2011Journal of Testing and EvaluationRequires access

Precision of the Cone Calorimeter and ICAL Test Methods

Joe Urbas, John R. Hall, M. R. Mitchell, R. E. Link

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Repeatability and reproducibility are typically determined for standard fire test methods on the basis of an interlaboratory test program (round-robin) to define their precision. Significant differences in precision were found in the past between the repeatability and reproducibility of small-scale and intermediate- and large-scale fire test methods that all utilize oxygen calorimetry to measure heat release rate. Repeatability of heat release rate related measurements with small-scale apparatus has been found to be significantly better than the repeatability of the intermediate and large-scale apparatuses. In this paper, the results of two round-robins are compared on the basis of relative repeatability standard deviations and relative reproducibility standard deviations calculated for individual materials for individual test parameters. The first one was a cone calorimeter round-robin and the second was an intermediate-scale calorimeter (ICAL) round-robin. The objective and subjective factors that might have contributed to the differences between the two test methods in both repeatability and reproducibility were analyzed. The most important factors that caused the differences in the ICAL round-robin were higher theoretical uncertainty of the ICAL, inadequate pre-round-robin calibrations, the small numbers of participating laboratories and samples tested, prevalence of fire-retardant-treated materials, and possible failure of some of the laboratories to fully comply with the standard. These factors, especially the fact that the testing procedures and apparatuses in the participating laboratories may not have been in complete accordance with the standards, indicate that the results of the round-robins did not reflect the real precision of the test methods. However, the terminology using the two components of precision, repeatability and reproducibility, is maintained in this paper except where a specific distinction is noted. Recommendations are made on how to improve the results of future fire test round-robins.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Repeatability and reproducibility are typically determined for standard fire test methods on the basis of an interlaboratory test program (round-robin) to define their precision. Significant differences in precision were found in the past between the repeatability and reproducibility of small-scale and intermediate- and large-scale fire test methods that all utilize oxygen calorimetry to measure heat release rate. Repeatability of heat release rate related measurements with small-scale apparatus has been found to be significantly better than the repeatability of the intermediate and large-scale apparatuses. In this paper, the results of two round-robins are compared on the basis of relative repeatability standard deviations and relative reproducibility standard deviations calculated for individual materials for individual test parameters. The first one was a cone calorimeter round-robin and the second was an intermediate-scale calorimeter (ICAL) round-robin. The objective and subjective factors that might have contributed to the differences between the two test methods in both repeatability and reproducibility were analyzed. The most important factors that caused the differences in the ICAL round-robin were higher theoretical uncertainty of the ICAL, inadequate pre-round-robin calibrations, the small numbers of participating laboratories and samples tested, prevalence of fire-retardant-treated materials, and possible failure of some of the laboratories to fully comply with the standard. These factors, especially the fact that the testing procedures and apparatuses in the participating laboratories may not have been in complete accordance with the standards, indicate that the results of the round-robins did not reflect the real precision of the test methods. However, the terminology using the two components of precision, repeatability and reproducibility, is maintained in this paper except where a specific distinction is noted. Recommendations are made on how to improve the results of future fire test round-robins.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Repeatability and reproducibility are typically determined for standard fire test methods on the basis of an interlaboratory test program (round-robin) to define their precision. Significant differences in precision were found in the past between the repeatability and reproducibility of small-scale and intermediate- and large-scale fire test methods that all utilize oxygen calorimetry to measure heat release rate. Repeatability of heat release rate related measurements with small-scale apparatus has been found to be significantly better than the repeatability of the intermediate and large-scale apparatuses. In this paper, the results of two round-robins are compared on the basis of relative repeatability standard deviations and relative reproducibility standard deviations calculated for individual materials for individual test parameters. The first one was a cone calorimeter round-robin and the second was an intermediate-scale calorimeter (ICAL) round-robin. The objective and subjective factors that might have contributed to the differences between the two test methods in both repeatability and reproducibility were analyzed. The most important factors that caused the differences in the ICAL round-robin were higher theoretical uncertainty of the ICAL, inadequate pre-round-robin calibrations, the small numbers of participating laboratories and samples tested, prevalence of fire-retardant-treated materials, and possible failure of some of the laboratories to fully comply with the standard. These factors, especially the fact that the testing procedures and apparatuses in the participating laboratories may not have been in complete accordance with the standards, indicate that the results of the round-robins did not reflect the real precision of the test methods. However, the terminology using the two components of precision, repeatability and reproducibility, is maintained in this paper except where a specific distinction is noted. Recommendations are made on how to improve the results of future fire test round-robins.

Key concepts: Repeatability, Reproducibility, Round robin test, Cone calorimeter, Calorimeter (particle physics), Standard deviation, Scale (ratio), Mathematics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Precision of the Cone Calorimeter and ICAL Test Methods — Research Paper | ScholarLens