 27 270 90 24794 72900 8410 0.0006 0.400 31.99 12.80 39.919 
40 107 47 323 120 35659 104329 13340 0.0005 0.444 29.45 13.07 45.843 
50 129 69 400 150 54986 160000 20570 0.0003 0.487 27.00 13.16 53.846 
60 164 104 480 180 78506 230400 29380 0.0003 0.549 24.80 13.63 54.234 
70 187 127 591 210 119465 349281 42130 0.0003 0.587 22.75 13.35 63.225 
80 240 180 723 240 180185 522729 58930 0.0002 0.665 20.62 13.71 73.833 
90 296 236 887 270 268417 786769 80940 0.0002 0.738 18.39 13.57 74.499 
100 351 291 1116 300 430778 1245456 113330 0.0001 0.804 16.28 13.09 95.039 
110 469 409 1349 330 623003 1819801 150170 0.0001 0.929 14.50 13.47 95.995 
120 529 469 1642 360 914538 2696164 198790 0.0001 0.987 12.91 12.73 95.069 
130 644 584 1854 381 1158338 3437316 236411 0.0001 1.000 11.48 11.48 114.829 
131 681 621      11.90  
    
 271
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
Melteca/PB low preheat 
ISO ign data RIFT - 
Test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
63      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 63 0 145 30 10693 21025 2270 0.0002 0.341 34.64 11.80 67.034 
20 82 19 236 60 18974 55696 5000 0.0007 0.388 33.67 13.08 38.204 
30 91 28 279 90 26241 77841 8610 0.0008 0.409 33.00 13.51 35.000 
40 106 43 319 120 34401 101761 13070 0.0006 0.442 30.46 13.46 39.377 
50 122 59 373 150 47145 139129 19040 0.0005 0.474 27.92 13.23 44.395 
60 145 82 433 180 63465 187489 26420 0.0005 0.517 25.63 13.24 46.920 
70 166 103 513 210 89385 263169 36480 0.0003 0.553 23.57 13.03 53.998 
80 202 139 640 240 142344 409600 52260 0.0002 0.610 21.51 13.12 74.039 
90 272 209 793 270 216549 628849 72540 0.0002 0.708 19.28 13.64 76.976 
100 319 256 959 300 311169 919681 96860 0.0002 0.766 17.05 13.06 69.287 
110 368 305 1127 330 430785 1270129 125180 0.0002 0.823 15.14 12.46 78.249 
120 440 377 1369 360 643745 1874161 166210 0.0001 0.900 13.54 12.19 99.284 
130 561 498 1640 390 916642 2689600 215190 0.0001 1.000 11.95 11.95 100.523 
140 639 576 1916 415 1235698 3671056 266210 0.0001 1.000 10.78 10.78 101.617 
145 716 653     10.78  
    
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
Melteca/PB low preheat 
ISO ign data RIFT - 
Test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
       
10 60 0       
20 81 21 245 60 20977 60025 5340 0.0005 0.386 33.67 13.00 46.920 
30 104 44 297 90 29921 88209 9220 0.0006 0.437 33.00 14.44 40.877 
40 112 52 344 120 39744 118336 14000 0.0008 0.454 30.46 13.83 35.277 
 272
50 128 68 414 150 59204 171396 21320 0.0003 0.485 27.92 13.55 57.809 
60 174 114 496 180 84296 246016 30420 0.0003 0.566 25.63 14.50 58.913 
70 194 134 582 210 113708 338724 41140 0.0005 0.598 23.57 14.08 44.721 
80 214 154 654 240 143948 427716 52840 0.0004 0.628 21.51 13.50 51.441 
90 246 186 752 270 191576 565504 68460 0.0003 0.673 19.28 12.97 62.784 
100 292 232 892 300 271096 795664 90280 0.0002 0.733 17.05 12.50 73.753 
110 354 294 1075 330 394621 1155625 119620 0.0001 0.807 15.14 12.22 82.889 
120 429 369 1365 358 648081 1863225 164916 0.0001 0.889 13.54 12.03 115.454 
128 582 522    13.54  
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
Melteca/PB low preheat 
ISO ign data RIFT - 
Test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
      
10 60        
20 79 79 228 60 17762 51984 4850 0.0007 0.381 33.67 12.84 38.685 
30 89 89 269 90 24363 72361 8290 0.0009 0.405 33.00 13.36 33.212 
40 101 101 318 120 34506 101124 13110 0.0005 0.431 30.46 13.13 45.234 
50 128 128 419 150 62685 175561 21840 0.0002 0.485 27.92 13.55 68.406 
60 190 190 536 180 100008 287296 33060 0.0002 0.591 25.63 15.15 68.659 
70 218 218 667 210 150705 444889 47380 0.0003 0.633 23.57 14.93 59.083 
80 259 259 793 240 214461 628849 64420 0.0002 0.690 21.51 14.85 70.310 
90 316 316 945 270 303837 893025 86160 0.0002 0.763 19.28 14.70 74.507 
100 370 370 1107 300 413997 1225449 111750 0.0002 0.825 17.05 14.07 72.467 
110 421 421 1364 330 642470 1860496 152070 0.0001 0.880 15.14 13.32 104.821 
120 573 573    13.54  
 
 273
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/part bd ? 
full preheat ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
550s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20
30       
40      
50
60 567 17     1.000 24.80  
70 57 27 1732 210 1000162 2999824 121450 0.0010 1.000 22.75 22.75 32.416
80 588 38 1839 240 1132949 3381921 148090 0.0002 1.000 20.62 20.62 76.266
90 674 124 1969 270 1299869 3876961 178400 0.0002 1.000 18.39 18.39 79.646 
100 707 157 2129 300 1513629 4532641 213640 0.0003 1.000 16.28 16.28 60.946
110 748 198 2307 330 1785257 5322249 255220 0.0001 1.000 14.50 14.50 87.785
120 852 302 2508 355 2109872 6290064 298020 0.0001 1.000 12.91 12.91 103.113 
125 908 358   13.22  
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/part bd ? 
full preheat ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
542      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 0 0   
20
30 0 0        
40    
50 0 0 
60        
70 0 0 0.000 22.75  
 274
80 560 18 1146 240 656996 1313316 97540 0.00003 1.000 20.62 20.62 193.417 
90 586 44 1764 270 1038920 3111696 159340 0.00034 1.000 18.39 18.39 53.948
100 618 76 1862 300 1158284 3467044 186920 0.00028 1.000 16.28 16.28 60.123
110 65 116 2014 330 1359532 4056196 222740 0.00016 1.000 14.50 14.50 78.881 
120 738 196 2198 360 1620812 4831204 265200 0.00014 1.000 12.91 12.91 85.027
130 802 260 2423 385 1967537 5870929 312025 0.00010 1.000 11.48 11.48 99.192
135 883 341      11.72   
   
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/part bd ? 
full preheat ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
545      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10     
20
30        
40     
50
60        
70     
80 0.000 20.62
90 572 27 1182 270 699284 1397124 112480 0.0000 1.000 18.39 18.39 195.681 
100 610 65 1947 300 1284509 3790809 196630 0.0001 1.000 16.28 16.28 104.077
110 765 220 2239 330 1703821 5013121 248830 0.0001 1.000 14.50 14.50 113.604
120 864 319 2577 360 2230425 6640929 311070 0.0001 1.000 12.91 12.91 95.763 
130 948 403 2841 389 2704041 8071281 369951 0.0001 1.000 11.48 11.48 93.179
139 1029 484 1.000 11.53
       
 275
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/part bd ? 
full preheat ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
545      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10     
20
30        
40     
50
60        
70     
80 559 14 1.000 21.51
90 583 38 1743 270 1013571 3038049 157290 0.0005 1.000 19.28 19.28 45.981 
100 601 56 1863 300 1162131 3470769 187260 0.0002 1.000 17.05 17.05 73.655
110 679 134 2084 330 1468658 4343056 231270 0.0001 1.000 15.14 15.14 101.643
120 804 259 2371 360 1896001 5621641 286610 0.0001 1.000 13.54 13.54 102.879 
130 888 343 2694 383 2438964 7257636 345186 0.0001 1.000 11.95 11.95 125.604
133 1002 457 1.000 11.95
         
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/part bd ? 
full preheat ? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
613      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10     
20
30        
40     
 276
50            
60
70
80 625 12      1.000 21.51   
90 639 26 1921 270 1230595 3690241 173210 0.0006 1.000 19.28 19.28 40.104
100 657 44 1991 300 1322995 3964081 199660 0.0003 1.000 17.05 17.05 54.028
110 695 82 2088 330 1456370 4359744 230470 0.0003 1.000 15.14 15.14 62.864 
120 736 123 2213 360 1636245 4897369 266430 0.0002 1.000 13.54 13.54 65.991
130 782 169 2390 385 1913604 5712100 307700 0.0001 1.000 11.95 11.95 98.655
135 87 259      1.000 11.95   
    
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
Time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Melteca/part bd ? 
full preheat ? test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
543      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10     
20
30        
40     
50
60        
70 551 8 1.000 23.57  
80 576 33 1728 240 996578 2985984 138740 0.0004 1.000 21.51 21.51 50.000
90 601 58 1821 270 1107713 3316041 164570 0.0003 1.000 19.28 19.28 58.987 
100 644 101 1912 300 1220826 3655744 191860 0.0003 1.000 17.05 17.05 58.318
110 667 124 2002 330 1337106 4008004 220690 0.0004 1.000 15.14 15.14 48.480
120 691 148 2061 360 1416579 4247721 247680 0.0005 1.000 13.54 13.54 43.205 
130 703 160 2141 390 1529699 4583881 278890 0.0003 1.000 11.95 11.95 55.720
140 747 204 2285 420 1749443 5221225 321220 0.0001 1.000 10.78 10.78 82.731
150 835 292 2507 447 2110859 6285049 375055 0.0001 1.000 9.61 9.61 102.362 
 277
157 925 382       9.02   
 
Hardboard 
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q
 
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Hardboard 
?  test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
606      m/s mm/s kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
 
50 0 0      
75 0 0      22.05  
100 0 0    21.94  
125 0 0      21.10  
150 0 0    20.27  
175 0 0      19.66  
200 0 0    19.05  
225 0 0      18.25  
250 612 6   1.000 17.45 17.45 
275 626 20 1878 825 1176020 3526884 517150 0.0018 1.7857 1.000 15.86 15.86 23.664 
300 640 34 1933 900 1246365 3736489 580925 0.0012 1.1800 1.000 14.28 14.28 29.112 
325 667 61 2021 975 1364285 4084441 658675 0.0007 0.6596 1.000 12.89 12.89 38.936 
350 714 108 2155 1050 1553761 4644025 756925 0.0005 0.4650 1.000 11.50 11.50 46.374 
375 774 168 2325 1125 1809441 5405625 874950 0.0004 0.4064 1.000 10.17 10.17 49.603 
400 837 231 2542 1200 2166406 6461764 1020725 0.0003 0.3144 1.000 8.83 8.83 56.399 
425 931 325 2834 1275 2703686 8031556 1210175 0.0002 0.2160 1.000 7.59 7.59 68.036 
450 1066 460 3223 1350 3506193 10387729 1457725 0.0002 0.1691 1.000 6.35 6.35 76.903 
475 1226 620 3726 1425 4695788 13883076 1779050 0.0001 0.1351 1.000 5.42 5.42 86.033 
500 1434 828 4359 1500 6446033 19000881 2191325 0.0001 0.1052 1.000 4.50 4.50 97.498 
525 1699 1093      1.000 3.79 3.79
         
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q
 
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Hardboard 
Ignition 
608      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
 
 278
?  test 2 Time 
50 0 0            
75 0 0 22.05
100 0 0         21.94   
125 0 0 21.10
150 0 0         20.27   
175 0 0 19.66
200 0 0         19.05   
225 0 0 18.25
250 0 0         17.45   
275 617 11 1.000 15.86 15.86 
300 626 20 1887 900 1187301 3560769 566775 0.0018 1.7857 1.000 14.28 14.28 23.664 
325 644 38 1936 975 1250168 3748096 630200 0.0012 1.2458 1.000 12.89 12.89 28.331 
350 666 60 2010 1050 1348292 4040100 704900 0.0009 0.8794 1.000 11.50 11.50 33.722 
375 700 94 2117 1125 1497557 4481689 796000 0.0006 0.5805 1.000 10.17 10.17 41.505 
400 751 145 2265 1200 1716597 5130225 908850 0.0004 0.4370 1.000 8.83 8.83 47.837 
425 814 208 2472 1275 2049246 6110784 1054500 0.0003 0.3166 1.000 7.59 7.59 56.200 
450 907 301 1721 925 1485245 2961841 754100 0.0004 0.4487 1.000 6.35 6.35 47.206 
475 1015 409 1922 1000 1852874 3694084 890275 0.0004 0.4016 1.000 5.42 5.42 49.899 
500 1111 505 2126 1075 2264546 4519876 1037625 0.0004 0.3639 1.000 4.50 4.50 52.421 
525 1369 763 2480 1150 3108482 6150400 1274225 0.0003 0.3057 1.000 3.79 3.79 57.192 
550 1597 991 2966 1225 4424570 8797156 1597075 0.0003 0.2587 1.000 3.08 3.08 62.179 
558 1665 1059      2.96
         
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q
 
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Hardboard 
?  test 3 
Ignition 
Time 610      m/s mm/s  kW/m
2
   
50     
75          
100     
 279
125              
150 
175              
200 
225              
250 
275 617 11        1.000 15.86 15.86  
300 622 16 1877 900 1174617 3523129 563625 0.0022 2.1814 1.000 14.28 14.28 21.411 
325 638 32 1923 975 1233497 3697929 626000 0.0012 1.2002 1.000 12.89 12.89 28.865 
350 663 57 1997 1050 1331029 3988009 700400 0.0009 0.8566 1.000 11.50 11.50 34.167 
375 696 90 2099 1125 1471585 4405801 789050 0.0006 0.6450 1.000 10.17 10.17 39.376 
400 740 134 2238 1200 1675220 5008644 897850 0.0005 0.4672 1.000 8.83 8.83 46.264 
425 802 196 2422 1275 1965204 5866084 1032850 0.0004 0.3556 1.000 7.59 7.59 53.030 
450 880 274 2666 1350 2385860 7107556 1204250 0.0003 0.2729 1.000 6.35 6.35 60.537 
475 984 378 3012 1425 3060560 9072144 1437400 0.0002 0.1835 1.000 5.42 5.42 73.821 
500 1148 542 3514 1500 4196084 12348196 1766950 0.0001 0.1243 1.000 4.50 4.50 89.678 
525 1382 776 4082 1565 5636532 16662724 2137630 0.0001 0.0995 1.000 3.79 3.79 100.259 
540 1552 946      1.000 3.36
 
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Hardboard ? low 
preheat ? ISO ign data ? 
test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
80      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 80 0  0.291 33.88  
20 83 3 250 60 20858 62500 5070 0.0028 0.296 32.87 9.75 18.772 
30 7 7 259 90 22379 67081 783 0.0032 0.304 32.16 9.76 17.638
40 89 9 272 120 24706 73984 10970 0.0020 0.307 29.67 9.11 22.278 
50 96 16 29 150 2858 85264 14780 0.0011 0.319 27.1 8.66 30.246
60 107 27 321 180 34589 103041 19480 0.0009 0.337 24.95 8.40 33.166 
70 118 38 359 210 43329 128881 25400 0.0007 0.354 22.99 8.13 36.952
80 134 54 405 240 55289 164025 32750 0.0006 0.377 21.03 7.92 41.884 
 280
90 153 73 459 270 70949 210681 41690 0.0005 0.403 18.88 7.60 43.589 
100 172 92 525 300 92993 275625 52970 0.0004 0.427 16.73 7.14 48.772
110 200 120 602 330 122484 362404 66800 0.0003 0.460 15.06 6.93 53.862 
120 230 150 699 360 165261 488601 84570 0.0003 0.494 13.89 6.85 58.903 
130 269 189 803 390 217677 644809 105130 0.0003 0.534 12.71 6.78 60.857 
140 304 224 922 420 286578 850084 129880 0.0002 0.567 11.59 6.58 63.410 
150 349 269 1054 450 375018 1110916 159070 0.0002 0.608 10.48 6.37 69.702 
160 401 321 1198 480 483306 1435204 192670 0.0002 0.652 9.39 6.12 70.386 
170 448 368 1360 510 622626 1849600 232300 0.0002 0.689 8.33 5.74 74.423 
180 511 431 1531 540 789009 2343961 276820 0.0002 0.736 7.27 5.35 78.743 
190 572 492 1720 570 994074 2958400 328060 0.0002 0.778 6.55 5.10 79.386 
200 637 557 1915 600 1231389 3667225 384340 0.0001 0.821 5.83 4.79 81.866
210 706 626 2118 630 1504830 4485924 446160 0.0001 0.865 5.17 4.47 83.066 
220 775 695 2329 660 1818165 5424241 513800 0.0001 0.906 4.58 4.15 84.273
230 848 768 2557 690 2192085 6538249 589700 0.0001 0.948 3.99 3.78 89.262 
240 934 854 2809 720 2646189 7890481 675950 0.0001 0.995 3.77 3.75 94.629
250 1027 947 3079 750 3177009 9480241 771590 0.0001 1.000 3.54 3.54 95.919 
260 1118 1038 3341 780 3735069 11162281 870350 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 92.014
270 1196 1116 3614 805 4370340 13060996 971100 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 111.413 
275 1300 1220    1.000 3.09 3.09  
         
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Hardboard ? low 
preheat ? ISO ign data ? 
test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
80      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 80 0  0.291 33.88  
20 82 2 246 60 20180 60516 4960 0.0050 0.295 32.87 9.69 14.142 
30 4 4 252 90 21176 63504 760 0.0050 0.298 32.16 9.59 14.142
40 86 6 26 120 2291 68644 10560 0.0023 0.302 29.67 8.95 20.817 
50 92 12 279 150 26061 77841 14100 0.0013 0.312 27.1 8.48 27.568
60 101 21 305 180 31209 93025 18500 0.0010 0.327 24.95 8.16 31.675 
 281
70 112 32 342 210 39386 116964 24220 0.0007 0.344 22.99 7.92 37.702 
80 129 49 386 240 50210 148996 31210 0.0006 0.370 21.03 7.78 40.626
90 145 65 442 270 65890 195364 40170 0.0005 0.392 18.88 7.40 44.395 
100 168 88 509 300 87665 259081 51410 0.0004 0.422 16.73 7.06 50.578
110 196 116 592 330 118624 350464 65720 0.0003 0.456 15.06 6.86 54.813 
120 228 148 687 360 159569 471969 83110 0.0003 0.491 13.89 6.82 57.899 
130 263 183 798 390 215402 636804 104530 0.0003 0.528 12.71 6.71 62.985 
140 307 227 927 420 290867 859329 130720 0.0002 0.570 11.59 6.61 68.603 
150 357 277 1086 450 399782 1179396 164050 0.0002 0.615 10.48 6.44 76.043 
160 422 342 1263 480 539789 1595169 203350 0.0002 0.669 9.39 6.28 79.694 
170 484 404 986 340 418740 972196 150600 0.0004 0.716 8.33 5.97 49.363 
180 555 475 1121 370 549005 1256641 183820 0.0004 0.767 7.27 5.58 53.441 
190 635 555 1274 400 718306 1623076 223070 0.0003 0.820 6.55 5.37 57.725 
200 718 638 1440 430 926318 2073600 267730 0.0003 0.872 5.83 5.08 61.917 
210 812 732 1619 460 1182789 2621161 318570 0.0002 0.927 5.17 4.80 66.295
226 911 831     0.982 4.23 4.15  
       
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Hardboard ? low 
preheat ? ISO ign data ? 
test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 80 0  0.291 33.88  
20 82 2 246 60 20180 60516 4960 0.0050 0.295 32.87 9.69 14.142 
30 4 4 253 90 21349 64009 764 0.0039 0.298 32.16 9.59 15.916
40 87 7 260 120 22546 67600 10450 0.0039 0.304 29.67 9.01 15.916 
50 89 9 275 150 25291 75625 13870 0.0015 0.307 27.17 8.34 26.247 
60 99 19 299 180 30043 89401 18160 0.0009 0.324 24.95 8.08 33.212
70 111 31 339 210 38763 114921 24030 0.0007 0.343 22.99 7.88 38.987 
80 129 49 390 240 51462 152100 31590 0.0005 0.370 21.03 7.78 44.202
90 150 70 459 270 71541 210681 41820 0.0004 0.399 18.88 7.53 50.759 
 282
100 180 100 533 300 96109 284089 53830 0.0004 0.437 16.73 7.30 51.628 
110 203 123 617 330 128365 380689 68410 0.0004 0.464 15.06 6.98 52.151 
120 234 154 707 360 168865 499849 85510 0.0003 0.498 13.89 6.91 57.933 
130 270 190 818 390 226252 669124 107140 0.0002 0.535 12.71 6.80 63.351 
140 314 234 932 420 292600 868624 131260 0.0003 0.577 11.59 6.69 62.621 
150 348 268 1080 450 394424 1166400 163040 0.0002 0.607 10.48 6.36 73.537 
160 418 338 869 370 306437 755161 125260 0.0003 0.665 9.39 6.25 55.007 
170 481 401 1017 400 420009 1034289 156910 0.0003 0.714 8.33 5.95 59.422 
180 554 474 1170 430 556502 1368900 192290 0.0002 0.766 7.27 5.57 63.835 
190 625 545 1335 460 721877 1782225 232510 0.0002 0.814 6.55 5.33 67.790 
200 718 638 1522 490 938190 2316484 280250 0.0002 0.872 5.83 5.08 72.420 
208 828 748    0.936 5.30 4.97
         
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Hardboard ? low 
preheat ? ISO ign data ? 
test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
66      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 80 0  0.291 33.88  
20 83 3 248 60 20514 61504 5010 0.0039 0.296 32.87 9.75 15.916 
30 85 5 255 90 21683 65025 7690 0.0050 0.300 32.16 9.65 14.142
40 7 7 26 120 2344 70225 10680 0.0023 0.304 29.67 9.01 20.817 
50 93 13 283 150 26827 80089 14310 0.0012 0.314 27.1 8.53 28.577
60 103 23 314 180 33182 98596 19090 0.0008 0.330 24.95 8.24 35.590 
70 118 38 356 210 42758 126736 25240 0.0006 0.354 22.99 8.13 40.026
80 135 55 409 240 56485 167281 33100 0.0005 0.378 21.03 7.95 43.669 
90 156 76 470 270 74602 220900 42740 0.0005 0.406 18.88 7.67 46.920
100 179 99 544 300 100058 295936 54930 0.0004 0.435 16.73 7.28 51.628 
110 209 129 626 330 132366 391876 69450 0.0003 0.470 15.06 7.09 54.317 
120 238 158 719 360 174309 516961 86910 0.0003 0.502 13.89 6.97 56.184 
 283
130 272 192 825 390 229853 680625 108020 0.0003 0.537 12.71 6.82 62.189 
140 315 235 943 420 299945 889249 132860 0.0002 0.578 11.59 6.70 64.814 
150 356 276 1083 450 395705 1172889 163420 0.0002 0.614 10.48 6.43 69.919 
160 412 332 1247 480 525921 1555009 200750 0.0002 0.661 9.39 6.20 78.526 
170 479 399 1439 510 699489 2070721 245990 0.0001 0.712 8.33 5.93 82.465 
180 548 468 1652 540 920370 2729104 298820 0.0001 0.762 7.27 5.54 85.483 
190 625 545 1889 570 1203585 3568321 360590 0.0001 0.814 6.55 5.33 91.758
200 716 636 2154 600 1564250 4639716 432680 0.0001 0.871 5.83 5.08 96.970 
210 813 733 2460 628 2040386 6051600 516888 0.0001 0.928 5.17 4.80 109.663 
218 931 851     0.993 4.70 4.67  
       
Flame Front Position 
x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Hardboard ? low 
preheat ? ISO ign data ? 
test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
67      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 80 0  0.291 33.88  
20 83 3 250 60 20858 62500 5070 0.0028 0.296 32.87 9.75 18.772 
30 7 7 262 90 22922 68644 795 0.0022 0.304 32.16 9.76 21.257
40 92 12 279 120 26033 77841 11290 0.0015 0.312 29.67 9.26 25.720 
50 100 20 303 150 30785 91809 15340 0.0010 0.325 27.17 8.84 30.950
60 111 31 336 180 37946 112896 20410 0.0008 0.343 24.95 8.55 35.440 
70 125 45 377 210 47827 142129 26690 0.0007 0.364 22.99 8.37 38.759
80 141 61 427 240 61427 182329 34520 0.0006 0.386 21.03 8.13 42.514 
90 161 81 488 270 80398 238144 44370 0.0004 0.413 18.88 7.80 47.532
100 186 106 563 300 107173 316969 56850 0.0004 0.444 16.73 7.42 52.513 
110 216 136 648 330 141768 419904 71880 0.0003 0.478 15.06 7.20 54.772 
120 246 166 744 360 186696 553536 89940 0.0003 0.510 13.89 7.09 57.525 
130 282 202 847 390 241801 717409 110840 0.0003 0.547 12.71 6.95 60.417 
140 319 239 972 420 318926 944784 136970 0.0002 0.581 11.59 6.74 67.023 
150 371 291 1110 450 415802 1232100 167510 0.0002 0.627 10.48 6.57 71.074 
160 420 340 1265 480 538717 1600225 203430 0.0002 0.667 9.39 6.26 71.792 
 284
170 474 394 1424 510 681976 2027776 243180 0.0002 0.709 8.33 5.90 74.166 
180 530 450 1598 540 858412 2553604 288840 0.0002 0.749 7.27 5.45 77.517 
190 594 514 1789 570 1075961 3200521 341260 0.0001 0.793 6.55 5.20 82.195
200 665 585 2001 600 1345625 4004001 401680 0.0001 0.839 5.83 4.89 86.047 
210 742 662 2228 630 1666830 4963984 469440 0.0001 0.886 5.17 4.59 88.320
220 821 741 2451 660 2013149 6007401 540680 0.0001 0.932 4.58 4.27 85.536 
230 888 808 2682 690 2409314 7193124 618380 0.0001 0.970 3.99 3.87 87.381
240 973 893 2936 720 2890898 8620096 706510 0.0001 1.000 3.77 3.77 96.828 
250 1075 995 3206 750 3443318 10278436 803350 0.0001 1.000 3.54 3.54 96.346
260 1158 1078 3479 780 4049105 12103441 906250 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 92.479 
270 1246 1166    1.000 3.29 3.29
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? hardboard ? 
Full preheat ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
985      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30       
40       
50       
60       
70       
80       
90       
100        
11      
120 986 1     1.000 13.89  
130 989 4 2975 390 2950317 8850625 386890 0.0013 1.000 12.71 12.71 27.860
140 1000 15 3007 420 3014445 9042049 421270 0.0007 1.000 11.59 11.59 38.447 
 285
150 1018 33 3061 450 3124173 9369721 459580 0.0005 1.000 10.48 10.48 46.572 
160 1043 58 3136 480 3279798 9834496 502330 0.0003 1.000 9.39 9.39 53.519
170 1075 90 3227 510 3473355 10413529 549250 0.0003 1.000 8.33 8.33 57.454 
180 1109 124 3339 540 3719531 11148921 601820 0.0002 1.000 7.27 7.27 63.482
190 1155 170 3459 570 3991931 11964681 658070 0.0002 1.000 6.55 6.55 65.628 
200 1195 210 3597 600 4317059 12938409 720320 0.0002 1.000 5.83 5.83 68.015
210 1247 262 3744 630 4678238 14017536 787310 0.0002 1.000 5.17 5.17 73.153 
220 1302 317 3924 660 5140838 15397776 864560 0.0002 1.000 4.58 4.58 80.263
230 1375 390 4127 690 5688329 17032129 950690 0.0001 1.000 3.99 3.99 86.026 
240 1450 465 4343 720 6297449 18861649 1043750 0.0001 1.000 3.77 3.77 84.591
250 1518 533 4572 750 6979640 20903184 1144540 0.0001 1.000 3.54 3.54 87.949 
260 1604 619 4813 780 7736621 23164969 1253110 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 93.006
270 1691 706        3.29  
   
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? hardboard ? 
Full preheat ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 987      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30       
40       
50       
60       
70       
80       
90       
100        
11      
120        
130 993 6   12.71 0.00 #DIV/0! 
140 1004 17 3017 420 3034465 9102289 422650 0.0007 1.000 11.59 11.59 36.952 
 286
150 1020 33 3063 450 3127937 9381969 459800 0.0006 1.000 10.48 10.48 41.884 
160 1039 52 3127 480 3260545 9778129 500800 0.0004 1.000 9.39 9.39 49.343
170 1068 81 2107 340 2220145 4439449 347800 0.0001 1.000 8.33 8.33 82.411 
180 1101 114 2169 370 2352825 4704561 379740 0.0001 1.000 7.27 7.27 83.614
190 1140 153 2241 400 2511801 5022081 414780 0.0001 1.000 6.55 6.55 84.991 
200 1186 199 2326 430 2706196 5410276 453800 0.0001 1.000 5.83 5.83 86.589
210 1233 246 2419 460 2926885 5851561 496130 0.0001 1.000 5.17 5.17 88.303 
220 1286 299 2519 490 3174085 6345361 541850 0.0001 1.000 4.58 4.58 90.111
230 1350 363 2636 520 3476296 6948496 593420 0.0001 1.000 3.99 3.99 92.186 
240 1408 421 2758 550 3804964 7606564 648420 0.0001 1.000 3.77 3.77 94.289
250 1477 490 2885 580 4163993 8323225 707170 0.0001 1.000 3.54 3.54 96.441 
260 1556 569 3033 610 4602665 9199089 773810 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 98.890
270 1626 639 3182 640 5065012 10125124 843580 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 101.280 
280 1674 687     2.89  
   
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? hardboard ? 
Full preheat ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 987      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30       
40       
50       
60       
70       
80       
90       
100        
11      
120        
130 994 7   12.71  
 287
140 1001 14 3012 420 3024326 9072144 421910 0.0008 1.000 11.59 11.59 34.766 
150 1017 30 3056 450 3113734 9339136 458770 0.0005 1.000 10.48 10.48 43.142
160 1038 51 2055 370 2111733 4223025 318630 0.0001 1.000 9.39 9.39 103.931 
170 1066 79 2104 400 2213800 4426816 347300 0.0001 1.000 8.33 8.33 105.149
180 1100 113 2166 430 2346356 4691556 379220 0.0001 1.000 7.27 7.27 106.678 
190 1077 90 2177 460 2369929 4739329 402630 0.0001 1.000 6.55 6.55 107.149
200 1182 195 2259 490 2557053 5103081 441030 0.0001 1.000 5.83 5.83 108.992 
210 1227 240 2409 520 2902653 5803281 494070 0.0001 1.000 5.17 5.17 112.494 
220 1290 303 3503 550 4141825 12271009 659790 0.0003 1.000 4.58 4.58 54.129
230 1358 371 3636 580 4484408 13220496 724580 0.0003 1.000 3.99 3.99 59.901 
240 1423 436 3787 610 4881129 14341369 794700 0.0002 1.000 3.77 3.77 63.872
250 1505 518 3950 640 5334438 15602500 871070 0.0002 1.000 3.54 3.54 68.585 
260 1585 598 4135 670 5869275 17098225 955550 0.0002 1.000 3.29 3.29 72.783
270 1691 704        3.29   
   
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? hardboard ? 
Full preheat ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 982      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30       
40       
50       
60       
70       
80       
90       
100        
11      
 288
120 986 4        13.89   
130 988 6 2980 390 2960376 8880400 387600 0.0008 1.000 12.71 12.71 34.833
140 1006 24 3016 420 3032664 9096256 422580 0.0006 1.000 11.59 11.59 41.255 
150 1022 40 3073 450 3148545 9443329 461340 0.0005 1.000 10.48 10.48 44.395 
160 1045 63 3137 480 3281409 9840769 502400 0.0004 1.000 9.39 9.39 49.004
170 1070 88 3219 510 3455741 10361961 547820 0.0003 1.000 8.33 8.33 54.524 
180 1104 122 3316 540 3667880 10995856 597600 0.0003 1.000 7.27 7.27 60.031
190 1142 160 3410 570 3877876 11628100 648500 0.0003 1.000 6.55 6.55 55.418 
200 1164 182 3532 600 4162136 12475024 707240 0.0002 1.000 5.83 5.83 67.212
210 1226 244 3668 630 4491256 13454224 771420 0.0002 1.000 5.17 5.17 75.595 
220 1278 296 3835 660 4907921 14707225 844750 0.0002 1.000 4.58 4.58 72.458
230 1331 349 4000 690 5339726 16000000 921130 0.0002 1.000 3.99 3.99 75.215 
240 1391 409 4186 720 5849738 17522596 1005970 0.0001 1.000 3.77 3.77 81.677
250 1464 482 4388 750 6428266 19254544 1098420 0.0001 1.000 3.54 3.54 84.273 
260 1533 551 4600 780 7062994 21160000 1197390 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 83.367
270 1603 621 4829 806 7785947 23319241 1298658 0.0001 1.000 3.29 3.29 100.786 
276 1693 711      3.05  
   
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? hardboard ? 
Full preheat ? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 1054      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30      
40        
50      
60        
70      
80        
90      
 289
100             
11
120             
130 1062 8 12.71 
140 1069 15 3215 420 3445661 10336225 450320 0.0009 1.000 11.59 11.59 33.889 
150 1084 30 3257 450 3536633 10608049 488900 0.0006 1.000 10.48 10.48 41.975
160 1104 50 3316 480 3666256 10995856 531000 0.0005 1.000 9.39 9.39 46.969 
170 1128 74 3392 510 3836800 11505664 577200 0.0004 1.000 8.33 8.33 53.095
180 1160 106 3488 540 4057984 12166144 628560 0.0003 1.000 7.27 7.27 60.123 
190 1200 146 3598 570 4318244 12945604 684400 0.0003 1.000 6.55 6.55 62.457
200 1238 184 3728 600 4636744 13897984 746500 0.0002 1.000 5.83 5.83 67.352 
210 1290 236 3888 630 5046344 15116544 817700 0.0002 1.000 5.17 5.17 78.385
220 1360 306 4074 660 5541476 16597476 897620 0.0001 1.000 4.58 4.58 81.881 
230 1424 370 4284 690 6127376 18352656 986720 0.0001 1.000 3.99 3.99 83.768
240 1500 446 4522 715 6831380 20448484 1079030 0.0001 1.000 3.77 3.77 108.757 
245 1598 544      3.66
 
 290
 
Particle board 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT-Pynefloor particle 
Board ? test 1 
Ignition Time 
396      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50       
75       
100
125 404 8       1.000 24.24   
150 409 13 1230 450 504386 1512900 184825 0.0038 1.000 23.10 23.10 16.267 
175 417 21 1254 525 524354 1572516 219925 0.0026 1.000 21.67 21.67 19.574 
200 428 32 1282 600 548042 1643524 256900 0.0025 1.000 20.25 20.25 20.033 
225 437 41 1311 675 573069 1718721 295425 0.0028 1.000 19.18 19.18 18.974 
250 446 50 1358 750 615510 1844164 340450 0.0012 1.000 18.11 18.11 28.813 
275 475 79 1432 825 685662 2050624 395425 0.0008 1.000 16.40 16.40 36.125 
300 511 115 1533 900 785955 2350089 461700 0.0007 1.000 14.70 14.70 37.947 
325 547 151 1650 975 910794 2722500 538275 0.0006 1.000 12.98 12.98 40.332 
350 592 196 1804 1050 1091898 3254416 634350 0.0004 1.000 11.27 11.27 49.034 
375 665 269 2019 1125 1373333 4076361 761375 0.0003 1.000 9.94 9.94 58.503 
400 762 366 2311 1200 1804325 5340721 929875 0.0002 1.000 8.62 8.62 66.325 
425 884 488 2658 1275 2386244 7064964 1135900 0.0002 1.000 7.44 7.44 70.717 
450 1012 616 3039 1335 3112049 9235521 1356880 0.0001 1.000 6.25 6.25 86.096 
460 1143 747    1.000 5.89  
    
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT-Pynefloor particle 
Board ? test 2 
Ignition Time 
391      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
      
50 391        
 291
75 391            
100 391 
125 391            
150 391 
175 391            
200 391 
225 395 4       1.000 19.18   
250 400 9 1223 750 499209 1495729 306575 0.0013 1.000 18.11 18.11 27.692 
275 428 37 1281 825 548393 1640961 353600 0.0009 1.000 16.40 16.40 32.575 
300 453 62 1386 900 643418 1920996 417725 0.0006 1.000 14.70 14.70 40.039 
325 505 114 1546 975 805978 2390116 505825 0.0004 1.000 12.98 12.98 52.416 
350 588 197 1743 1050 1023269 3038049 613675 0.0003 1.000 11.27 11.27 54.040 
375 650 259 1996 1125 1342808 3984016 752750 0.0003 1.000 9.94 9.94 59.017 
400 758 367 2280 1200 1757448 5198400 917550 0.0002 1.000 8.62 8.62 66.641 
425 872 481 2622 1256 1334948 6874884 673800 0.0004 1.000 7.44 7.44 47.504 
431 992 601     1.000 7.15  
    
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT-Pynefloor particle 
Board ? test 3 
Ignition Time 
393      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50       
75       
100
125       
150       
175
200       
225 400 7      19.18  
250 407 14 1226 750 501210 1503076 306975 0.0026 1.000 18.11 18.11 19.717 
275 419 26 1269 825 537459 1610361 349875 0.0013 1.000 16.40 16.40 27.325 
300 443 50 1336 900 596486 1784896 402175 0.0009 1.000 14.70 14.70 33.256 
 292
325 474 81 1440 975 694454 2073600 470000 0.0006 1.000 12.98 12.98 40.336 
350 523 130 1572 1050 828830 2471184 552725 0.0005 1.000 11.27 11.27 44.951 
375 575 182 1755 1125 1035803 3080025 661475 0.0004 1.000 9.94 9.94 52.199 
400 657 264 1985 1200 1329283 3940225 798450 0.0003 1.000 8.62 8.62 59.727 
425 753 360 2321 1275 998658 5387041 992775 -0.00001 1.000 7.44 7.44  
450 911 518 2689 1335 1396930 7230721 1201475 0.00000 1.000 6.25 6.25  
460 1025 632     1.000 5.89
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? pynefloor particle 
board 
? low preheat ? ISO ign data 
? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
75      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 75 0   33.82  
20 77 2 231 60 17795 53361 4660 0.0050 0.319 32.76 10.46 14.142 
30 79 4 237 90 18731 56169 7150 0.0050 0.324 31.96 10.34 14.142 
40 81 6 250 120 20902 62500 10110 0.0016 0.328 29.56 9.68 24.985 
50 90 15 271 15 24661 73441 1374 0.0011 0.345 27.16 9.38 30.836
60 100 25 300 180 30200 90000 18200 0.0010 0.364 24.97 9.09 31.623
70 10 35 335 21 37725 112225 2370 0.0008 0.382 22.98 8.77 35.590 
80 125 50 380 240 48750 144400 30750 0.0006 0.407 20.99 8.54 41.975
90 45 70 44 27 65550 193600 4005 0.0004 0.438 18.76 8.22 47.532
100 170 95 510 300 87950 260100 51500 0.0004 0.475 16.53 7.85 50.000 
110 95 120 593 33 118909 351649 6581 0.0003 0.508 14.65 7.45 54.022
120 228 153 698 360 165634 487204 84560 0.0002 0.550 13.12 7.21 63.568 
130 75 200 821 39 228733 674041 107630 0.0002 0.604 11.59 7.00 67.104
140 318 243 966 420 315878 933156 136220 0.0002 0.649 10.50 6.81 70.175 
150 73 298 1314 45 628382 1726596 200150 0.0001 0.703 9.40 6.61 131.635 
160 623 548 1667 475 977499 2778889 266345 0.0000 0.909 8.39 7.63 145.962 
165 671 596       0.943 7.94   
  
 293
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? pynefloor particle 
board 
? low preheat ? ISO ign data 
? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
65      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 65 0        33.82   
20 68 3 204 60 13890 41616 4140 0.0033 0.300 32.76 9.83 17.321
30 71 6 213 90 15141 45369 6450 0.0033 0.307 31.96 9.80 17.321 
40 74 9 226 120 17078 51076 9140 0.0019 0.313 29.56 9.26 22.949 
50 81 16 249 15 20873 62001 12650 0.0010 0.328 27.16 8.90 32.094
60 94 29 27 180 26213 77841 1697 0.0009 0.353 24.97 8.81 34.008
70 104 39 320 21 34536 102400 22680 0.0007 0.371 22.98 8.53 37.922 
80 22 57 368 240 45864 135424 2982 0.0005 0.402 20.99 8.44 43.609
90 142 77 449 27 69273 201601 41040 0.0003 0.434 18.76 8.14 57.358
100 85 120 521 300 92025 271441 5262 0.0003 0.495 16.53 8.19 54.502 
110 194 129 608 33 124302 369664 67320 0.0004 0.507 14.65 7.43 49.559
120 229 164 703 360 168477 494209 8522 0.0002 0.551 13.12 7.23 65.952 
130 80 215 842 39 241730 708964 110500 0.0002 0.609 11.59 7.06 72.115
140 333 268 1005 420 342953 1010025 141820 0.0002 0.664 10.50 6.97 74.869 
150 392 327       0.721 9.40  
  
 294
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? pynefloor particle 
board 
? low preheat ? ISO ign data 
? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
71      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 71 0   0.307 33.82  
20 76 5 227 60 17217 51529 4630 0.0022 0.317 32.76 10.40 21.257 
30 80 9 244 90 19920 59536 7440 0.0016 0.326 31.96 10.41 24.944 
40 88 17 272 120 24960 73984 11120 0.0008 0.341 29.56 10.09 35.277 
50 104 33 310 150 32484 96100 15800 0.0007 0.371 27.16 10.08 38.759 
60 118 47 362 18 44340 131044 2208 0.0005 0.395 24.97 9.87 42.774
70 40 69 419 210 59445 175561 29760 0.0005 0.431 22.98 9.90 46.372
80 161 90 483 24 78645 233289 3906 0.0005 0.462 20.99 9.69 45.826 
90 82 111 555 270 103989 308025 50460 0.0004 0.491 18.76 9.21 50.759
100 212 141 640 30 138584 409600 6464 0.0003 0.530 16.53 8.76 56.605 
110 46 175 752 330 191896 565504 83540 0.0002 0.571 14.65 8.37 64.342
120 294 223 101 36 369736 1024144 123700 0.0001 0.624 13.12 8.19 112.010 
130 472 401 1280 390 573416 1638400 168600 0.0001 0.791 11.59 9.17 111.361 
140 514 443 1572 42 830376 2471184 221220 0.0002 0.825 10.50 8.66 76.365 
150 86 515 1749 441 1028793 3059001 257859 0.0001 0.881 9.40 8.28 109.870 
151 649 578      0.927 9.30   
   
 295
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? pynefloor particle 
board 
? low preheat ? ISO ign data 
? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
80      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 80 0   0.326 33.82  
20 82 2 249 60 20693 62001 5050 0.0027 0.330 32.76 10.80 19.272 
30 87 7 258 90 22214 66564 7810 0.0027 0.340 31.96 10.85 19.272 
40 89 9 273 120 24899 74529 11020 0.0018 0.343 29.56 10.15 23.664 
50 97 17 295 15 29211 87025 1495 0.0010 0.359 27.16 9.74 31.833
60 109 29 329 180 36419 108241 20000 0.0008 0.380 24.97 9.49 36.091
70 23 43 373 21 46891 139129 2643 0.0006 0.404 22.98 9.28 40.104 
80 141 61 427 240 61579 182329 34560 0.0005 0.432 20.99 9.07 44.796
90 63 83 499 27 84475 249001 4545 0.0004 0.465 18.76 8.72 52.258 
100 195 115 579 300 113435 335241 58480 0.0003 0.508 16.53 8.40 53.948
110 221 141 680 33 156562 462400 7549 0.0003 0.541 14.65 7.93 59.328 
120 64 184 789 360 210953 622521 95510 0.0002 0.591 13.12 7.76 64.435
130 304 224 1171 39 525721 1371241 155620 0.0000 0.635 11.59 7.36 142.295 
140 603 523 155 420 870761 240560 220540 0.0000 0.894 10.50 9.38 142.348 
150 44 564 1938 45 1255826 3755844 291580 0.0002 0.924 9.40 8.68 66.384 
160 691 611 2145 474 1548317 4601025 340000 0.0001 0.957 8.39 8.03 115.901 
164 810 730      1.000 8.03   
  
 296
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? pynefloor particle 
board 
? low preheat ? ISO ign data 
? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
82      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 82 0   0.330 33.82  
20 85 3 258 60 22230 66564 5250 0.0021 0.336 32.76 10.99 21.602 
30 91 9 270 90 24342 72900 8190 0.0021 0.347 31.96 11.10 21.602 
40 94 12 283 120 26721 80089 11390 0.0028 0.353 29.56 10.43 18.772 
50 98 16 30 15 30761 91809 1532 0.0011 0.360 27.16 9.79 30.486
60 111 29 335 180 37801 112225 20380 0.0007 0.384 24.97 9.58 37.448
70 26 44 379 21 48361 143641 2684 0.0006 0.409 22.98 9.39 39.377 
80 142 60 428 240 61640 183184 34580 0.0006 0.434 20.99 9.10 41.255
90 60 78 493 27 82245 243049 4486 0.0004 0.460 18.76 8.64 50.075
100 191 109 571 300 110481 326041 57700 0.0003 0.503 16.53 8.32 54.782 
110 220 138 670 33 151962 448900 7438 0.0003 0.540 14.65 7.91 58.519
120 259 177 789 360 211581 622521 95580 0.0002 0.586 13.12 7.69 67.281 
130 310 228 938 390 299342 879844 123040 0.0002 0.641 11.59 7.43 74.227
140 369 287 1114 420 421486 1240996 157210 0.0002 0.699 10.50 7.34 79.098 
150 435 353 1327 45 598915 1760929 200590 0.0001 0.759 9.40 7.14 88.048
160 523 441 1570 473 837298 2464900 248686 0.0001 0.833 8.39 6.99 116.745 
163 612 530      0.901 8.12   
  
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? pynefloor particle 
board 
? low preheat ? ISO ign data 
? test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
78      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 78 0   0.322 33.82  
 297
20 81 2.5 242 60 19453 58322 4880 0.0040 0.327 32.76 10.70 15.811 
30 83 5 252 90 21113 63252 7620 0.0026 0.332 31.96 10.60 19.720 
40 88 10 266 120 23658 70756 10760 0.0017 0.341 29.56 10.09 24.608 
50 95 17 285 15 27173 81225 1439 0.0014 0.355 27.16 9.64 26.458
60 102 24 310 180 32198 96100 18780 0.0011 0.368 24.97 9.18 30.246
70 13 35 335 21 37573 112225 2363 0.0011 0.387 22.98 8.89 30.246 
80 120 42 367 240 45125 134689 29570 0.0009 0.399 20.99 8.37 32.998
90 34 56 410 27 56692 168100 3726 0.0005 0.421 18.76 7.90 42.774
100 156 78 475 300 76517 225625 48010 0.0004 0.455 16.53 7.52 50.656 
110 85 107 563 33 107845 316969 6259 0.0003 0.495 14.65 7.26 57.586
120 222 144 666 360 150590 443556 80660 0.0003 0.542 13.12 7.12 60.828 
130 59 181 790 39 211846 624100 103570 0.0002 0.586 11.59 6.79 66.200
140 309 231 94 420 300946 883600 132730 0.0002 0.640 10.50 6.72 75.332 
150 372 294      0.702 9.40  
 
Test 1 - half preheat             
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle board 
? half preheat ? ISO ign data ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 386      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20
30             
40  
50 390 4           
60 392 6   0.72 24.97 
70 400 14 1199 210 479313 1437601 84080 0.0013 0.73 22.98 16.73 27.406 
80 407 21 1217 240 493749 1481089 97460 0.0019 0.73 20.99 15.41 22.949 
90 410 24 1231 270 505145 1515361 110860 0.0028 0.74 18.76 13.83 18.772 
100 414 28 1251 300 521825 1565001 125270 0.0011 0.74 16.53 12.25 30.486 
110 427 41 1286 330 551750 1653796 141770 0.0006 0.75 14.65 11.02 39.540 
120 445 59 1348 360 606930 1817104 162250 0.0004 0.77 13.12 10.08 50.075 
 298
130 476 90 1432 390 685722 2050624 186820 0.0003 0.79 11.59 9.21 57.481 
140 511 125 154 420 795722 237776 216670 0.0003 0.82 10.50 8.64 62.985
150 555 169 1680 450 946142 2822400 253030 0.0002 0.86 9.40 8.06 72.017
160 614 228 1834 480 1127246 3363556 294540 0.0002 0.90 8.39 7.57 74.227 
170 665 279 204 510 1404446 417793 348990 0.0001 0.94 7.48 7.02 88.403
180 765 379 2275 540 1741475 5175625 411300 0.0001 1.00 6.57 6.57 95.063
190 845 459       1.00 5.93 5.93  
        
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle board 
? half preheat ? ISO ign data ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 385      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20
30             
40  
50            
60  
70            
80 386 1   0.715 20.99 
90 92 7 1178 270 462660 1387684 106160 0.0014 0.721 18.76 13.52 26.547
100 400 15 1212 300 490064 146894 121480 0.0007 0.728 16.53 12.04 38.545 
110 420 35 1258 330 528244 1582564 138760 0.0005 0.746 14.65 10.93 43.609
120 438 53 1326 360 587268 1758276 159600 0.0004 0.762 13.12 10.00 49.497
130 468 83 1411 390 665893 1990921 184100 0.0003 0.788 11.59 9.13 57.984 
140 505 120 1534 420 788770 2353156 215690 0.0002 0.818 10.50 8.59 68.664
150 561 176 1697 450 967907 2879809 255810 0.0002 0.862 9.40 8.10 79.536
160 631 246 1895 475 1207091 3591025 301105 0.0001 0.914 8.39 7.68 97.376 
165 703 318     0.965 7.94 7.66 
         
 299
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle board 
? half preheat ? ISO ign data ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 386      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20
30             
40  
50            
60  
70            
80 389 3   0.718 20.99 
90 93 7 1183 270 466571 1399489 106590 0.0016 0.722 18.76 13.54 24.944
100 401 15 1209 300 487475 1461681 121120 0.0009 0.729 16.53 12.05 33.575 
110 415 29 1252 330 523122 1567504 138070 0.0006 0.742 14.65 10.87 42.111
120 436 50 1312 360 574842 1721344 157900 0.0004 0.760 13.12 9.98 48.019 
130 461 75 1400 390 655626 1960000 182670 0.0003 0.782 11.59 9.06 58.497 
140 503 117 1518 420 772446 2304324 213450 0.0002 0.816 10.50 8.57 68.297
150 554 168 1671 450 936921 2792241 251760 0.0002 0.857 9.40 8.05 74.580
160 614 228 1839 480 1134153 338192 295410 0.0002 0.902 8.39 7.57 76.494 
170 671 285 2052 510 1415526 4210704 350370 0.0001 0.943 7.48 7.05 88.406
180 767 381 2323 538 1821755 5396329 418510 0.0001 1.000 6.57 6.57 109.437 
188 885 499     1.000 6.06 6.06 
          
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle board 
? half preheat ? ISO ign data ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 386      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20
 300
30             
40  
50            
60  
70            
80  
90 392 6   0.721 18.76 -6.82
100 401 15 1210 300 488354 1464100 121250 0.0008 0.729 16.53 12.05 35.814 
110 417 31 1255 330 525659 1575025 138410 0.0006 0.743 14.65 10.89 42.514
120 437 51 1317 360 579227 1734489 158500 0.0004 0.761 13.12 9.99 48.094 
130 463 77 1400 390 655338 1960000 182630 0.0003 0.783 11.59 9.08 56.409 
140 500 114 151 420 763578 228010 212240 0.0002 0.814 10.50 8.54 64.960
150 547 161 1648 450 910410 2715904 248210 0.0002 0.851 9.40 8.00 71.120
160 601 215 1795 480 1079019 3222025 288200 0.0002 0.892 8.39 7.49 70.786 
170 647 261 1986 510 1324454 3944196 338990 0.0001 0.926 7.48 6.93 84.240
180 738 352 2203 540 1632377 4853209 398250 0.0001 0.989 6.57 6.50 92.530
190 818 432 2461 565 2032793 6056521 464735 0.0001 1.000 5.93 5.93 105.792 
195 905 519     1.000 5.61 5.61 
         
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle board 
? half preheat ? ISO ign data ? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 389      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20
30             
40  
50            
60  
70            
80  
 301
90 396 7       0.724 18.76 13.59 #DIV/0! 
100 401 12 1209 300 487361 1461681 121060 0.0012 0.729 16.53 12.05 28.940 
110 412 23 1242 330 514586 1542564 136900 0.0007 0.739 14.65 10.83 37.702
120 429 40 1300 360 564466 1690000 156470 0.0004 0.754 13.12 9.89 49.091 
130 459 70 1377 390 633843 1896129 179610 0.0003 0.780 11.59 9.04 54.772 
140 489 100 1479 420 731763 2187441 207780 0.0003 0.805 10.50 8.45 60.277
150 531 142 1612 450 871546 2598544 242830 0.0002 0.839 9.40 7.88 72.169
160 592 203 1774 480 1056226 3147076 285040 0.0002 0.886 8.39 7.43 77.463 
170 651 262 1953 510 1278365 3814209 333190 0.0002 0.929 7.48 6.95 76.811
180 710 321     0.970 6.57  
         
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle board 
? half preheat ? ISO ign data ? test 6 
Ignition 
Time 387      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10             
20
30             
40  
50             
60
70             
80 389 -371   0.718 20.99 15.07
90 95 -365 1186 270 468950 1406596 106870 0.0015 0.723 18.76 13.57 25.520
100 402 -358 1215 300 492353 1476225 121730 0.0008 0.730 16.53 12.07 34.766 
110 418 -342 1261 330 530809 1590121 139100 0.0005 0.744 14.65 10.91 44.395
120 441 -319 1332 360 592934 1774224 160390 0.0004 0.764 13.12 10.03 52.674
130 473 -287 1424 390 678310 2027776 185810 0.0003 0.792 11.59 9.18 58.788 
 302
140 510 -250 1536 420 789638 2359296 215840 0.0002 0.822 10.50 8.63 63.305 
150 553 -207 1672 450 936790 2795584 251790 0.0002 0.856 9.40 8.05 70.558
160 609 -151 1835 480 1129619 3367225 294800 0.0002 0.898 8.39 7.54 77.517
170 673 -87 201 507 1361099 406022 341591 0.0001 0.944 7.48 7.06 85.339 
177 733 -2     0.986 6.84 6.74 
 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
positio
n x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle 
board 
? full preheat ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
760      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30
40             
50    
60
70          
80    
90 778 18      1.00 18.76   
100 785 25 2352 300 1844030 5531904 235310 0.0018 1.00 16.53 16.53 23.741 
110 789 29 2374 33 1878746 5635876 26129 0.0012 1.00 14.65 14.65 28.363 
120 800 40 2415 360 1944797 5832225 290170 0.0005 1.00 13.12 13.12 44.174 
130 826 66 2482 39 2055012 6160324 32322 0.0004 1.00 11.59 11.59 52.960 
140 85 96 2579 420 2219621 6651241 361770 0.0003 1.00 10.50 10.50 59.820 
150 897 137 2725 45 2482129 7425625 40991 0.0002 1.00 9.40 9.40 77.240 
160 972 212 2912 480 2837242 8479744 467380 0.0001 1.00 8.39 8.39 85.451 
170 1043 283 3089 502 3186109 9541921 517558 0.0001 1.00 7.48 7.48 90.661 
172 1074 314      1.00 7.30  
   -  
 303
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
positio
n x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle 
board 
? full preheat ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
760s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30
40             
50    
60
70          
80    
90
100 791 31       1.000 16.53   
110 796 36 2394 330 1910546 5731236 263500 0.0012 1.000 14.65 14.65 28.940 
120 807 47 2426 36 1962194 588547 29139 0.0007 1.000 13.12 13.12 36.952 
130 823 63 2481 390 2052779 6155361 322970 0.0004 1.000 11.59 11.59 47.482 
140 851 91 2563 42 2191851 6568969 35948 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 57.665 
150 889 129 2665 450 2370147 7102225 400490 0.0003 1.000 9.40 9.40 60.835 
160 925 165 2804 48 2626046 7862416 44965 0.0002 1.000 8.39 8.39 72.033 
170 990 230 2988 510 2987054 8928144 509440 0.0001 1.000 7.48 7.48 86.235 
180 1073 313       1.000 6.57   
    
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
positio
n x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle 
board 
? full preheat ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
760      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
 304
10             
20
30
40             
50    
60
70          
80    
90 784 24      1.000 18.76   
100 788 28 2365 300 1864449 5593225 236590 0.0022 1.000 16.53 16.53 21.257 
110 793 33 2387 33 189942 5697769 26275 0.0010 1.000 14.65 14.65 30.972 
120 806 46 2423 360 1957461 587092 291070 0.0006 1.000 13.12 13.12 39.540 
130 824 64 2475 39 2042637 6125625 32214 0.0005 1.000 11.59 11.59 44.202 
140 845 85 2554 420 2176226 6522916 358170 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 56.113 
150 88 125 2735 45 2507275 7480225 41185 0.0001 1.000 9.40 9.40 93.095 
160 1005 245 2929 475 2872771 8579041 464985 0.0001 1.000 8.39 8.39 103.304 
165 1039 279       1.000 7.94   
    
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
positio
n x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle 
board 
? full preheat ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
771      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30
40             
50    
60
70          
 305
80             
90
100 793 22       1.000 16.53   
110 797 26 2399 330 1918539 5755201 264050 0.0012 1.000 14.65 14.65 29.439 
120 809 38 2413 36 194093 5822569 28966 0.0012 1.000 13.12 13.12 28.752 
130 807 36 2570 390 2215846 6604900 335550 0.0001 1.000 11.59 11.59 99.004 
140 954 183 2750 420 2539486 7562500 386820 0.0001 1.000 10.50 10.50 101.236 
150 989 218 2950 450 2902286 8702500 443030 0.0004 1.000 9.40 9.40 52.353 
160 1007 236     1.000 8.39  
    
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
positio
n x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle 
board 
? full preheat ? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
760      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30
40             
50    
60
70          
80    
90 773 13       1.000 18.76   
100 776 16 2329 300 1808105 5424241 232970 0.0028 1.000 16.53 16.53 18.772 
110 780 20 2351 330 1842601 5527201 258800 0.0009 1.000 14.65 14.65 32.498 
120 795 35 2294 36 1757386 5262436 27467 -0.0002 1.000 13.12 13.12 #NUM! 
130 719 -41 2368 390 1878302 5607424 308430 0.0001 0.976 11.59 11.32 124.606 
140 854 94 2464 42 2040158 6071296 34668 0.0001 1.000 10.50 10.50 97.625 
 306
150 891 131 2698 450 2431406 7279204 405690 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 71.100 
160 953 193 2857 479 2728259 8162449 457327 0.0002 1.000 8.39 8.39 80.124 
169 1013 253        7.57   
    
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
positio
n x    t 
(s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  
)(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pynefloor particle 
board 
? full preheat ? test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
760      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10       
20       
30
40             
50    
60          
70
80    
90 772 12      1.000 18.76   
100 779 19 2339 300 1823769 5470921 234060 0.0012 1.000 16.53 16.53 28.358 
110 788 28 2379 33 188712 565964 26202 0.0006 1.000 14.65 14.65 41.996 
120 812 52 2438 360 1982532 5943844 293060 0.0004 1.000 13.12 13.12 50.013 
130 838 78 2520 39 2118488 6350400 32818 0.0003 1.000 11.59 11.59 53.948 
140 870 110 2628 420 2305544 6906384 368740 0.0002 1.000 10.50 10.50 64.543 
150 92 16 2758 45 254032 760656 41468 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 70.005 
160 968 208 2969 479 2951985 8814961 475569 0.0001 1.000 8.39 8.39 94.857 
169 1081 321      1.000 7.57   
 
 307
Superflake particle board 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position t 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V F(t) q? q?*F(t) 1/?V 
RIFT ? Superflake PB ? low preheat 
? ISO ign data ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 82      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10  
 
   33.82  
20
 
    32.76  
30 89 
7 
   31.96  
40 95
13 
288 120 27762 82944 11670 0.0013 0.319 29.56 9.42 27.568 
50 104 
22 
318 150 34002 101124 16140 0.0008 0.334 27.16 9.06 35.000 
60 19 
37 
359 180 43473 128881 21860 0.0006 0.357 24.97 8.91 40.026 
70 136 
54 
430 210 63282 184900 30660 0.0003 0.381 22.98 8.76 54.259 
80 75 
93 
493 240 82245 243049 39900 0.0004 0.433 20.99 9.08 51.682 
90 182 
100 
571 270 109545 326041 51780 0.0005 0.441 18.76 8.28 47.086 
100 214 
132 
642 300 139436 412164 64840 0.0003 0.479 16.53 7.91 56.569 
110 46 
164 
757 330 194521 573049 84100 0.0002 0.513 14.65 7.52 64.981 
120 297 
215 
890 359 269134 792100 107463 0.0002 0.564 13.12 7.40 72.904 
129 347 
265 
   0.609 11.75 7.16 
  
 
          
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake PB ? low preheat 
? ISO ign data ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 82      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
    34.88  
10 33.82  
20       32.76 
30 82   31.96  
40 93 11 29.56  
50 100 18 309 150 32105 95481 15680 0.0008 0.327 27.16 8.88 34.766
60 16 34 343 180 3958 117649 20850 0.0007 0.352 24.97 8.80 36.952
 308
70 127 45 393 210 52085 154449 27850 0.0006 0.369 22.98 8.47 42.078 
80 50 68 447 240 67529 199809 36190 0.0005 0.401 20.99 8.41 46.406
90 170 88 518 270 90604 268324 47100 0.0004 0.426 18.76 8.00 49.216
100 98 116 597 300 120545 356409 60290 0.0003 0.460 16.53 7.61 54.337 
110 229 147 707 330 170045 499849 78590 0.0002 0.495 14.65 7.25 64.663
120 80 198 840 360 240402 705600 101820 0.0002 0.547 13.12 7.18 71.414
130 331 249 994 390 334650 988036 130250 0.0002 0.595 11.59 6.90 71.765 
140 83 301 1177 420 470619 1385329 166100 0.0001 0.640 10.50 6.72 81.847
150 463 381 1424 450 695142 2027776 215550 0.0001 0.704 9.40 6.62 99.271
160 578 496 1748 320 548453 3055504 161930 0.0001 0.786 8.39 6.60 138.446 
167 707 625  0.870 7.76 6.74  
           
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake PB ? low preheat 
? ISO ign data ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
83      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10    33.82  
20 32.76  
30 83 0       31.96 
40 91 8  29.56  
50 7 14 302 150 30686 91204 15330 0.0008 0.322 27.16 8.75 35.181 
60 114 31 342 180 3956 116964 20860 0.0006 0.349 24.97 8.72 41.231
70 31 48 394 210 52358 155236 27930 0.0006 0.374 22.98 8.60 41.839
80 149 66 455 240 69987 207025 36840 0.0004 0.399 20.99 8.38 47.162 
90 75 92 530 270 95262 280900 48270 0.0003 0.433 18.76 8.12 53.454
100 206 123 629 300 134565 395641 63630 0.0003 0.469 16.53 7.76 60.643
110 48 165 740 330 185736 547600 82200 0.0002 0.515 14.65 7.55 63.272 
120 286 203 869 360 255525 755161 105150 0.0002 0.553 13.12 7.26 66.130
130 335 252 1053 390 380645 1108809 138350 0.0001 0.599 11.59 6.94 86.966
140 432 349 1257 420 538949 158004 177530 0.0001 0.680 10.50 7.14 88.958 
150 90 407 1507 442 768949 2271049 222900 0.0001 0.724 9.40 6.81 117.204 
 309
152 585 502       0.791 9.20 7.28  
      
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake PB ? low preheat 
? ISO ign data ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
82      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10    33.82  
20 32.76  
30 82 0       31.96 
40 91 9 272 120 24806 73984 11050 0.0012 0.312 29.56 9.22 29.172
50 9 17 300 150 30182 90000 15190 0.0010 0.325 27.16 8.84 30.950 
60 110 28 335 180 37777 112225 20370 0.0007 0.343 24.97 8.56 36.952
70 26 44 381 210 49001 145161 27020 0.0006 0.367 22.98 8.44 41.884
80 145 63 459 240 72245 210681 37340 0.0003 0.394 20.99 8.27 57.051 
90 88 106 528 270 94394 278784 48020 0.0003 0.448 18.76 8.41 54.148
100 195 113 616 300 127658 379456 62050 0.0004 0.457 16.53 7.55 51.048
110 233 151 695 330 163603 483025 77170 0.0003 0.499 14.65 7.32 60.031 
120 67 185 825 360 231203 680625 99920 0.0002 0.534 13.12 7.01 68.588
130 325 243 1057 390 393139 1117249 139390 0.0001 0.590 11.59 6.84 102.303 
140 465 383 1309 420 591211 1713481 185200 0.0001 0.705 10.50 7.40 101.66
150 519 437 1579 443 839611 249324 233985 0.0001 0.745 9.40 7.00 102.038 
153 95 513    0.798 9.10 7.26  
         
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake PB ? low preheat 
? ISO ign data ? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
82      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10    33.82  
20 82 32.76  
30 8 6 262 90 22932 68644 7960 0.0020 0.307 31.96 9.81 22.509
40 92 10 282 120 2661 79524 11420 0.0013 0.314 29.56 9.27 27.255
 310
50 102 20 311 150 32557 96721 15800 0.0008 0.330 27.16 8.97 35.590 
60 17 35 355 180 42589 126025 21640 0.0006 0.354 24.97 8.83 41.326
70 136 54 409 210 56521 167281 29020 0.0005 0.381 22.98 8.76 44.164
80 56 74 475 240 7632 225625 38470 0.0004 0.409 20.99 8.57 48.656 
90 183 101 559 270 106225 312481 50950 0.0003 0.442 18.76 8.30 56.798
100 220 138 652 300 143890 425104 65860 0.0003 0.485 16.53 8.02 57.586
110 49 167 772 330 202210 595984 85750 0.0002 0.516 14.65 7.56 65.387 
120 303 221 907 360 279835 822649 109900 0.0002 0.569 13.12 7.47 72.805
130 55 273 1079 390 395075 1164241 141450 0.0002 0.616 11.59 7.14 76.991
140 421 339 1285 420 562347 1651225 181440 0.0001 0.671 10.50 7.04 88.048 
150 509 427 1486 443 745458 2208196 220358 0.0001 0.738 9.40 6.94 100.750 
153 56 474  0.771 9.10 7.02 
            
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake PB ? low preheat 
? ISO ign data ? test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
82      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10    33.82  
20 32.76  
30 82 0 175 90 15373 30625 6180 0.0002 0.296 31.96 9.47 74.521
40 93 11 283 120 27037 80089 11580 0.0008 0.315 29.56 9.32 36.197
50 108 26 324 150 35442 104976 16500 0.0007 0.340 27.16 9.23 38.730 
60 23 41 368 180 4556 135424 22370 0.0007 0.363 24.97 9.06 38.086
70 137 55 422 210 60142 178084 29930 0.0005 0.383 22.98 8.80 44.740
80 62 80 492 240 8226 242064 39920 0.0004 0.416 20.99 8.74 53.016 
90 193 111 582 270 115022 338724 53030 0.0003 0.454 18.76 8.52 57.029
100 227 145 689 300 161139 474721 69660 0.0003 0.493 16.53 8.15 61.758
110 69 187 816 330 226290 665856 90690 0.0002 0.536 14.65 7.86 68.297 
120 320 238 939 360 297261 881721 113490 0.0002 0.585 13.12 7.68 64.349
130 50 268   0.612 11.59 7.09 
 
 311
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake Particle 
Board Full preheat ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
699      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30
40             
50    
60
70          
80    
90
100 706 7       0.869 16.53   
110 711 12 2139 330 1525241 4575321 235450 0.0012 0.872 14.65 12.78 28.940
120 722 23 2175 360 1577369 4730625 261310 0.0006 0.879 13.12 11.53 39.919 
130 742 43 2235 390 1666289 4995225 291040 0.0004 1.000 11.59 11.59 49.775
140 771 72 2322 420 1799486 5391684 325750 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 58.053 
150 809 110 2432 450 1974826 5914624 365610 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 63.680
160 852 153 2587 478 2237861 6692569 413238 0.0001 1.000 8.39 8.39 81.964 
168 926 227   1.000 7.66  
   
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake Particle 
Board Full preheat ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
755      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
      
10        
20
30      
 312
40             
50
60
70             
80
90
100 763 8        16.53   
110 771 16 2318 330 1791266 5373124 255190 0.0009 1.000 14.65 14.65 32.708
120 784 29 2357 360 1852301 5555449 283150 0.0006 1.000 13.12 13.12 39.540 
130 802 47 2420 390 1953416 5856400 315100 0.0004 1.000 11.59 11.59 50.649
140 834 79 2514 420 2109644 6320196 352720 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 61.900 
150 878 123 2648 450 2342536 7011904 398220 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 71.638
160 936 181 2814 320 1646980 7918596 281460 0.0000 1.000 8.39 8.39 230.386 
170 1000 245 2990 505 2987012 8940100 504210 0.0001 1.000 7.48 7.48 88.385 
175 1054 299       1.000 7.02 
   
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake Particle 
Board Full preheat ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
755      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30
40             
50    
60
70          
80    
90
100 761 6       1.000 16.53   
110 769 14 2312 330 1782006 5345344 254530 0.0009 1.000 14.65 14.65 32.708
 313
120 782 27 2351 360 1842885 5527201 282430 0.0006 1.000 13.12 13.12 39.540 
130 800 45 2409 390 1935453 5803281 313620 0.0004 1.000 11.59 11.59 47.749
140 827 72 2493 420 2073885 6215049 349680 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 57.761 
150 866 111 2595 450 2247489 6734025 390000 0.0003 1.000 9.40 9.40 61.254
160 902 147 2783 479 2593785 7745089 445755 0.0001 1.000 8.39 8.39 92.835 
169 1015 260   1.000 7.57  
   
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake Particle 
Board Full preheat ? test4 
Ignition 
Time 
755      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30      
40    
50        
60   
70    
80        
90   
100 762 7       1.000 16.53  
110 769 14 2314 330 1785094 5354596 254750 0.0009 1.000 14.65 14.65 32.998
120 783 28 2368 360 1870306 5607424 284630 0.0004 1.000 13.12 13.12 49.780 
130 816 61 2451 390 2004849 6007401 319320 0.0003 1.000 11.59 11.59 58.755
140 852 97 2565 420 2196369 6579225 359910 0.0002 1.000 10.50 10.50 63.770 
150 897 142 2714 448 2461738 7365796 406300 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 80.080
158 965 210       1.000 8.60  
   
 314
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake Particle 
Board Full preheat ? test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
756      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30      
40    
50        
60   
70    
80        
90   
100 765 9 1535 300 1178125 2356225 161200 0.0000 1.000 16.53 16.53 225.837 
110 770 14 2321 330 1795921 5387041 255520 0.0009 1.000 14.65 14.65 33.853 
120 786 30 2362 360 1860332 5579044 283800 0.0006 1.000 13.12 13.12 42.514
130 806 50 2424 390 1959656 5875776 315580 0.0004 1.000 11.59 11.59 48.094 
140 832 76 2507 420 2097021 6285049 351610 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 56.409
150 869 113 2619 450 2290109 6859161 393710 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 65.787 
160 918 162 2770 480 2564174 7672900 444340 0.0002 1.000 8.39 8.39 75.746
170 983 227 2933 505 2874037 8602489 494590 0.0001 1.000 7.48 7.48 86.790 
175 1032 276      1.000 7.02 
   
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Superflake Particle 
Board Full preheat ? test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
755      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30      
40    
 315
50             
60
70
80             
90
100 765 10       1.000 16.53   
110 771 16 2320 330 1794322 5382400 255390 0.0010 1.000 14.65 14.65 31.512
120 784 29 2358 360 1853906 5560164 283280 0.0006 1.000 13.12 13.12 40.234 
130 803 48 2418 390 1950026 5846724 314810 0.0004 1.000 11.59 11.59 48.772
140 831 76 2501 420 2087059 6255001 350780 0.0003 1.000 10.50 10.50 56.716 
150 867 112 2609 450 2272171 6806881 392150 0.0002 1.000 9.40 9.40 63.351
160 911 156 2763 480 2551835 7634169 443260 0.0002 1.000 8.39 8.39 77.635 
170 985 230 2956 510 2923746 8737936 504010 0.0001 1.000 7.48 7.48 86.314
180 1060 305       1.000 6.57  
 
 316
Radiata Pine 
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Radiata Pine test 1 
Ignition Time 
635      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50             
7
100             
125 
150             
175 
200             
225 
250             
275 
300 653 18       1.000 16.50   
325 656 21 1972 975 1296314 3888784 641150 0.0047 1.000 14.90 14.90 14.514 
350 663 28 1997 1050 1329589 3988009 699500 0.0022 1.000 13.20 13.20 21.433 
375 678 43 2038 1125 1385062 4153444 765100 0.0015 1.000 11.50 11.50 26.137 
400 697 62 2094 1200 1462454 4384836 838625 0.0012 1.000 9.80 9.80 28.661 
425 719 84 2168 1275 156827 4700224 922775 0.0009 1.000 8.40 8.40 33.387 
450 752 117 2261 1350 1706565 5112121 1019225 0.0007 1.000 6.90 6.90 37.714 
475 790 155 2380 1425 1891848 5664400 1132650 0.0006 1.000 6.00 6.00 41.566 
500 838 203 2493 1480 2074569 6215049 1231075 0.0004 1.000 5.00 5.00 49.143 
505 865 230        4.84  
        
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Radiata Pine test 2 
Ignition Time 
639      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50             
7
 317
100             
125 
150             
175 
200             
225 
250             
275 
300 657 18       1.000 16.50   
325 669 30 2001 975 1334835 4004001 650775 0.0027 1.000 14.90 14.90 19.322 
350 675 36 2039 1050 1386211 4157521 714300 0.0018 1.000 13.20 13.20 23.880 
375 69 56 208 1125 145561 4363921 784475 0.0011 1.000 11.50 11.50 29.706 
400 719 80 2163 1200 1560987 4678569 866550 0.0009 1.000 9.80 9.80 32.931 
425 74 110 2262 1275 1708398 5116644 963225 0.0007 1.000 8.40 8.40 38.987 
450 794 155 2383 1350 1897037 5678689 1074625 0.0005 1.000 6.90 6.90 42.662 
475 840 201 2601 1425 2271125 6765201 1239800 0.0003 1.000 6.00 6.00 60.933 
500 967 328       1.000 5.00   
       
Flame Front Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Radiata Pine test 3 
Ignition Time 
655      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50             
7
100             
125 
150             
175 
200             
225 
250             
275 
 318
300             
325 
350 675 20        13.20   
375 682 27 2051 1125 1402385 4206601 769600 0.0026 1.000 11.50 11.50 19.717 
400 694 39 2090 1200 1456556 4368100 836800 0.0015 1.000 9.80 9.80 25.560 
425 71 59 2147 1275 1537553 4609609 913600 0.0011 1.000 8.40 8.40 30.062 
450 739 84 2228 1350 1656542 4963984 1004125 0.0008 1.000 6.90 6.90 35.117 
475 775 120 2382 1425 1900170 5673924 113467 0.0004 1.000 6.00 6.00 52.420 
500 868 213 2608 1500 2285274 6801664 1308750 0.0003 1.000 5.00 5.00 61.649 
525 965 310 286 1564 275587 8225424 149849 0.0002 1.000 4.20 4.20 65.228 
539 1035 380        3.75   
 319
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pine-  low 
preheat 
ISO ign data- test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
43      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 42 0  0.256 33.88   
20 43 1 129 60 5549 16641 2600 0.0100 0.259 32.87 8.50 10.000 
30 44 2 132 90 5810 17424 3980 0.0100 0.262 32.16 8.41 10.000 
40 45 3 136 120 6170 18496 5470 0.0064 0.264 29.67 7.85 12.472 
50 47 5 145 150 7043 21025 7330 0.0023 0.270 27.17 7.34 20.817 
60 53 11 161 180 8739 25921 9800 0.0014 0.287 24.95 7.16 26.547 
70 61 19 184 210 11430 33856 13050 0.0012 0.308 22.99 7.08 29.172 
80 70 28 213 240 15345 45369 17250 0.0009 0.330 21.03 6.94 32.514 
90 82 40 247 270 20649 61009 22480 0.0008 0.357 18.88 6.74 35.365 
100 95 53 297 300 30149 88209 30080 0.0005 0.384 16.73 6.43 44.308 
110 120 78 363 330 45329 131769 40460 0.0004 0.432 15.06 6.50 51.506 
120 148 106 440 360 65888 193600 53320 0.0004 0.480 13.89 6.66 51.040 
130 172 130 521 390 91889 271441 68260 0.0004 0.517 12.71 6.57 51.554 
140 201 159 603 420 122885 363609 85000 0.0003 0.559 11.59 6.48 53.852 
150 230 188 688 450 159350 473344 103760 0.0004 0.598 10.48 6.26 52.926 
160 257 215 773 480 200745 597529 124240 0.0004 0.632 9.39 5.93 52.926 
170 286 244 862 510 249606 743044 147160 0.0003 0.667 8.33 5.56 55.716 
180 319 277 959 540 308873 919681 173300 0.0003 0.704 7.27 5.12 58.318 
190 354 312 1079 570 391913 1164241 205880 0.0002 0.742 6.55 4.86 66.373 
200 406 364       0.794 5.83 4.63  
            
 320
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine-  
low preheat 
ISO ign data- test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
42      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 43 0  0.259 33.88   
20 44 1 133 60 5901 17689 2690 0.0064 0.262 32.87 8.60 12.472 
30 46 3 139 90 6453 19321 4220 0.0039 0.267 32.16 8.60 15.916 
40 49 6 148 120 7326 21904 5990 0.0028 0.276 29.67 8.19 18.772 
50 53 10 161 150 8691 25921 8150 0.0020 0.287 27.17 7.80 22.509 
60 59 16 180 180 10914 32400 10950 0.0013 0.303 24.95 7.56 27.568 
70 68 25 203 210 13881 41209 14380 0.0012 0.325 22.99 7.48 29.172 
80 76 33 230 240 17796 52900 18580 0.0011 0.344 21.03 7.23 30.062 
90 86 43 258 270 22388 66564 23420 0.0010 0.366 18.88 6.90 31.623 
100 96 53 294 300 29156 86436 29660 0.0008 0.386 16.73 6.46 36.374 
110 112 69 335 330 37889 112225 37160 0.0006 0.417 15.06 6.28 39.377 
120 127 84 387 360 50577 149769 46800 0.0006 0.444 13.89 6.17 42.622 
130 148 105 445 390 66933 198025 58280 0.0005 0.480 12.71 6.10 46.372 
140 170 127 517 420 90405 267289 72890 0.0004 0.514 11.59 5.96 50.656 
150 199 156 601 450 122325 361201 90770 0.0003 0.556 10.48 5.83 55.716 
160 232 189 697 480 164181 485809 112190 0.0003 0.601 9.39 5.64 57.881 
170 266 223 808 504 220680 652864 136280 0.0002 0.643 8.33 5.36 75.541 
174 310 267       0.694 7.91  
           
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata  Pine-  
low preheat 
ISO ign data- test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  0.249 33.88   
20 41 1 123 60 5045 15129 2480 0.0100 0.252 32.87 8.30 10.000 
 321
30 42 2 126 90 5294 15876 3800 0.0100 0.256 32.16 8.22 10.000 
40 43 3 133 120 5917 17689 5380 0.0029 0.259 29.67 7.67 18.559 
50 48 8 145 150 7069 21025 7360 0.0018 0.273 27.17 7.42 23.484 
60 54 14 163 180 8941 26569 9910 0.0015 0.290 24.95 7.23 25.520 
70 61 21 186 210 11678 34596 13190 0.0012 0.308 22.99 7.08 29.306 
80 71 31 220 240 16506 48400 17870 0.0007 0.332 21.03 6.99 37.152 
90 88 48 259 270 22785 67081 23600 0.0007 0.370 18.88 6.98 38.267 
100 100 60 299 300 30065 89401 30130 0.0009 0.394 16.73 6.59 33.922 
110 111 71 337 330 38197 113569 37330 0.0008 0.415 15.06 6.26 36.197 
120 126 86 411 360 58473 168921 49950 0.0003 0.443 13.89 6.14 58.635 
130 174 134 484 390 80008 234256 63500 0.0003 0.520 12.71 6.61 57.576 
140 184 144 570 420 109076 324900 80180 0.0005 0.535 11.59 6.20 45.190 
150 212 172 636 450 136400 404496 95960 0.0004 0.574 10.48 6.01 52.915 
160 240 200 726 480 177620 527076 116780 0.0003 0.611 9.39 5.73 55.764 
170 274 234 833 505 234437 693889 140805 0.0002 0.653 8.33 5.44 73.376 
175 319 279       0.704 7.80  
           
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Pine-  low 
preheat 
ISO ign data- test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  0.249 33.88   
20 41 1 123 60 5045 15129 2480 0.0100 0.252 32.87 8.30 10.000 
30 42 2 129 90 5561 16641 3920 0.0036 0.256 32.16 8.22 16.733 
40 46 6 140 120 6584 19600 5700 0.0020 0.267 29.67 7.93 22.509 
50 52 12 153 150 7845 23409 7740 0.0021 0.284 27.17 7.73 21.602 
60 55 15 166 180 9210 27556 10030 0.0028 0.292 24.95 7.29 18.772 
70 59 19 182 210 11130 33124 12870 0.0015 0.303 22.99 6.96 26.116 
80 68 28 203 240 13881 41209 16410 0.0012 0.325 21.03 6.84 29.172 
 322
90 76 36 229 270 17625 52441 20780 0.0012 0.344 18.88 6.49 29.172 
100 85 45 258 300 22410 66564 26010 0.0009 0.363 16.73 6.08 32.514 
110 97 57 292 330 28734 85264 32370 0.0008 0.388 15.06 5.85 35.365 
120 110 70 333 360 37385 110889 40250 0.0007 0.414 13.89 5.74 38.147 
130 126 86 381 390 49001 145161 49880 0.0006 0.443 12.71 5.62 41.884 
140 145 105 446 420 67526 198916 62930 0.0004 0.475 11.59 5.50 49.911 
150 175 135 559 450 108771 312481 84790 0.0002 0.522 10.48 5.46 70.035 
160 239 199 680 480 158502 462400 109710 0.0002 0.610 9.39 5.72 69.287 
170 266 226 804 510 217278 646416 137280 0.0003 0.643 8.33 5.36 54.863 
180 299 259 906 538 276438 820836 163148 0.0002 0.682 7.27 4.96 64.849 
188 341 301       0.728 6.70  
           
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine-  
low preheat 
ISO ign data- test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  0.249 33.88   
20 42 2 125 60 5213 15625 2530 0.0064 0.256 32.87 8.40 12.472 
30 43 3 132 90 5822 17424 4010 0.0036 0.259 32.16 8.31 16.733 
40 47 7 143 120 6867 20449 5820 0.0020 0.270 29.67 8.02 22.509 
50 53 13 163 150 8987 26569 8310 0.0012 0.287 27.17 7.80 28.577 
60 63 23 190 180 12254 36100 11610 0.0010 0.313 24.95 7.81 32.416 
70 74 34 219 210 16169 47961 15520 0.0010 0.339 22.99 7.80 30.950 
80 82 42 247 240 20481 61009 19930 0.0012 0.357 21.03 7.51 29.172 
90 91 51 279 270 26241 77841 25350 0.0008 0.376 18.88 7.10 35.000 
100 106 66 323 300 35393 104329 32650 0.0006 0.406 16.73 6.79 41.975 
110 126 86 382 330 49612 145924 42460 0.0005 0.443 15.06 6.67 46.969 
120 150 110 450 360 68652 202500 54480 0.0004 0.483 13.89 6.70 48.990 
130 174 134 532 390 96040 283024 69740 0.0003 0.520 12.71 6.61 54.118 
140 208 168 635 420 137549 403225 89690 0.0003 0.569 11.59 6.59 63.052 
150 253 213 745 450 187929 555025 112510 0.0003 0.627 10.48 6.57 61.992 
 323
160 284 244 864 480 251594 746496 138980 0.0003 0.664 9.39 6.24 61.094 
170 327 287       0.713 8.33  
           
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x   
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine-  
low preheat 
ISO ign data- test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  0.249 33.88   
20 43 3 129 60 5565 16641 2640 0.0033 0.259 32.87 8.50 17.321 
30 46 6 141 90 6669 19881 4320 0.0021 0.267 32.16 8.60 21.602 
40 52 12 157 120 8301 24649 6410 0.0015 0.284 29.67 8.43 25.520 
50 59 19 178 150 10674 31684 9050 0.0013 0.303 27.17 8.23 27.406 
60 67 27 209 180 14859 43681 12780 0.0008 0.323 24.95 8.05 35.277 
70 83 43 255 210 22403 65025 18230 0.0005 0.359 22.99 8.26 43.770 
80 105 65 315 240 34043 99225 25640 0.0005 0.404 21.03 8.50 46.904 
90 127 87 377 270 48179 142129 34330 0.0005 0.444 18.88 8.39 44.796 
100 145 105 441 300 65715 194481 44520 0.0005 0.475 16.73 7.94 45.981 
110 169 129 508 330 87222 258064 56370 0.0004 0.513 15.06 7.72 49.501 
120 194 154 585 360 115481 342225 70730 0.0004 0.549 13.89 7.62 51.506 
130 222 182 674 390 153484 454276 88260 0.0003 0.587 12.71 7.47 56.716 
140 258 218 802 420 219532 643204 113280 0.0002 0.633 11.59 7.34 71.629 
150 322 282 958 450 313132 917764 144900 0.0002 0.707 10.48 7.41 77.517 
160 378 338 1203 480 499577 1447209 194290 0.0001 0.767 9.39 7.20 97.408 
170 503 463       0.884 8.33  
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine ? 
full preheat ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
643      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10          
 324
20             
30
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100             
110 652 9    1.000 15.06   
120 657 14 1969 360 1292353 3876961 236360 0.0024 1.000 13.89 13.89 20.207 
130 660 17 1984 390 1312138 3936256 258020 0.0019 1.000 12.71 12.71 22.949 
140 667 24 2002 420 1336114 4008004 280430 0.0013 1.000 11.59 11.59 27.406 
150 675 32 2025 450 1367003 4100625 303910 0.0013 1.000 10.48 10.48 28.284 
160 683 40 2051 480 1402363 4206601 328340 0.0011 1.000 9.39 9.39 30.062
170 693 50 2083 510 1446587 4338889 354350 0.0008 1.000 8.33 8.33 34.801 
180 707 64 2127 540 1508627 4524129 383200 0.0006 1.000 7.27 7.27 41.445
190 727 84 2184 570 1590878 4769856 415390 0.0005 1.000 6.55 6.55 46.406 
200 750 107 2235 600 1665593 4995225 447310 0.0006 1.000 5.83 5.83 40.877
210 758 115 2375 630 1888753 5640625 499920 0.0001 1.000 5.17 5.17 85.458 
220 867 224 2543 660 2168977 6466849 561060 0.0001 1.000 4.58 4.58 91.381
230 918 275 2738 690 2502622 7496644 630600 0.0002 1.000 3.99 3.99 65.952 
240 953 310 2855 711 2719189 8151025 677004 0.0002 1.000 3.77 3.77 76.874
241 984 341        3.74   
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine ? 
full preheat ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 644      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10         
20     
30         
 325
40             
50
60             
70
80             
90
100 648 4       1.000 16.73   
110 650 6 1956 330 1275368 3825936 215260 0.0018 1.000 15.06 15.06 23.664 
120 658 14 1973 360 1297689 3892729 236910 0.0013 1.000 13.89 13.89 27.406 
130 665 21 1997 390 1329465 3988009 259770 0.0012 1.000 12.71 12.71 28.358 
140 674 30 2028 420 1371222 4112784 284160 0.0008 1.000 11.59 11.59 35.000 
150 689 45 2070 450 1428846 4284900 310830 0.0006 1.000 10.48 10.48 40.676 
160 707 63 2120 480 1498746 4494400 339550 0.0006 1.000 9.39 9.39 41.839
170 724 80 2174 510 1576074 4726276 369940 0.0006 1.000 8.33 8.33 42.448 
180 743 99 2229 540 1656869 4968441 401600 0.0005 1.000 7.27 7.27 43.589
190 762 118 2300 570 1764718 5290000 437520 0.0004 1.000 6.55 6.55 51.603 
200 795 151 2376 600 1883430 5645376 475770 0.0003 1.000 5.83 5.83 53.607
210 819 175 2468 630 2032102 6091024 518870 0.0003 1.000 5.17 5.17 54.628 
220 854 210 2556 660 2179766 6533136 562960 0.0003 1.000 4.58 4.58 56.651
230 883 239 2661 685 2362781 7080921 608110 0.0002 1.000 3.99 3.99 69.310 
235 924 280      3.88  
    
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine ? 
full preheat ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10          
20    
30          
40    
50          
 326
60             
70
80             
90
100             
110 649 6 15.06 
120 654 11 1960 360 1280566 3841600 235280 0.0024 1.000 13.89 13.89 20.207 
130 657 14 1974 390 1298934 3896676 256710 0.0021 1.000 12.71 12.71 21.602 
140 663 20 1991 420 1321459 3964081 278880 0.0014 1.000 11.59 11.59 26.547 
150 671 28 2015 450 1353571 4060225 302430 0.0011 1.000 10.48 10.48 30.062 
160 681 38 2048 480 1398418 4194304 327930 0.0008 1.000 9.39 9.39 35.590
170 696 53 2088 510 1453698 4359744 355260 0.0007 1.000 8.33 8.33 38.730 
180 711 68 2133 540 1517013 4549689 384240 0.0007 1.000 7.27 7.27 38.730
190 726 83 2186 570 1593598 4778596 415720 0.0005 1.000 6.55 6.55 43.910 
200 749 106 2280 600 1736102 5198400 456790 0.0002 1.000 5.83 5.83 64.651
210 805 162 2393 630 1912947 5726449 503430 0.0002 1.000 5.17 5.17 67.747 
220 839 196 2652 660 2368010 7033104 585470 0.0001 1.000 4.58 4.58 107.918 
230 1008 365 2889 684 2805749 8346321 660248 0.0001 1.000 3.99 3.99 123.264 
234 1042 399      3.90   
      
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    t 
(s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Radiata Pine ? 
full preheat ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10          
20    
30          
40    
50          
60    
70          
80    
 327
90             
100 649 5 16.73 
110 652 8 1959 330 1279269 3837681 215580 0.0021 1.000 15.06 15.06 21.602 
120 658 14 1970 360 1293668 3880900 236480 0.0023 1.000 13.89 13.89 20.817 
130 660 16 1988 390 1317464 3952144 258560 0.0015 1.000 12.71 12.71 26.247 
140 670 26 2010 420 1346900 4040100 281600 0.0010 1.000 11.59 11.59 31.623 
150 680 36 2042 450 1390164 4169764 306520 0.0009 1.000 10.48 10.48 33.212 
160 692 48 2088 480 1453920 4359744 334440 0.0005 1.000 9.39 9.39 43.205
170 716 72 2145 510 1534689 4601025 365100 0.0004 1.000 8.33 8.33 47.469 
180 737 93 2220 540 1644114 4928400 400110 0.0004 1.000 7.27 7.27 50.759
190 767 123 2305 570 1773059 5313025 438590 0.0003 1.000 6.55 6.55 56.605 
200 801 157 2399 600 1920451 5755201 480440 0.0003 1.000 5.83 5.83 56.605
210 831 187 2482 630 2054662 6160324 521710 0.0004 1.000 5.17 5.17 49.911 
220 850 206 2554 660 2175190 6522916 562300 0.0005 1.000 4.58 4.58 45.895
230 873 229 2620 690 2289238 6864400 603070 0.0004 1.000 3.99 3.99 48.480 
240 897 253 2697 717 2426067 7273809 645039 0.0003 1.000 3.77 3.77 56.662 
247 927 283      1.000 3.61   
 
 328
Macrocarpa 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Macrocarpa 
Test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
291      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50             
75
100             
125 
150 306 15       1.000 21.80 21.80  
175 309 18 926 525 285838 857476 162175 0.0099 1.000 20.60 20.60 10.066
200 311 20 935 600 291427 874225 187150 0.0080 1.000 18.95 18.95 11.155 
225 315 24 945 675 297707 893025 212825 0.0063 1.000 17.29 17.29 12.649
250 319 28 957 750 305315 915849 239450 0.0063 1.000 15.33 15.33 12.649 
275 323 32 969 825 313019 938961 266675 0.0063 1.000 13.37 13.37 12.649
300 327 36 988 900 325502 976144 296775 0.0031 1.000 11.56 11.56 17.938 
325 338 47 1013 975 342277 1026169 329750 0.0024 1.000 9.75 9.75 20.502
350 348 57 1060 1050 375224 1123600 371900 0.0013 1.000 8.52 8.52 27.702 
375 374 83 1105 1125 407669 1221025 415250 0.0013 1.000 7.28 7.28 27.478
400 383 92 1151 1200 441801 1324801 460900 0.0025 1.000 6.28 6.28 20.033 
425 394 103 1198 1275 479166 1435204 510100 0.0012 1.000 5.27 5.27 28.371
450 421 130 1302 1350 569646 1695204 588225 0.0005 1.000 4.50 4.50 44.374 
475 487 196 1471 1425 731379 2163841 702275 0.0004 1.000 3.72 3.72 53.336
500 563 272 1657 1500 922587 2745649 831500 0.0004 1.000 3.18 3.18 49.567 
525 607 316 1928 1575 1259982 3717184 1017075 0.0002 1.000 2.63 2.63 65.509
550 758 467 2155 1635 1567113 4644025 1177975 0.0002 1.000 2.18 2.18 73.882 
560 790 499    1.000 1.96 1.96 
         
 329
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Macrocarpa 
Test 2 
Ignition 
Time 280      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50     25.20  
75      24.51  
100     23.75  
125       22.99  
150     21.80  
175       20.60  
200 289 9   1.000 18.95  
225 292 12 876 675 255810 767376 197250 0.0083 1.000 17.29 17.29 10.954 
250 295 15 884 750 260498 781456 221125 0.0099 1.000 15.33 15.33 10.066
275 297 17 892 825 265234 795664 245425 0.0099 1.000 13.37 13.37 10.066 
300 300 20 903 900 271845 815409 271125 0.0054 1.000 11.56 11.56 13.663
325 306 26 917 975 280357 840889 298300 0.0045 1.000 9.75 9.75 14.853 
350 311 31 937 1050 292757 877969 328300 0.0035 1.000 8.52 8.52 16.959
375 320 40 963 1125 309345 927369 361650 0.0024 1.000 7.28 7.28 20.563 
400 332 52 1002 1200 335124 1004004 401550 0.0016 1.000 6.28 6.28 24.658
425 350 70 1039 1275 360173 1079521 442200 0.0019 1.000 5.27 5.27 23.071 
450 357 77 1086 1350 393590 1179396 489425 0.0016 1.000 4.50 4.50 25.134
475 379 99 1147 1425 440011 1315609 546175 0.0009 1.000 3.72 3.72 33.051 
500 411 131 1242 1500 516866 1542564 622825 0.0007 1.000 3.18 3.18 38.307
525 452 172 1410 1575 672434 1988100 743650 0.0003 1.000 2.63 2.63 53.506 
550 547 267    1.000 2.18 2.18
          
 330
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Macrocarpa 
Test 3 
Ignition 
Time 289      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50     25.20  
75      24.51  
100     23.75  
125       22.99  
150     21.80  
175       20.60  
200     18.95  
225       17.29  
250 300 11   1.000 15.33  
275 303 14 909 825 275445 826281 250125 0.0083 1.000 13.37 13.37 10.954 
300 306 17 919 900 281545 844561 275875 0.0071 1.000 11.56 11.56 11.872
325 310 21 929 975 287705 863041 302100 0.0071 1.000 9.75 9.75 11.872 
350 313 24 946 1050 298398 894916 331425 0.0035 1.000 8.52 8.52 16.886
375 323 34 969 1125 313187 938961 363875 0.0025 1.000 7.28 7.28 20.000 
400 333 44 1002 1200 334934 1004004 401375 0.0022 1.000 6.28 6.28 21.508
425 346 57 1047 1275 366029 1096209 445850 0.0014 1.000 5.27 5.27 26.747 
450 368 79 1107 1350 409589 1225449 499325 0.0011 1.000 4.50 4.50 30.680
475 393 104 1214 1425 495082 1473796 578775 0.0006 1.000 3.72 3.72 42.380 
500 453 164 1330 1500 593914 1768900 667275 0.0005 1.000 3.18 3.18 43.378
525 484 195 1451 1562 703661 2105401 756618 0.0006 1.000 2.63 2.63 40.566 
537 514 225    1.000 2.42 2.42
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa Low 
preheat ? ISO ign- Test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
63      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 50 0  33.88  
 331
20 51 1 153 60 7805 23409 3080 0.0100 0.342 32.87 11.25 10.000 
30 52 2 156 90 8114 24336 4700 0.0100 0.346 32.16 11.11 10.000 
40 53 3 159 120 8429 25281 6380 0.0100 0.349 29.67 10.35 10.000 
50 54 4 162 150 8750 26244 8120 0.0100 0.352 27.17 9.57 10.000 
60 55 5 165 180 9077 27225 9920 0.0100 0.355 24.95 8.87 10.000 
70 56 6 168 210 9410 28224 11780 0.0100 0.359 22.99 8.24 10.000 
80 57 7 175 240 10229 30625 14060 0.0029 0.362 21.03 7.61 18.559 
90 62 12 184 270 11318 33856 16640 0.0024 0.377 18.88 7.12 20.207 
100 65 15 196 300 12830 38416 19670 0.0028 0.386 16.73 6.46 18.772 
110 69 19 211 330 14915 44521 23330 0.0016 0.398 15.06 5.99 24.944 
120 77 27 238 360 19154 56644 28790 0.0008 0.420 13.89 5.84 34.431 
130 92 42 276 390 25842 76176 36180 0.0007 0.460 12.71 5.84 38.730 
140 107 57 343 420 40649 117649 48540 0.0004 0.496 11.59 5.75 52.489 
150 144 94 413 450 58429 170569 62500 0.0003 0.575 10.48 6.02 53.473 
160 162 112 479 480 76909 229441 76930 0.0007 0.610 9.39 5.73 38.447 
170 173 123 520 510 90398 270400 88630 0.0009 0.630 8.33 5.25 33.922 
180 185 135 630 540 138138 396900 114390 0.0002 0.652 7.27 4.74 76.792 
190 272 222 754 570 196418 568516 144380 0.0002 0.790 6.55 5.18 78.562 
200 297 247 889 600 264593 790321 178280 0.0004 0.826 5.83 4.81 49.004 
210 320 270 959 630 307573 919681 201840 0.0004 0.857 5.17 4.43 47.438 
220 342 292 1023 651 349685 1046529 222221 0.0003 0.886 4.58 4.06 60.505 
221 361 311     0.910 4.52 4.12  
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa Low 
preheat ? ISO ign- Test 2 
Ignition 
Time 50      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 63 0  33.88  
20 64 1 193 60 12421 37249 3890 0.0064 0.383 32.87 12.60 12.472 
30 66 3 198 90 13076 39204 5980 0.0050 0.389 32.16 12.52 14.142 
40 68 5 203 120 13741 41209 8150 0.0064 0.395 29.67 11.72 12.472 
50 69 6 210 150 14714 44100 10550 0.0036 0.398 27.17 10.82 16.733 
 332
60 73 10 221 180 16331 48841 13360 0.0020 0.409 24.95 10.21 22.509 
70 79 16 240 210 19314 57600 16950 0.0013 0.426 22.99 9.79 27.568 
80 88 25 267 240 23985 71289 21570 0.0009 0.449 21.03 9.45 32.514 
90 100 37 302 270 30740 91204 27440 0.0008 0.479 18.88 9.05 36.091 
100 114 51 349 300 41221 121801 35250 0.0006 0.512 16.73 8.56 42.111 
110 135 72 406 330 55870 164836 45090 0.0005 0.557 15.06 8.38 46.372 
120 157 94 479 360 77843 229441 58000 0.0004 0.600 13.89 8.34 51.191 
130 187 124 568 390 109794 322624 74510 0.0003 0.655 12.71 8.33 57.984 
140 224 161 673 420 153789 452929 94970 0.0003 0.717 11.59 8.31 61.239 
150 262 199 808 450 222504 652864 122180 0.0002 0.776 10.48 8.12 70.586 
160 322 259 948 480 304824 898704 152700 0.0002 0.860 9.39 8.07 71.784 
170 364 301 1105 510 411741 1221025 188820 0.0002 0.914 8.33 7.62 69.850 
180 419 356 1307 535 582633 1708249 234240 0.0001 0.981 7.27 7.13 106.818 
185 524 461     1.000 6.91 6.91
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa Low 
preheat ? ISO ign- Test 3 
Ignition 
Time 40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  33.88  
20 41 1 124 60 5130 15376 2510 0.0064 0.307 32.87 10.09 12.472 
30 43 3 128 90 5466 16384 3870 0.0064 0.314 32.16 10.10 12.472 
40 44 4 132 120 5810 17424 5300 0.0100 0.318 29.67 9.43 10.000 
50 45 5 135 150 6077 18225 6770 0.0100 0.321 27.17 8.73 10.000 
60 46 6 141 180 6641 19881 8510 0.0036 0.325 24.95 8.11 16.733 
70 50 10 152 210 7752 23104 10740 0.0020 0.339 22.99 7.79 22.509 
80 56 16 168 240 9480 28224 13560 0.0017 0.359 21.03 7.54 24.495 
90 62 22 188 270 11880 35344 17060 0.0014 0.377 18.88 7.12 26.547 
100 70 30 217 300 15969 47089 21930 0.0008 0.401 16.73 6.71 34.431 
110 85 45 254 330 21926 64516 28230 0.0007 0.442 15.06 6.65 38.086 
120 99 59 305 360 31667 93025 36960 0.0005 0.477 13.89 6.62 42.774 
130 121 81 358 390 43486 128164 46930 0.0005 0.527 12.71 6.70 44.280 
 333
140 138 98 423 420 60581 178929 59650 0.0005 0.563 11.59 6.53 46.705 
150 164 124 501 450 85541 251001 75760 0.0003 0.614 10.48 6.43 55.427 
160 199 159 570 480 109346 324900 91630 0.0004 0.676 9.39 6.35 49.321 
170 207 167 664 510 149014 440896 113470 0.0003 0.689 8.33 5.74 58.926 
180 258 218 751 540 191209 564001 135970 0.0002 0.770 7.27 5.60 63.731 
190 286 246 871 570 255289 758641 166180 0.0003 0.810 6.55 5.31 59.083 
200 327 287 965 594 312629 931225 191548 0.0002 0.866 5.83 5.05 68.160 
204 352 312     0.899 5.57 5.00  
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa Low 
preheat ? ISO ign- Test 4 
Ignition 
Time 40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  33.88  
20 41 1 123 60 5045 15129 2480 0.0100 0.307 32.87 10.09 10.000 
30 42 2 128 90 5470 16384 3880 0.0046 0.311 32.16 9.99 14.720 
40 45 5 134 120 5998 17956 5410 0.0039 0.321 29.67 9.54 15.916 
50 47 7 145 150 7043 21025 7330 0.0023 0.328 27.17 8.93 20.817 
60 53 13 155 180 8043 24025 9380 0.0023 0.349 24.95 8.70 20.817 
70 55 15 166 210 9198 27556 11670 0.0039 0.355 22.99 8.17 15.916 
80 58 18 185 240 11573 34225 14970 0.0010 0.365 21.03 7.68 31.123 
90 72 32 211 270 15109 44521 19220 0.0009 0.407 18.88 7.68 34.178 
100 81 41 243 300 19845 59049 24480 0.0011 0.431 16.73 7.21 30.000 
110 90 50 301 330 31561 90601 33600 0.0004 0.455 15.06 6.85 52.696 
120 130 90 370 360 47500 136900 45000 0.0003 0.546 13.89 7.59 55.777 
130 150 110 456 390 70376 207936 59740 0.0004 0.587 12.71 7.46 48.094 
140 176 136 537 420 97997 288369 75790 0.0003 0.636 11.59 7.37 55.427 
150 211 171 627 450 133097 393129 94690 0.0003 0.696 10.48 7.29 56.651 
160 240 200 724 480 176650 524176 116460 0.0003 0.742 9.39 6.97 55.716 
170 273 233 853 510 247729 727609 146010 0.0002 0.792 8.33 6.60 72.060 
180 340 300 992 540 333770 984064 179620 0.0002 0.883 7.27 6.43 73.643 
 334
190 379 339       0.933 6.55   
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa Low 
preheat ? ISO ign- Test 5 
Ignition 
Time 40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  33.88  
20 43 3 129 60 5565 16641 2640 0.0033 0.314 32.87 10.33 17.321 
30 46 6 136 90 6174 18496 4120 0.0046 0.325 32.16 10.45 14.720 
40 47 7 142 120 6726 20164 5710 0.0064 0.328 29.67 9.74 12.472 
50 49 9 148 150 7314 21904 7450 0.0039 0.335 27.17 9.11 15.916 
60 52 12 156 180 8130 24336 9420 0.0033 0.346 24.95 8.62 17.321 
70 55 15 169 210 9573 28561 11930 0.0019 0.355 22.99 8.17 22.949 
80 62 22 187 240 11769 34969 15110 0.0013 0.377 21.03 7.94 27.406 
90 70 30 213 270 15305 45369 19360 0.0010 0.401 18.88 7.57 30.950 
100 81 41 246 300 20486 60516 24850 0.0008 0.431 16.73 7.21 35.440 
110 95 55 284 330 27250 80656 31510 0.0007 0.467 15.06 7.03 36.751 
120 108 68 320 360 34378 102400 38620 0.0009 0.498 13.89 6.91 33.348 
130 117 77 355 390 42253 126025 46370 0.0009 0.518 12.71 6.59 33.348 
140 130 90 392 420 51614 153664 55160 0.0007 0.546 11.59 6.33 37.448 
150 145 105 438 450 64494 191844 66030 0.0006 0.577 10.48 6.04 40.676 
160 163 123 502 480 85230 252004 80810 0.0004 0.612 9.39 5.74 50.075 
170 194 154 587 510 117105 344569 100460 0.0003 0.667 8.33 5.56 57.933 
180 230 190 681 533 156585 463761 121411 0.0002 0.727 7.27 5.29 68.972 
183 257 217      0.768 7.06   
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa Low 
preheat ? ISO ign- Test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
40      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 40 0  33.88  
 335
20 42 2 126 60 5300 15876 2560 0.0050 0.311 32.87 10.21 14.142 
30 44 4 131 90 5725 17161 3960 0.0064 0.318 32.16 10.22 12.472 
40 45 5 137 120 6265 18769 5520 0.0046 0.321 29.67 9.54 14.720 
50 48 8 143 150 6829 20449 7200 0.0039 0.332 27.17 9.02 15.916 
60 50 10 154 180 7940 23716 9320 0.0023 0.339 24.95 8.45 20.817 
70 56 16 170 210 9732 28900 12040 0.0014 0.359 22.99 8.24 26.547 
80 64 24 198 240 13316 39204 16060 0.0009 0.383 21.03 8.06 33.575 
90 78 38 240 270 19784 57600 21940 0.0006 0.423 18.88 7.99 41.445 
100 98 58 295 300 29849 87025 29910 0.0005 0.474 16.73 7.93 45.281 
110 119 79 364 330 45374 132496 40530 0.0004 0.523 15.06 7.87 49.666 
120 147 107 437 360 65011 190969 52960 0.0004 0.581 13.89 8.07 51.040 
130 171 131 522 390 92466 272484 68430 0.0003 0.627 12.71 7.96 53.607 
140 204 164 611 420 126553 373321 86190 0.0003 0.684 11.59 7.93 57.011 
150 236 196 716 450 173488 512656 108120 0.0003 0.736 10.48 7.71 60.123 
160 276 236 852 480 247472 725904 137360 0.0002 0.796 9.39 7.47 72.748 
170 340 300 994 510 334660 988036 170000 0.0002 0.883 8.33 7.36 72.183 
180 378 338 1138 540 434884 1295044 205640 0.0002 0.932 7.27 6.78 63.272 
190 420 380 1261 565 533653 1590121 238125 0.0002 0.982 6.55 6.43 75.328 
195 463 423     6.19  
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa ? 
full preheat ? test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
436      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30      
40        
50      
60        
70 441 5  1.000 22.99  
 336
80 446 10 1334 240 593206 1779556 106780 0.0029 1.000 21.03 21.03 18.559 
90 447 11 1342 270 600326 1800964 120810 0.0064 1.000 18.88 18.88 12.472
100 449 13 1350 300 607526 1822500 135070 0.0027 1.000 16.73 16.73 19.272 
110 454 18 1363 330 619317 1857769 150040 0.0018 1.000 15.06 15.06 23.484
120 460 24 1384 360 638616 1915456 166240 0.0012 1.000 13.89 13.89 28.577 
130 470 34 1411 390 663861 1990921 183640 0.0010 1.000 12.71 12.71 32.416
140 481 45 1446 420 697286 2090916 202690 0.0008 1.000 11.59 11.59 35.440 
150 495 59 1504 450 755170 2262016 226070 0.0004 1.000 10.48 10.48 49.780
160 528 92 1570 480 823018 2464900 251720 0.0004 1.000 9.39 9.39 51.603 
170 547 111 1645 510 902893 2706025 280070 0.0005 1.000 8.33 8.33 45.895
180 570 134 1712 540 978134 2930944 308640 0.0004 1.000 7.27 7.27 49.004 
190 595 159 1792 570 1072054 3211264 341050 0.0003 1.000 6.55 6.55 53.519
200 627 191 1882 594 1182754 3541924 373090 0.0002 1.000 5.83 5.83 68.216 
204 660 224    5.57
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa ? 
full preheat ? test 2 
Ignition 
Time 438      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10     
20         
30     
40         
50     
60         
70 445 7 1.000 22.99  
80 448 10 1344 240 602130 1806336 107580 0.0033 1.000 21.03 21.03 17.321 
90 451 13 1352 270 609314 1827904 121730 0.0039 1.000 18.88 18.88 15.916
100 453 15 1360 300 616546 1849600 136050 0.0039 1.000 16.73 16.73 15.916 
110 456 18 1369 330 624745 1874161 150660 0.0028 1.000 15.06 15.06 18.772
120 460 22 1381 360 635761 1907161 165810 0.0022 1.000 13.89 13.89 21.257 
130 465 27 1402 390 655354 1965604 182430 0.0011 1.000 12.71 12.71 29.967
 337
140 477 39 1435 420 686803 2059225 201180 0.0007 1.000 11.59 11.59 37.544 
150 493 55 1473 450 723587 2169729 221210 0.0008 1.000 10.48 10.48 36.374
160 503 65 1510 480 760254 2280100 241810 0.0010 1.000 9.39 9.39 32.416 
170 514 76 1551 510 802361 2405601 263980 0.0006 1.000 8.33 8.33 39.919
180 534 96 1613 540 868577 2601769 290850 0.0004 1.000 7.27 7.27 50.888 
190 565 127 1725 570 996257 2975625 328670 0.0002 1.000 6.55 6.55 69.015
200 626 188 1840 600 1132302 3385600 368840 0.0002 1.000 5.83 5.83 66.981 
210 649 211 1951 630 1270053 3806401 410210 0.0004 1.000 5.17 5.17 50.053
220 676 238       1.000 4.58   
   
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa ? 
full preheat ? test 3 
Ignition 
Time 438      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      
20        
30      
40        
50      
60        
70 446 8  1.000 22.99  
80 447 9 1341 240 599429 1798281 107300 0.0100 1.000 21.03 21.03 10.000 
90 448 10 1344 270 602114 1806336 120980 0.0100 1.000 18.88 18.88 10.000
100 449 11 1347 300 604805 1814409 134720 0.0100 1.000 16.73 16.73 10.000 
110 450 12 1351 330 608405 1825201 148640 0.0064 1.000 15.06 15.06 12.472
120 452 14 1356 360 612920 1838736 162760 0.0050 1.000 13.89 13.89 14.142 
130 454 16 1362 390 618356 1855044 177100 0.0050 1.000 12.71 12.71 14.142
140 456 18 1369 420 624733 1874161 191710 0.0039 1.000 11.59 11.59 15.916 
150 459 21 1381 450 635773 1907161 207250 0.0019 1.000 10.48 10.48 22.949
160 466 28 1402 480 655366 1965604 224500 0.0011 1.000 9.39 9.39 30.246 
170 477 39 1438 510 689710 2067844 244750 0.0007 1.000 8.33 8.33 38.447
180 495 57 1516 540 768490 2298256 273550 0.0003 1.000 7.27 7.27 59.909 
 338
190 544 106 1601 570 856805 2563201 304860 0.0003 1.000 6.55 6.55 59.909 
200 562 124   5.83
  
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Macrocarpa ? 
full preheat ? test 4 
Ignition 
Time 443      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10     
20         
30     
40         
50     
60         
70 448 5 22.99  
80 450 7 1351 240 608413 1825201 108130 0.0039 1.000 21.03 21.03 15.916 
90 453 10 1359 270 615645 1846881 122370 0.0033 1.000 18.88 18.88 17.321
100 456 13 1368 300 623826 1871424 136860 0.0033 1.000 16.73 16.73 17.321 
110 459 16 1375 330 630217 1890625 151290 0.0046 1.000 15.06 15.06 14.720
120 460 17 1381 360 635725 1907161 165750 0.0064 1.000 13.89 13.89 12.472 
130 462 19 1387 390 641269 1923769 180360 0.0039 1.000 12.71 12.71 15.916
140 465 22 1397 420 650569 1951609 195660 0.0024 1.000 11.59 11.59 20.207 
150 470 27 1409 450 661801 1985281 211440 0.0022 1.000 10.48 10.48 21.257
160 474 31 1423 480 675017 2024929 227770 0.0022 1.000 9.39 9.39 21.257 
170 479 36 1446 510 697166 2090916 246010 0.0010 1.000 8.33 8.33 31.954
180 493 50 1488 540 738746 2214144 268210 0.0005 1.000 7.27 7.27 43.434 
190 516 73 1543 570 794461 2380849 293580 0.0005 1.000 6.55 6.55 45.389
200 534 91 1602 600 856116 2566404 320760 0.0006 1.000 5.83 5.83 42.426 
210 552 109 1656 630 914760 2742336 348120 0.0006 1.000 5.17 5.17 42.426
220 570 127 1719 657 986013 2954961 376839 0.0004 1.000 4.58 4.58 52.099 
227 597 154   4.17
 
 339
Rimu 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT Rimu test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
715      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50    #N/A  
75       26.45  
100 720 5  1.000 26.10 26.10 
125 721 6 2165 375 1562417 4687225 270725 0.0115 1.000 25.30 25.30 9.309 
150 724 9 2171 450 1571093 4713241 325775 0.0099 1.000 24.50 24.50 10.066
175 726 11 2178 525 1581236 4743684 381250 0.0125 1.000 23.20 23.20 8.944 
200 728 13 2191 600 1600229 4800481 438475 0.0040 1.000 21.90 21.90 15.802
225 737 22 2206 675 1622234 4866436 496675 0.0037 1.000 20.70 20.70 16.517 
250 741 26 2223 750 1647275 4941729 555950 0.0063 1.000 19.50 19.50 12.649
275 745 30 2237 825 1668107 5004169 615425 0.0049 1.000 18.00 18.00 14.236 
300 751 36 2251 900 1689051 5067001 675550 0.0049 1.000 16.50 16.50 14.236
325 755 40 2269 975 1716195 5148361 737725 0.0040 1.000 14.85 14.85 15.776 
350 763 48 2300 1050 1763718 5290000 805675 0.0018 1.000 13.20 13.20 23.872
375 782 67 2367 1117 1869377 5602689 882524 0.0007 1.000 11.50 11.50 38.703 
392 822 107     1.000 10.34 10.34 
         
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT Rimu test 2 
Ignition 
Time 717      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50     
75         
100     
125          
150     
175          
 340
200 729 12       1.000 21.90 21.90  
225 731 14 2193 675 1603091 4809249 493525 0.0125 1.000 20.70 20.70 8.944
250 733 16 2201 750 1614819 4844401 550400 0.0080 1.000 19.50 19.50 11.155 
275 737 20 2213 825 1632507 4897369 608825 0.0049 1.000 18.00 18.00 14.236
300 743 26 2227 900 1653227 4959529 668350 0.0049 1.000 16.50 16.50 14.236 
325 747 30 2244 975 1678574 5035536 729575 0.0044 1.000 14.85 14.85 15.015
350 754 37 2269 1050 1716349 5148361 794675 0.0023 1.000 13.20 13.20 20.870 
375 768 51 2308 1125 1776136 5326864 866300 0.0016 1.000 11.50 11.50 25.364
400 786 69 2370 1200 1873476 5616900 949200 0.0010 1.000 9.80 9.80 31.305 
425 816 99 2458 1275 2016388 6041764 1046400 0.0007 1.000 8.35 8.35 37.544
450 856 139 2576 1350 2215808 6635776 1161400 0.0006 1.000 6.90 6.90 42.010 
475 904 187 2752 1425 2534016 7573504 1310600 0.0004 1.000 5.95 5.95 52.900
500 992 275       1.000 5.00 5.00  
   
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT Rimu test 3 
Ignition 
Time 736      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50      
75        
100      
125         
150      
175         
200      
225         
250      
275         
300 750 14  1.000 16.50 16.50 
325 761 25 2282 975 1736062 5207524 742175 0.0024 1.000 14.85 14.85 20.502 
350 771 35 2325 1050 1802411 5405625 814550 0.0015 1.000 13.20 13.20 25.884
375 793 57 2387 1125 1900619 5697769 896425 0.0010 1.000 11.50 11.50 32.376 
 341
400 823 87 2492 1200 2073554 6210064 998875 0.0006 1.000 9.80 9.80 41.261 
425 876 140 2639 1265 2328305 6964321 1115100 0.0003 1.000 8.35 8.35 54.376
440 940 204       1.000 7.48 7.48  
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Rimu ? 
Low preheat ? ISO 
ign data ? Test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
80      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0        33.88   
20 61 1 184 60 11290 33856 3710 0.0064 0.392 32.87 12.89 12.472
30 63 3 189 90 11915 35721 5710 0.0050 0.399 32.16 12.82 14.142 
40 65 5 197 120 12955 38809 7940 0.0032 0.405 29.67 12.01 17.638
50 69 9 208 150 14462 43264 10490 0.0022 0.417 27.17 11.33 21.257 
60 74 14 227 180 17293 51529 13770 0.0013 0.432 24.95 10.78 27.889
70 84 24 249 210 20813 62001 17600 0.0012 0.460 22.99 10.58 29.306 
80 91 31 276 240 25538 76176 22250 0.0012 0.479 21.03 10.07 29.306
90 101 41 302 270 30582 91204 27370 0.0011 0.505 18.88 9.53 30.836 
100 110 50 330 300 36462 108900 33180 0.0011 0.527 16.73 8.81 30.000
110 119 59 358 330 42902 128164 39570 0.0011 0.548 15.06 8.25 30.836 
120 129 69 393 360 51827 154449 47420 0.0008 0.570 13.89 7.92 36.374
130 145 85 434 390 63266 188356 56730 0.0006 0.605 12.71 7.68 39.377 
140 160 100 492 415 81594 242064 68365 0.0003 0.635 11.59 7.36 54.502
145 187 127    0.687 11.59 7.96  
        
 342
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Rimu ? 
Low preheat ? ISO 
ign data ? Test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
80      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 63 0        33.88   
20 64 1 193 60 12421 37249 3890 0.0064 0.402 32.87 13.20 12.472
30 66 3 199 90 13213 39601 6020 0.0039 0.408 32.16 13.12 15.916 
40 69 6 207 120 14301 42849 8340 0.0033 0.417 29.67 12.37 17.321
50 72 9 218 150 15874 47524 10980 0.0024 0.426 27.17 11.58 20.207 
60 77 14 232 180 18002 53824 14030 0.0018 0.441 24.95 10.99 23.484
70 83 20 253 210 21467 64009 17870 0.0012 0.457 22.99 10.52 28.577 
80 93 30 281 240 26563 78961 22700 0.0009 0.484 21.03 10.18 33.212
90 105 42 316 270 33598 99856 28690 0.0008 0.514 18.88 9.71 35.365 
100 118 55 356 300 42638 126736 35880 0.0007 0.545 16.73 9.12 37.448
110 133 70 402 330 54414 161604 44550 0.0006 0.579 15.06 8.72 40.676 
120 151 88 449 360 67715 201601 54200 0.0006 0.617 13.89 8.57 40.104
130 165 102 505 389 85747 255025 65841 0.0005 0.645 12.71 8.20 45.339 
139 189 126      0.690 12.71 8.77
          
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Rimu ? 
Low preheat ? ISO 
ign data ? Test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
69      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 63 0        33.88   
20 64 1 192 60 12290 36864 3860 0.0100 0.402 32.87 13.20 10.000
30 65 2 199 90 13221 39601 6030 0.0029 0.405 32.16 13.02 18.559 
40 70 7 212 120 15054 44944 8600 0.0017 0.420 29.67 12.46 24.608
50 77 14 230 150 17718 52900 11630 0.0015 0.441 27.17 11.97 25.520 
60 83 20 246 180 20214 60516 14850 0.0021 0.457 24.95 11.41 21.602
70 86 23 259 210 22385 67081 18200 0.0028 0.466 22.99 10.71 18.772 
 343
80 90 27 277 240 25697 76729 22310 0.0012 0.476 21.03 10.02 28.363 
90 101 38 312 270 32942 97344 28390 0.0006 0.505 18.88 9.53 39.919
100 121 58 360 300 43886 129600 36370 0.0005 0.552 16.73 9.24 43.059 
110 138 75 411 330 56789 168921 45520 0.0006 0.590 15.06 8.88 39.431
120 152 89 465 355 72773 216225 55295 0.0004 0.619 13.89 8.59 50.845 
125 175 112   0.664 13.89 9.22 
          
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Rimu ? 
Low preheat ? ISO 
ign data ? Test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
66      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0        33.88   
20 61 1 183 60 11165 33489 3680 0.0100 0.392 32.87 12.89 10.000
30 62 2 187 90 11661 34969 5640 0.0064 0.395 32.16 12.71 12.472 
40 64 4 191 120 12165 36481 7670 0.0064 0.402 29.67 11.92 12.472
50 65 5 195 150 12677 38025 9770 0.0100 0.405 27.17 11.00 10.000 
60 66 6 201 180 13481 40401 12110 0.0036 0.408 24.95 10.18 16.733
70 70 10 210 210 14732 44100 14780 0.0025 0.420 22.99 9.66 20.000 
80 74 14 224 240 16776 50176 18020 0.0020 0.432 21.03 9.08 22.509
90 80 20 242 270 19620 58564 21920 0.0014 0.449 18.88 8.48 26.547 
100 88 28 265 300 23553 70225 26670 0.0012 0.471 16.73 7.88 29.172
110 97 37 291 330 28389 84681 32190 0.0011 0.494 15.06 7.45 30.000 
120 106 46 320 360 34334 102400 38600 0.0010 0.517 13.89 7.18 31.675
130 117 57 354 390 42086 125316 46270 0.0008 0.543 12.71 6.90 35.440 
140 131 71 391 420 51299 152881 55000 0.0008 0.575 11.59 6.66 36.091
150 143 83 431 450 62259 185761 64910 0.0008 0.600 10.48 6.29 36.091 
160 157 97 468 480 73322 219024 75130 0.0008 0.629 9.39 5.91 35.440
170 168 108 522 505 91682 272484 88155 0.0003 0.651 8.33 5.42 54.740 
175 197 137    0.705 7.80 5.50
          
 344
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Rimu ? 
Low preheat ? ISO 
ign data ? Test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
67      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 50 0        33.88   
20 51 1 153 60 7805 23409 3080 0.0100 0.359 32.87 11.79 10.000
30 52 2 156 90 8114 24336 4700 0.0100 0.362 32.16 11.64 10.000 
40 53 3 160 120 8538 25600 6430 0.0064 0.366 29.67 10.84 12.472
50 55 5 173 150 10059 29929 8770 0.0015 0.372 27.17 10.12 26.247 
60 65 15 194 180 12726 37636 11830 0.0011 0.405 24.95 10.10 30.836
70 74 24 224 210 16926 50176 15880 0.0010 0.432 22.99 9.93 31.675 
80 85 35 251 240 21165 63001 20260 0.0011 0.463 21.03 9.74 30.246
90 92 42 283 270 26925 80089 25680 0.0009 0.482 18.88 9.09 32.998 
100 106 56 331 300 37389 109561 33510 0.0005 0.517 16.73 8.65 46.029
110 133 83 398 330 54206 158404 44310 0.0004 0.579 15.06 8.72 51.481 
120 159 109 478 362 77566 228484 58262 0.0004 0.633 13.89 8.79 49.071
132 186 136    0.685 12.71   
 
There was insufficient flame spread for a full ?preheat result for Rimu in the RIFT 
 345
NZ Beech 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Beech ? 
Test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
415      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50           
7   
100           
125   
150           
175   
200           
225 427 12   1.000 17.29 17.29
250 429 14 1296 750 559970 1679616 324325 0.0033 1.000 15.55 15.55 17.365 
275 440 25 1319 825 580141 1739761 363250 0.0024 1.000 13.37 13.37 20.502
300 450 35 1359 900 616061 1846881 408425 0.0017 1.000 11.19 11.19 24.467 
325 469 54 1415 975 668477 2002225 461025 0.0011 1.000 9.75 9.75 30.484 
350 496 81 1493 1050 744761 2229049 524025 0.0008 1.000 8.32 8.32 34.392 
375 528 113 1615 1125 874081 2608225 608000 0.0005 1.000 7.28 7.28 44.356 
400 591 176 1786 1200 1072954 3189796 717875 0.0004 1.000 6.25 6.25 52.803 
425 667 252 1976 1275 1309694 3904576 842975 0.0004 1.000 5.27 5.27 50.723 
450 718 303 2206 1350 1634454 4866436 996550 0.0003 1.000 4.29 4.29 56.543 
475 821 406 2457 1414 2032289 6036849 1161977 0.0002 1.000 3.72 3.72 71.521 
489 918 503     1.000 3.72  
        
 346
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
LIFT ? Beech ? 
Test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
397      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50           
7   
100 416 1 834 300 347780 695556 93850 0.00009 1.000 23.82 23.82  
125 418 21 1254 375 524180 1572516 156850 0.01250 1.000 22.99 22.99 8.944
150 420 23 1260 450 529208 1587600 189100 0.01250 1.000 22.16 22.16 8.944 
175 422 25 1267 525 535109 1605289 221850 0.00987 1.000 20.60 20.60 10.066
200 425 28 1274 600 541038 1623076 254925 0.00987 1.000 19.04 19.04 10.066 
225 427 30 1282 675 547854 1643524 288575 0.00987 1.000 17.29 17.29 10.066
250 430 33 1302 750 565254 1695204 325950 0.00242 1.000 15.55 15.55 20.331 
275 445 48 1332 825 591774 1774224 366975 0.00184 1.000 13.37 13.37 23.286
300 457 60 1373 900 628715 1885129 412550 0.00192 1.000 11.19 11.19 22.826 
325 471 74 1422 975 674726 2022084 463075 0.00133 1.000 9.75 9.75 27.470 
350 494 97 1487 1050 738361 2211169 521725 0.00098 1.000 8.32 8.32 31.989 
375 522 125 1579 1125 833489 2493241 593850 0.00072 1.000 7.28 7.28 37.367 
400 563 166 1706 1200 975094 2910436 684875 0.00050 1.000 6.25 6.25 44.715 
425 621 224 1870 1262 1173206 3496900 788907 0.00030 1.000 5.27 5.27 57.881 
437 686 289      1.000 5.27  
       
LIFT test 3       
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position 
x    t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
 
Ignition 
Time 397      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
50           
7   
100           
125   
 347
150 412 15       1.000 22.16   
175 413 16 1242 525 514202 1542564 217475 0.0089 1.000 20.60 20.60 10.583
200 417 20 1250 600 520858 1562500 250175 0.0071 1.000 19.04 19.04 11.872 
225 420 23 1270 675 537778 1612900 286150 0.0028 1.000 17.29 17.29 19.018
250 433 36 1294 750 558370 1674436 324025 0.0023 1.000 15.55 15.55 20.687 
275 441 44 1333 825 592651 1776889 367225 0.0018 1.000 13.37 13.37 23.359
300 459 62 1382 900 637486 1909924 415625 0.0012 1.000 11.19 11.19 28.707 
325 482 85 1448 975 700054 2096704 471800 0.0010 1.000 9.75 9.75 30.993 
350 507 110 1524 1050 775598 2322576 534725 0.0009 1.000 8.32 8.32 32.575 
375 535 138 1612 1125 868174 2598544 606075 0.0008 1.000 7.28 7.28 35.569 
400 570 173 1725 1200 995525 2975625 692125 0.0006 1.000 6.25 6.25 41.445 
425 620 223 1893 1275 1203509 3583449 807850 0.0004 1.000 5.27 5.27 52.102 
450 703 306      1.000 4.29  
  
 
          
Flame 
Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech 
? 
Low preheat  - 
test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
55      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 55 0 33.88   
20 56 1 169 60 9525 28561 3410 0.0064 0.397 32.87 13.05 12.472 
30 58 3 174 90 10100 30276 5260 0.0050 0.404 32.16 13.00 14.142
40 60 5 182 120 11060 33124 7340 0.0032 0.411 29.67 12.19 17.638 
50 64 9 193 150 12457 37249 9740 0.0022 0.424 27.17 11.54 21.257
60 69 14 209 180 14633 43681 12660 0.0017 0.441 24.95 11.00 24.608 
70 76 21 230 210 17762 52900 16260 0.0012 0.463 22.99 10.64 28.358
80 85 30 255 240 21837 65025 20580 0.0011 0.489 21.03 10.29 30.000 
90 94 39 283 270 26877 80089 25660 0.0011 0.514 18.88 9.71 30.836
100 104 49 311 300 32421 96721 31290 0.0011 0.541 16.73 9.05 30.836 
110 113 58 344 330 39714 118336 38070 0.0009 0.564 15.06 8.50 34.178 
 348
120 127 72 387 360 50507 149769 46780 0.0006 0.598 13.89 8.30 41.445 
130 147 92 445 390 66979 198025 58290 0.0005 0.643 12.71 8.18 46.969 
140 171 116 508 420 86950 258064 71550 0.0005 0.694 11.59 8.04 46.472 
150 190 135      10.48  
          
Flame 
Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech 
? 
Low preheat  - 
test 2 
Ignition 
Time 
55      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 55 0 0.394 33.88   
20 57 2 172 60 9874 29584 3490 0.0039 0.401 32.87 13.17 15.916 
30 60 5 180 90 10818 32400 5460 0.0033 0.411 32.16 13.22 17.321
40 63 8 192 120 12330 36864 7770 0.0021 0.421 29.67 12.49 21.602 
50 69 14 211 150 14971 44521 10710 0.0012 0.441 27.17 11.98 28.577
60 79 24 238 180 19102 56644 14490 0.0010 0.472 24.95 11.77 32.416 
70 90 35 274 210 25366 75076 19440 0.0008 0.503 22.99 11.57 36.197
80 105 50 315 240 33525 99225 25500 0.0007 0.544 21.03 11.44 38.730 
90 120 65 360 270 43650 129600 32700 0.0007 0.581 18.88 10.97 38.730 
100 135 80 410 300 56650 168100 41350 0.0006 0.617 16.73 10.31 41.975 
110 155 100 468 330 73934 219024 51910 0.0005 0.661 15.06 9.95 46.406 
120 178 123 536 360 96918 287296 64800 0.0004 0.708 13.89 9.83 49.004 
130 203 148 601 385 121293 361201 77450 0.0004 0.756 12.71 9.61 52.679
135 220 165       0.787 12.71   
       
 349
Flame 
Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech 
? 
Low preheat  - 
test 3 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0 0.411 33.88   
20 61 1 184 60 11290 33856 3710 0.0064 0.414 32.87 13.62 12.472
30 63 3 188 90 11786 35344 5670 0.0064 0.421 32.16 13.54 12.472 
40 64 4 194 120 12554 37636 7800 0.0046 0.424 29.67 12.59 14.720
50 67 7 202 150 13626 40804 10170 0.0028 0.434 27.17 11.80 18.772 
60 71 11 214 180 15306 45796 12930 0.0022 0.447 24.95 11.15 21.257
70 76 16 233 210 18213 54289 16460 0.0013 0.463 22.99 10.64 27.889 
80 86 26 257 240 22197 66049 20750 0.0011 0.492 21.03 10.35 30.836 
90 95 35 282 270 26622 79524 25530 0.0013 0.517 18.88 9.76 27.568
100 101 41 306 300 31326 93636 30750 0.0013 0.533 16.73 8.92 27.568 
110 110 50 334 330 37430 111556 36960 0.0009 0.557 15.06 8.38 33.348 
120 123 63 378 360 48254 142884 45710 0.0006 0.588 13.89 8.17 42.292 
130 145 85 426 390 61118 181476 55730 0.0006 0.639 12.71 8.12 42.292 
140 158 98 480 420 77318 230400 67520 0.0006 0.667 11.59 7.73 40.234 
150 177 117 529 450 93929 279841 79710 0.0006 0.706 10.48 7.40 42.448 
160 194 134 588 480 116054 345744 94480 0.0005 0.739 9.39 6.94 44.889
170 217 157 642 510 138086 412164 109510 0.0005 0.782 8.33 6.51 43.434 
180 231 171     0.806 7.27  
          
Flame 
Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech 
? 
Low preheat  - 
test 4 
Ignition 
Time 
60      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0 0.411 33.88   
 350
20 61 1 183 60 11165 33489 3680 0.0100 0.414 32.87 13.62 10.000 
30 62 2 188 90 11790 35344 5680 0.0046 0.418 32.16 13.44 14.720 
40 65 5 194 120 12558 37636 7810 0.0039 0.428 29.67 12.69 15.916
50 67 7 205 150 14043 42025 10330 0.0023 0.434 27.17 11.80 20.817 
60 73 13 218 180 15902 47524 13190 0.0018 0.453 24.95 11.31 23.484
70 78 18 237 210 18809 56169 16720 0.0015 0.469 22.99 10.77 25.720 
80 86 26 258 240 22316 66564 20800 0.0013 0.492 21.03 10.35 28.284
90 94 34 283 270 26841 80089 25640 0.0012 0.514 18.88 9.71 29.172 
100 103 43 312 300 32670 97344 31410 0.0009 0.539 16.73 9.01 32.514
110 115 55 349 330 40995 121801 38670 0.0007 0.569 15.06 8.57 37.544 
120 131 71 389 360 50835 151321 46960 0.0007 0.607 13.89 8.43 37.544 
130 143 83 431 390 62259 185761 56290 0.0008 0.635 12.71 8.06 36.091 
140 157 97 476 420 76074 226576 66970 0.0006 0.665 11.59 7.71 40.775 
150 176 116 541 450 98889 292681 81660 0.0004 0.704 10.48 7.37 51.041 
160 208 148 611 480 125769 373321 98270 0.0004 0.765 9.39 7.19 51.041
170 227 167 697 503 163437 485809 117196 0.0002 0.799 8.33 6.66 67.198 
173 262 202     0.859 8.33  
          
Flame 
Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech 
? 
Low preheat  - 
test 5 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0  0.411 33.88   
20 61 1 183 60 11165 33489 3680 0.0100 0.414 32.87 13.62 10.000
30 62 2 186 90 11534 34596 5600 0.0100 0.418 32.16 13.44 10.000 
40 63 3 191 120 12169 36481 7680 0.0046 0.421 29.67 12.49 14.720
50 66 6 200 150 13366 40000 10080 0.0024 0.431 27.17 11.71 20.207 
60 71 11 210 180 14726 44100 12670 0.0027 0.447 24.95 11.15 19.272
70 73 13 222 210 16454 49284 15610 0.0027 0.453 22.99 10.42 19.272 
 351
80 78 18 237 240 18809 56169 19090 0.0015 0.469 21.03 9.86 25.720 
90 86 26 261 270 22889 68121 23680 0.0010 0.492 18.88 9.29 30.950
100 97 37 296 300 29574 87616 29870 0.0007 0.523 16.73 8.74 36.952 
110 113 53 334 330 37554 111556 37010 0.0007 0.564 15.06 8.50 36.952 
120 124 64 380 360 48594 144400 45900 0.0007 0.591 13.89 8.20 39.186 
130 143 83 422 390 59850 178084 55170 0.0006 0.635 12.71 8.06 39.703 
140 155 95 467 420 73035 218089 65640 0.0008 0.661 11.59 7.66 36.091 
150 169 109 510 450 87182 260100 76810 0.0006 0.690 10.48 7.23 39.431 
160 186 126 560 480 105182 313600 89960 0.0006 0.724 9.39 6.79 42.448
170 205 145       0.760 8.33   
       
Flame 
Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech 
? 
Low preheat  - 
test 6 
Ignition 
Time 
60s      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 60 0  0.411 33.88   
20 61 1 183 60 11165 33489 3680 0.0100 0.414 32.87 13.62 10.000
30 62 2 188 90 11790 35344 5680 0.0046 0.418 32.16 13.44 14.720 
40 65 5 195 120 12693 38025 7860 0.0033 0.428 29.67 12.69 17.321
50 68 8 204 150 13890 41616 10260 0.0033 0.438 27.17 11.89 17.321 
60 71 11 215 180 15441 46225 12980 0.0024 0.447 24.95 11.15 20.207
70 76 16 229 210 17541 52441 16140 0.0018 0.463 22.99 10.64 23.484 
80 82 22 246 240 20244 60516 19800 0.0017 0.480 21.03 10.11 24.495
90 88 28 265 270 23493 70225 23980 0.0015 0.498 18.88 9.40 25.520 
100 95 35 286 300 27378 81796 28750 0.0013 0.517 16.73 8.65 27.406
110 103 43 312 330 32630 97344 34510 0.0010 0.539 15.06 8.11 30.950 
120 114 54 338 360 38246 114244 40740 0.0011 0.567 13.89 7.87 30.246 
130 121 61 379 390 48373 143641 49570 0.0006 0.584 12.71 7.42 40.524 
140 144 84 432 420 63266 186624 60940 0.0004 0.637 11.59 7.38 47.958 
150 167 107      0.686 10.48  
 352
 
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech ? 
full preheat  - test 1 
Ignition 
Time 
841      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      33.88  
20      32.87 0.00  
30     32.16 0.00  
40      29.67 0.00  
50     27.17 0.00  
60      24.95 0.00  
70     22.99 0.00  
80 842 0     0.999 21.03 21.01  
90 847 5 2542 270 2153982 6461764 228890 0.0018 1.000 18.88 18.88 23.484 
100 853 11 2556 300 2177754 6533136 255690 0.0021 1.000 16.73 16.73 21.602 
110 856 14 2569 330 2199945 6599761 282660 0.0028 1.000 15.06 15.06 18.772 
120 860 18 2579 360 2217105 6651241 309550 0.0028 1.000 13.89 13.89 18.772 
130 863 21 2588 390 2232594 6697744 336490 0.0039 1.000 12.71 12.71 15.916 
140 865 23 2596 420 2246418 6739216 363490 0.0039 1.000 11.59 11.59 15.916 
150 868 26 2605 450 2262033 6786025 390820 0.0028 1.000 10.48 10.48 18.772 
160 872 30 2617 480 2282937 6848689 418810 0.0022 1.000 9.39 9.39 21.257 
170 877 35 2632 510 2309202 6927424 447550 0.0018 1.000 8.33 8.33 23.484 
180 883 41 2662 540 2362422 7086244 479410 0.0007 1.000 7.27 7.27 36.914 
190 902 60 2706 570 2441534 7322436 514520 0.0005 1.000 6.55 6.55 43.589 
200 921 79 2759 600 2537941 7612081 552140 0.0006 1.000 5.83 5.83 41.326 
210 936 94 2809 630 2630641 7890481 590200 0.0006 1.000 5.17 5.17 39.377 
220 952 110 2859 660 2725241 8173881 629330 0.0006 1.000 4.58 4.58 41.884 
230 971 129 2906 690 2815434 8444836 668690 0.0006 1.000 3.99 3.99 39.703 
240 983 141 2954 720 2909130 8726116 709250 0.0007 1.000 3.77 3.77 38.267 
250 1000 158       1.000 3.54 3.54  
         
 353
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech ? 
full preheat  - test 2 
Ignition 
Time 841      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10        
20      
30        
40      
50        
60      
70        
80 847 0     1.000 21.03 21.03  
90 848 1 2545 270 2159013 6477025 229080 0.0064 1.000 18.88 18.88 12.472 
100 850 3 2550 300 2167508 6502500 255040 0.0050 1.000 16.73 16.73 14.142 
110 852 5 2555 330 2176013 6528025 281080 0.0064 1.000 15.06 15.06 12.472 
120 853 6 2564 360 2191394 6574096 307750 0.0024 1.000 13.89 13.89 20.237 
130 859 12 2575 390 2210259 6630625 334850 0.0020 1.000 12.71 12.71 22.509 
140 863 16 2589 420 2234339 6702921 362540 0.0025 1.000 11.59 11.59 20.000 
150 867 20 2604 450 2260334 6780816 390710 0.0018 1.000 10.48 10.48 23.741 
160 874 27 2622 480 2291726 6874884 419660 0.0014 1.000 9.39 9.39 26.458 
170 881 34 2647 510 2335701 7006609 450170 0.0011 1.000 8.33 8.33 30.246 
180 892 45 2677 540 2389041 7166329 482090 0.0009 1.000 7.27 7.27 33.922 
190 904 57 2709 570 2446449 7338681 514920 0.0009 1.000 6.55 6.55 32.514 
200 913 66 2741 600 2504561 7513081 548400 0.0010 1.000 5.83 5.83 31.675 
210 924 77 2770 630 2557834 7672900 581900 0.0010 1.000 5.17 5.17 31.675 
220 933 86 2804 660 2621074 7862416 617110 0.0009 1.000 4.58 4.58 34.178 
230 947 100 2847 690 2702387 8105409 655150 0.0006 1.000 3.99 3.99 41.445 
240 967 120 2895 720 2794259 8381025 695140 0.0006 1.000 3.77 3.77 41.445 
250 981 134 2944 750 2889466 8667136 736290 0.0007 1.000 3.54 3.54 38.086 
260 996 149 2992 780 2984602 8952064 778260 0.0006 1.000 3.29 3.29 41.326 
270 1015 168 3045 810 3091397 9272025 822530 0.0005 1.000 3.29 3.29 43.589 
 354
280 1034 187 3112 835 3229350 9684544 866525 0.0003 1.000 2.89 2.89 57.647 
285 1063 216       1.000 2.89 2.89  
         
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech ? 
full preheat  - test 3 
Ignition 
Time 848      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10 0 0      
20 0      
30 0 0      
40 0      
50 0 0      
60 0      
70 0 0      
80 0      
90 0 0      
100 0 0      
110 848 0 1704 330 1450984 2901912 195940 0.0000 1.000 15.06 15.06 237.777 
120 855.5 7.5 2567 360 2195753 6586922 308130 0.0013 1.000 13.89 13.89 27.386 
130 863 15 2584 390 2224874 6674472 335950 0.0019 1.000 12.71 12.71 22.980 
140 865 17 2606 420 2263878 6791236 364990 0.0011 1.000 11.59 11.59 29.740 
150 878 30 2631 450 2307653 6922161 394880 0.0009 1.000 10.48 10.48 34.008 
160 888 40 2666 480 2369428 7107556 426780 0.0009 1.000 9.39 9.39 33.212 
170 900 52 2704 510 2437600 7311616 459960 0.0007 1.000 8.33 8.33 37.544 
180 916 68 2754 540 2528900 7584516 496100 0.0005 1.000 7.27 7.27 43.770 
190 938 90 2808 570 2629016 7884864 533900 0.0005 1.000 6.55 6.55 43.770 
200 954 106 2872 600 2750360 8248384 574820 0.0005 1.000 5.83 5.83 46.257 
210 980 132 2943 630 2888597 8661249 618580 0.0004 1.000 5.17 5.17 52.466 
220 1009 161 3021 660 3043505 9126441 665140 0.0004 1.000 4.58 4.58 51.103 
 355
230 1032 184 3083 690 3168869 9504889 709420 0.0006 1.000 3.99 3.99 41.658 
240 1042 194 3137 720 3280757 9840769 753190 0.0006 1.000 3.77 3.77 40.188 
250 1063 215 3196 750 3406014 10214416 799490 0.0004 1.000 3.54 3.54 49.666
260 1091 243 3288 775 3606206 10810944 849920 0.0002 1.000 3.29 3.29 70.137 
265 1134 286       1.000 3.29 3.29  
         
Flame Front 
Position x 
Time to 
position x    
t (s) 
time 
from 
ignition 
?t ?x ?(t
2
) ?(t)
2
 ?(t.x) V
f
 F(t) 
"
.
.
e
q  )(.
"
.
.
tFq
e
 
1/?V
f
 
RIFT ? Beech ? 
full preheat  - test 4 
Ignition 
Time 841      m/s  kW/m
2
  (m/s)
-0.5 
10      33.88  
20       
30       
40       
50       
60       
70             
80
90             
100 847 0 1696 300 1438210 2876416 178090 0.0000 1.000 16.73 16.73 237.628 
110 849 2 2547 330 2162411 6487209 280210 0.0050 1.000 15.06 15.06 14.142 
120 851 4 2553 360 2172611 6517809 306400 0.0050 1.000 13.89 13.89 14.142 
130 853 6 2565 390 2193131 6579225 333550 0.0018 1.000 12.71 12.71 23.664 
140 861 14 2587 420 2231059 6692569 362380 0.0010 1.000 11.59 11.59 31.833 
150 873 26 2615 450 2279611 6838225 392450 0.0010 1.000 10.48 10.48 31.833 
160 881 34 2649 480 2339315 7017201 424060 0.0009 1.000 9.39 9.39 33.575 
170 895 48 2685 510 2403467 7209225 456730 0.0007 1.000 8.33 8.33 37.417 
180 909 62 2731 540 2486635 7458361 491900 0.0006 1.000 7.27 7.27 40.104 
190 927 80 2783 570 2582419 7745089 529150 0.0005 1.000 6.55 6.55 43.609 
200 947 100 2849 600 2706763 8116801 570280 0.0004 1.000 5.83 5.83 49.216 
210 975 128 2918 630 2839450 8514724 613270 0.0004 1.000 5.17 5.17 49.666 
 356
220 996 149 2997 660 2995317 8982009 659850 0.0004 1.000 4.58 4.58 50.759 
230 1026 179 3073 690 3149293 9443329 707340 0.0004 1.000 3.99 3.99 52.513 
240 1051 204 3152 720 3312902 9935104 756970 0.0004 1.000 3.77 3.77 49.501 
250 1075 228 3225 750 3468027 10400625 806730 0.0004 1.000 3.54 3.54 48.990
260 1099 252      1.000 3.29 3.29  
 357
Appendix 5   Comparison with published results in the literature 
 
Plywood Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
Radiata Pine ISO ISO 5657 17 13.75 4.6 0.048 432 352 0.041 0.93  
Radiata Pine LIFT LIFT 17 16.25 7.2 0.058 293 391 0.044 0.71  
Radiata Pine RIFT RIFT 17 16.25 9.9 0.061 273 391 0.043 0.66  
            
Radiata Pine Ngu, CK. 2002 ISO 5657 20 12.00 7.2 0.034 870 321 0.040 1.76  
Birch 9-ply Azhakesan et al 1998 Cone  10.7 0.0387 655 386  0.526 
            
Birch faced Jianmin, 1990 Cone 9 14 0.051 383 389 0.8106 
"Ordinary" 
plywood 
Nisted, 1991 LIFT 12 16.3  0.0369 733 392  1.7871  
            
Japanese plywood 
- 8.1% MC 
Fangrat et al, 1996 Cone 18  11.5   328 0.038 0.762 Janssens correlation 
Japanese plywood 
-7.7%MC 
Fangrat et al, 1996 Cone 12  7.8   264 0.033 1.157 Janssens correlation 
Japanese plywood 
- 8.2%MC 
Fangrat et al, 1996 Cone 9  8.5   277 0.039 1.057 Janssens correlation 
Japanese plywood 
- 8.2%MC 
Fangrat et al, 1996 Cone 5.5  9.6   298 0.036 0.877 Janssens correlation 
US plywood Fangrat et al, 1996 Cone 11.2  14.5   372 0.028 0.334 Janssens correlation 
Douglas fir (NIST) Fowell 1993  LIFT unspecified 14.7  0.0343 851 372  1.89 
Douglas fir (UL) Fowell 1993  LIFT unspecified 17.5  0.0383 681 408  1.77 
Douglas fir  
(Safety eng lab) 
Fowell 1993  LIFT unspecified 17.0  0.032 974 402  2.51 
Round robin test ? all 
Fowell?s results used 
the same material but 
tested at different labs. 
 358
Douglas fir 
(NRCC) 
Fowell 1993  LIFT unspecified 14.0  0.0337 880 363  1.86 LIFT protocol used for 
results. 
Douglas fir Dietenberger, 1995 ( c) LIFT 6.55 17 12.1 0.095  335 0.048  Modified protocol & 
Janssens correlation 
Douglas fir Dietenberger, 1995 (a) Unspecified unspecified     336  0.254  
Douglas fir -5 
layers 
Grexa, White and 
Dietenberger, 1996 
Cone 11.5  13.6 355 0.036 0.236 Janssens correlation 
Douglas fir -3 
layers 
Grexa, White and 
Dietenberger, 1996 
Cone 12  15.2   369 0.037 0.194 Janssens correlation 
Oak veneer ply - 5 
layers 
Grexa, White and 
Dietenberger, 1996 
Cone 13  8.9   279 0.030 0.465 Janssens correlation 
            
unspecified Quintiere & Harkleroad, 
1983 
LIFT 6.3-12.7 16    390  0.46-0.54  
            
MDF Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
"Customwood" 
MDF 
ISO ISO 5657 18 16.25 15.2 0.053 432 352 0.044 0.86  
"Customwood" 
MDF 
LIFT LIFT 18 16.25 14.7 0.047 293 391 0.044 1.10  
"Customwood" 
MDF 
RIFT RIFT 18 16.25 15.6 0.053 273 391 0.043 0.86  
 Ngu, CK. 2002 ISO 5657 20 13.50 12.9 0.043 870 348 0.039 1.04  
 Asakasan etal 1998 Cone unspecified  7.7 0.046 486 334  0.238  
 Cleary & Quintiere, 
1991 
Unspecified unspecified     361 0.732
 Henderson, A. 1998 Cone unspecified  1.6   330  1.377  
            
            
 359
Melteca faced 
MDF 
Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
 ISO ISO 5657 18 18.75 2.58 0.043 542 425 0.046 1.47  
 LIFT LIFT 18 20.00 6.44 0.042 560 440 0.045 1.47  
 RIFT RIFT 18 21.25 -      1.06 0.051 382 454 0.047 1.07  
            
Melteca faced 
particle board 
Source 
Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
)) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
"Regal" brand 
shelving 
ISO ISO 5657 
18 18.75 2.00 0.044 512 425 0.044 1.27 
 
"Regal" brand 
shelving 
RIFT RIFT 
18 23.75 10.1 0.057 308 478 0.050 0.97 
 
   
        
 
  
 Asakasan etal 1998 Cone unspecified  16.6 0.0402 576 463  0.575  
 Cleary & Quintiere, 
1991 
LIFT unspecified    483 0.804
            
Hardboard Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
 ISO ISO 5657 5 11.25 0.59 0.033 944 307 0.039 1.83  
 LIFT LIFT 5 17.50 2.17 0.052 375 409 0.043 0.88 
 RIFT RIFT 11.25 2.57 0.03 977 307 0.037 1.67 
            
 Azhakesan et al 1998 Cone unspecified  11.1 0.0384 665 392  0.629  
 Dietenberger, 1995 (b) Cone 6  16.5   393 0.0389 0.277  
 Dietenberger 1995 (a Cone unspecified   281 0.763
 Quintiere & Harkleroad, 
1984  
LIFT 6.35 10    298  1.87  
 360
 Quintiere & Harkleroad, 
1984  
LIFT 3.2 14    365  0.88  
            
NZ Beech Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
 ISO ISO 5657 16 18.00 11.83 0.053 355 415 0.043 0.85 
 LIFT LIFT 16 18.75 9.24 0.050 395 425 0.044 0.98  
 RIFT RIFT 16 18.75 12.77 0.034 844 425 0.046 2.30 
 Ngu, CK. 2002 ISO 
5657 
20 12.00 11.14 0.025 1618 321.33 0.040 3.27  
US Beech Grexa, White 
Dietenberger, 1996 
Cone 15  13.7   358 0.0358 0.508  
            
Radiata Pine 
(Monterey Pine) 
Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
 ISO ISO 
5657 
16 16.25 12.01 0.039 643 391 0.043 1.54  
 LIFT LIFT 16 18.75 9.71 0.054 341 425 0.046 0.92 
 RIFT RIFT 16 18.75 10.93 0.043 531 425 0.046 1.45  
            
 Ngu, CK. 2002 ISO 
5657 
20 15.50 7.78 0.047 460 380.17 0.043 1.08  
15% moisture 
content 
Moghtaderi, B et al. 
1997 
Cone unspecified       0.269 In Babrauskas 2003 
11% moisture 
content 
Henderson, A. 1998 Cone unspecified  10.8   340  0.593  
 361
Rimu Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
 ISO ISO 
5657 
16 18.00 12.75 0.050 397 415 0.045 1.03  
 LIFT LIFT 16 18.50 9.62 0.050 395 422 0.046 1.06 
 RIFT RIFT 16 21.25 13.88 0.047 462 454 0.049 1.41  
            
 Ngu, CK. 2002 ISO 
5657 
20 13.50 7.52 0.033 893 348 0.041 1.93  
10% MC Henderson, A. 1998 Cone   10.4   355  0.548 In Babrauskas 2003 
Heart - 10%MC Henderson, A. 1998 Cone   12.6   355  0.548 In Babrauskas 2003 
            
Macrocarpa Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C)
)
 h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
 ISO ISO 
5657 
16 18.00 15.16 0.048 436 415 0.045 1.13  
 LIFT LIFT 16 18.75 14.68 0.059 288 425 0.046 0.78 
 RIFT RIFT 16 18.75 15.57 0.056 325 425 0.046 0.89  
 Ngu, CK. 2002 ISO 
5657 
20 15.50 12.89 0.055 337 380 0.043 0.79  
 Henderson, A. 1998 Cone   11.1   402  0.376
            
Particle board Source Test Thickness 
(mm) 
"
min,
.
ig
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
"
.
crit
q  
(kW/m
2
) 
b  (s
-0.5
) t* (s) T
ig 
(?C) h 
(kW/m
2
K) 
kpc 
((kW/m
2
k
2
)
2
 
 
Pynefloor Rad. 
Pine flooring PB 
Pynefloor ISO 5657 ISO 
5657 
20 13.75 3.5 0.036 755 352 0.041 1.64  
Pynefloor Rad. 
Pine flooring PB 
Pynefloor LIFT LIFT 20 18.75 1.7 0.051 386 425 0.044 0.96  
Pynefloor Rad. 
Pine flooring PB 
Pynefloor RIFT RIFT 20 21.25 4.3 0.063 250 454 0.047 0.70  
           
 362
Superflake PB Superflake ISO ISO 5657 20 13.75 3.44 0.032 934 352 0.042 2.10  
Superflake PB Superflake RIFT RIFT 20 18.75 5.2 0.051 389 425 0.046 1.05  
 Dietenberger and 
Grexa, 1999 
cone      257  1.09 
7% MC - species 
unspecified 
Janssens M, 1992 LIFT 13 20    422 0.0431 0.277 In Babrauskas 2003 
Douglas fir Quintiere & Harkleroad, 
1984 
LIFT 12.7 16    382  0.94  
Douglas Fir Dillon, S & Hamins, A. 
2003 
LIFT 12.8 16       In Babrauskas 2003 
 Babrauskas and
Wetterlund (1999), 
LIFT 19 10  0.0346 836 319 0.0338 1.215  
 Cleary & Quintiere. 
1991 
Unspecified Unspecified     405  0.626  
 Dietenberger, 1995 (a) Unspecified Unspecified     529.7  1.09  
"US particle 
board" 7.1% MC 
Fangrat et al, 1996 Cone 12.9  3   145 0.02751 1.8