The Intersection of Research and Standards€¦ · FTA / Safety Model Characteristics FTA, Fault...

© Copyright 2018 Underwriters Laboratories Inc, All rights reserved. © Copyright 2018 Underwriters Laboratories Inc, All rights reserved.

The Intersection of Research

and Standards

SES Webinar 17 October 2018

J. Thomas Chapin, Ph.D.

Vice President Research

UL Corporate Fellow

© Copyright 2018 Underwriters Laboratories Inc, All rights reserved.

Outline of Presentation

• Introduction to UL

• Public Safety Challenges

• UL Research Platform

• Case Studies

• Q&A

1


UL Corporate Structure

UL Not-for-Profit(Underwriters Laboratories)

ResearchStandardsEducation Outreach

UL Commercial(UL LLC)

Development, Testing, Inspection, Certification,

Surveillance,Software,

Advisory Services

UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 20182


Global Drivers for Safety Research

3

Global Population Growth and

Demographic Change

Economic Development

Urban Planning

Natural Resources

Energy Demand

Environmental Impact

HealthcareFood & Nutrition

Aging

Education & Outreach

ICT/Cybersecurity

Technology


UL Commercial & Public Safety Relationships

Manufacturer- Senior Mgmt.

- Design

- Manufacturing

- Quality

- Marketing/Sales

Authorities/Regulators,

Research Laboratories- Code Officials

- Inspectors

- Fire Services

- CPSC / OSHA / EPA

- National Labs

- Universities/Academia

Intermediate Channels- Wholesalers

- Importers / Exporters

• Distributors

Insurance

Companies

Consumers/General Public

Retailers

Components

Raw Materials

4

UL - Independent Standards,

Testing, Certification Organization


Public Safety Challenges:

the Evolving Definition of Safety

5

+ +


UL Research Platform

6


University research

partners

Government

research partners

Industry research

partners

Other research

partners

Organization Structure: Global platform for world-class safety research

Modeling

Physics &

Electrical Safety

Fire Research

Materials Science

NFP Firefighter

Safety Institute

Center of Excellence (CoE) is a combination of expert staff, equipment and

facilities in a strategic global locations with a defined research focus. CoE’s

collaborate across geographic and technical boundaries creating a global

platform for accelerated knowledge generation and discovery

7


UL Research & Development Activities

➢ Conduct Fundamental Safety Science Research

➢ Evaluate Emerging Technologies

➢ Develop Test Methods and Revise Standards

➢ Advance Predictive Analysis and Modeling

➢ Develop Education, Training, Outreach Programs

8


Materials Research - Creating a Reliable Infrastructure

Materials

• Chemicals

• Plastics

• Wood

• Fibers

• Minerals

• Metals, alloys

Components

• Connectors

• Enclosures

• Laminated beams

• Composite boards

• Wiring

• Insulated boards

• Textiles

Real-scale simulations

Field Tests (performance)

Reliability studies

First responder safety

Electrical safety

Code compliance

Environmental compliance

Small-scale tests

Materials

characterization

Performance

Aging/Reliability

Intermediate-scale

Safety

Performance

Aging/Service life

Modeling

Systems

• Lighting

• HVAC

• Energy

• Telecom

• Furnishings

• Wall/Roof systems

• Security

Products

• Electronics

• Appliances

• Trusses

• Furniture

• Wire & Cable

• Air conditioners

• Furnaces

• Lights

Structures

• Residential

• Commercial

• Retail

• High Rise

• Industrial

9


UL Analytical (Forensic) Capabilities

CT Scanning System

Field Emission SEM/

EDS Microprobe

FTIR-Microscope

Pyrolysis GC-MS

TGA-MS/IR, mTGA

DSC

DMA

PDSC

10


Electrical Research: Small Issues Lead to Big Ones

Small phenomena

occur, such as

overheating, arcing,

harmonics, etc…

…Leading to corrosion,

aging, failure, etc. Then

interactions occur

eventually leading to

system-wide failure…

…leads to

deaths,

injuries,

property loss.

Prevention:

• Understand

the science

• Understand

failure mode

interactions.

• ID key points

for mitigation

• Address via

standards,

regulations,

training, etc.

11


PV Standards … materials, components, products

Materials Components Products System Installation

12


Padova/Italy, 2009

Roof: 1,400 m2

System: 100 kW

Partial shading

13


Upholstered Furniture Flammability – Test Scale

14

material-level tests

mock-up tests

furniture tests

Living room flashover tests

(Phase II)

Tenability and survivability tests

(Phase III)

Phase I


Safety Science Research Assessments

15


Mitigating Fire Risks

v Safety in Design

v Product

Certification

v Construction

codes

v Maintenance and

housekeeping

Precipitating

Hazard

Ignition

Sources

Fuels

Enabling

Hazards

Vulnerability

HazardFire Impact

PREVENTING THE FIRE MANAGING THE FIRE EVENT

v Intentional

v Human error

v Equipment

malfunction

v Chemical

reaction

v Internal sources

v External sources

v Combustible

items

v Additional

combustible

materials

(furnishings, interior

finish, etc.)

v Fire and smoke

paths through

building structure

v Fire spread to

adjoining areas

v Smoke spread

v Blocked agress

paths

v Fire spread to

adjoing buildings

Fire growth

control

Life safety

and

property

protection

Fire

mitigation

v Injuries/

fatalities

v Property

Loss

v Reduced oxygen

environment

v Aspirated gas

and smoke

detection

v Fire

extinguishment

systems

v Fire resistance

v Fire containment

v Egress paths

v Designated safe

zones

v Firefighter access

v Emergency

service response

v Search and

rescue

Ignition

Event

Preventive

measures

Tools

Strategy

NFPA 55016


Hazard-Based Safety Engineering

Hazardous

Source

Transfer

Mechanism

Harm

HBSE Premise

No

No

IDENTIFY ENERGY

SOURCE

IS SOURCE

HAZARDOUS?

IDENTIFY MEANS BY WHICH

ENERGY CAN BE

TRANSFERRED TO A BODY PART

DESIGN SAFEGUARD WHICH

WILL PREVENT ENERGY

TRANSFER TO A BODY PART

MEASURE SAFEGUARD

EFFECTIVENESS

IS SAFEGUARD

EFFECTIVE?

DONE

Yes

Yes

HBSE Process

ENERGY TRANSFER

INJURY

AND

INADEQUATE

PERSONAL

SAFEGUARD

PERSONAL

SAFEGUARD

FAILURE

NO

PERSONAL

SAFEGUARD

OR

INADEQUATE

PERSONAL

AVOIDANCE

AVOIDANCE

NOT

POSSIBLE

AVOIDANCE

NOT

ATTEMPTED

OR

BODILY

EXPOSURE

AND

INADEQUATE

EQUIPMENT

SAFEGUARD

EQUIPMENT

SAFEGUARD

FAILURE

NO

EQUIPMENT

SAFEGUARD

OR

INADEQUATE

EQUIPMENT

SAFEGUARD

EQUIPMENT

SAFEGUARD

FAILURE

NO

EQUIPMENT

SAFEGUARD

OR

HAZARDOUS

ENERGY

AND

(EVENT)

OR

(EVENT)

OR

HBSE Standard Injury Fault Tree

Haz?

How?

Prot

how?

How

well?

HarmSource:

energy /

substance

Harmed

Part

17


Systematic Approach

• Define, Analyze, Validate, Test, Control

• Safety, Risk, Harm, Hazard

• Risk Management

• Analyze, Estimate, Evaluate, Reduce, Control

• Systems Engineering

• Subsystems, Components, Environment: interfaces / interactions

• Lifecycle: Design, Production, Assembly, Storage, Transport,

Installation, Use, Service, Disposal, etc.

• Disciplined Analysis: Harm, Hazard, Fault / Failure

• Means of Harm – root causes, conditions, events, mechanisms

• Means of Protection – focused on specific means of harm

– Identify, validate, control protective properties

– Maintain safety attributes: efficacy, durability, reliability

Risk

S

O

18


FTA Safety Model - Overview

Based on standard

format / guidelines

e.g., Fault Tree Handbook

US NRC, NASA, etc.

Example Fault Tree (overall view):

19


FTA / Safety Model Characteristics

FTA, Fault Tree Analysis

▪ Systematic, deductive (top-down), general specific

▪ Qualitative / quantitative … comparative

IN: Top event fault (what, how)

OUT: Root cause, contributing, precipitating or cascading conditions / events, and how to prevent or mitigate

FTA, Fault Tree Analysis Safety FTA Model

▪ Safety, not other functional aspects

▪ Model – necessarily broader than specific analysis

▪ Purpose / Intent – One size fits many

20


FMEA Safety Model - Overview

Based on standard

format / guidelines,

e.g., SAE J1739, etc.

(adapted for application)

Example FMEA (overall view):

21


FMEA / Safety Model Characteristics

FMEA, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

▪ Systematic, inductive (bottom-up), specific general

▪ Qualitative / quantitative … comparative

IN: Identify items (e.g., components, materials) and their functions in various conditions (e.g., operating. modes), and determine each failure mode

OUT: Potential effects, causes and protective means

FMEA Safety FMEA Model

▪ Safety, not other functional aspects

▪ Model – necessarily broader than specific analysis

▪ Purpose / Intent – One size fits many

22


Combining FTA and FMEA Principles

▪ Safety Analyses: systematic & robust

▪ Integrated FTA / FMEA Safety Models:

• Methodically analyze and reduce risk

• Complementary: more effective predictive modeling

• Scalable: simple to complex

• Identify / prioritize specific means of protection

• Prevent occurrence and/or mitigate severity

Mutual Benefits:

▪ Demonstrate Safety Improvements

▪ Tie Together Conducted Research

▪ Identify / Prioritize Future Research

23


Safety Science Research Projects

- Smoke Research

- Li Battery Research

24


What is “Smoke”?

Smoke Aggregation and Aging

Alarm Response Characteristics

Egress Time Analysis

Firefighter Exposure

Nuisance Alarm Criteria

UL Smoke Research – Particles, Gas-Phase Analysis

Revisions to UL 217 &

UL 268 Standards

25


Factors Driving UL Research Focus – Why?

Role of Building Contents and Materials:

• Increased quantities of combustibles in homes

• Increased percentage of imported goods (unknown chemistry)

• Increased usage of synthetic (vs natural) materials

• Regulatory actions on mattresses, upholstered furniture, bed clothing and furnishings

Smoke Detector Performance Gaps:

• Use (96% homes have alarms)

• Effectiveness (focus on faster developing fires and

smoldering fires, improved nuisance discrimination)

• Reliability (20% of installed alarms are inoperable)

26


Impact of Fire in Residential Buildings1

1USFA One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2011-2013), Volume 16, Issue 4 / June 2015

1. Annual estimate for 1,2 - family residential building

fires: 241,700

2. Human impact: 2,025 deaths, 8,400 injuries

3. Economic impact: $5.8B USD property loss

27


Major Causes of Residential Building Fires1


Cause Percentage

Cooking 35.0

Heating 16.2

Electrical Malfunction 8.4

Other intentional, careless 7.6

Open Flame 5.8

Intentional 5.8

28


Leading Areas of Fire Origin1


Area of Fire Origin Percentage

Kitchen 18.3

Bedrooms 12.7

Den, Family Room, Living Room, Lounge 6.7

Attic 5.7

Exterior Wall Surface 5.5

Laundry area 5.1

Garage, car port 5.0

29


Material Chemistry (Home Contents as Fuel)

• Natural materials - (cotton, wool, silk, wood, etc.) - Tend

to char on heating and retard decomposition)

• Synthetic materials - (polyolefins, acrylics, nylons,

polyesters, etc.) – Derived from crude oil and tend to

melt, drip and char on heating, higher heat of

combustion and heat release

• Blends (physical, chemical) - Exhibit a range of ignition

and burning behavior

• Additives and surface treatments - Alter decomposition,

and burning characteristics

30


UL Smoke Research Objectives

1. Characterize the chemistry, thermal decomposition and combustibility of materials found in residential structures.

2. Characterize smoke characteristics (gases, particles) for materials found in residential settings for both smoldering and flaming modes of combustion.

3. Develop recommendations for changes to the current smoke detector standard (UL 217).

31


Selection of Representative ProductsResidential Space Typical Products

Appliance wiring

Bed clothing

Candles

Carpeting

Drapes

Mattress

Paper products

Plastic enclosures for electrical products

Upholstered furniture

Wall paper

Wood furniture

Appliance enclosures

Appliance wiring

Cabinets

Cooking materials

Counter tops

Food containers

Foods

Wall paper

Paints

Fuels

Packaging materials

Bedroom and Living Room

Kitchen

Storage Areas

32


FTIR Analysis

Spectral transmission and absorption analysis

in the infra-red region (600 to 4000 cm-1)

provide a “finger print” for materials

Number of sample scans: 32

Number of background scans: 32 Resolution: 4.000 Sample gain: 8.0 Mirror velocity: 0.6329

Aperture: 100.00

Detector: DTGS KBr Beamsplitter: KBr Source: IR

Operator:

Underwriters Laboratories, 3019DFPD

Collection time: Thu Feb 03 09:28:31 2005 (GMT-06:00)

ABESCO

FC

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

%Transmittance

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Wavenumbers (cm-1)

FP200 FR EXPANDING (B1 PU) FOAM, 48 HR OPEN AIR CURE

05NK03894 DATA:R21538_020305_GG.SPA REF DATE:F02-03-05

33


Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC)

• Precise furnace temperature control

• Endo and exothermic characteristics

• Melting temperature, glass transition temperature

• 10 to 30 mg sample

Temperature (oC)

100 200 300 400 500

Heat F

low

(m

W)

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

34


Heat of Combustion, (Hc)

Oxygen bomb

calorimeter• Polyethylene

• Polyester

• Polyurethane

• Nylon

• Wood

• Plasticized PVC

• Rigid PVC

• Brick

• Parr Bomb Calorimeter, 1 mg sample

• High pressure, oxygen environment

• Heat of combustion of materials:

35


36

Cone Calorimetry

• Radiant heat flux to 100 kW/m2

• 100 x 100 mm sample

• Ignition

• Heat release

• Smoke release

• Weight loss

• Test Standards

- ASTM E1354

- ISO 5660

- NFPA 271

- CAN/ULC S-135

• Allows extraction of gases for smoke

and gas effluent analysis

• Data from Cone Calorimeter may be

employed in fire models such as FDS

36


Cone Calorimeter Data

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (s)

HR

R (

kW

/m²)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

We

igh

t F

ractio

n (

%)

HRR

Weight %

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (s)

SR

R (

m²/

s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

We

igh

t F

ractio

n (

%)

SRR

Weight %

Heat Release Rate

(HRR)

Smoke Release Rate

(SRR)

37


Sampling Method

N2dilution

FTIR

Every 15 s

Smoke Particle

Every 67 s

Calorimeter

38


Instrumentation: Smoke Particle Size

MSP Corporation Model WPS 1000XP

• 0.01 – 10 μm size range

- 0.01 – 0.5 μm (DMA)

- 0.35 – 10 μm (LPS)

- Calibration using NIST

traceable PS latex spheres

• Dynamic sampling and analysis

- 48 size ranges

- Measurements every 67 seconds

- Concentration limited to 2 × 107 particles/cc

39


Smoke Particle Analysis

PET Carpet

11

17

26

40

63

10

2

16

9

29

7

36

0

44

5

57

5

90

0 048

115182

249316

383450

517584

0.0E+00

2.6E+05

5.1E+05

7.7E+05

1.0E+06

1.3E+06

Pa

rticle

de

nsity

(1/c

c)

Particle Size (nm)

Time (s

)

40


Key Findings – Comparison of Flaming vs

Smoldering Combustion (Particulates)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Coo

king

oil

Bre

ad

New

spap

er

Dou

glas

fir

Pon

dero

sa p

ine

Cot

ton

batting

Cot

ton/

Polyes

ter b

lend

(fab

ric)

Ray

on (f

abric

)

HDPE

Nylon

car

pet

Polye

ster

car

pet

Polye

ster

fillin

g

PU fo

am

Polyiso

cyan

uara

te fo

am PVC

Me

an

Pa

rtic

le D

iam

ete

r (m

icro

n)

Flaming

Non-Flaming

UL 217 materials

41


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Coo

king

oil

Bre

ad

New

spap

er

Dou

glas

fir

Pon

dero

sa p

ine

Cot

ton

batting

Cot

ton/

Polyes

ter b

lend

(fab

ric)

Ray

on (f

abric

)

HDPE

Nylon

car

pet

Polye

ster

car

pet

Polye

ster

fillin

g

PU fo

am

Polyiso

cyan

uara

te fo

am PVC

Sp

ecific

Extin

ctio

n A

rea

(m

²/g

)

Flaming

Non-Flaming

UL 217 materials

Key Findings – Comparison of Flaming vs

Smoldering Combustion (Smoke)

42


Key Findings - Gas Analysis and Smoke

Characterization Measurement

Smoke Particle Aggregation - Tests conducted in

the UL 217 Sensitivity Test smoke box and the UL

217/UL 268 Fire Test Room indicate an

aggregation of smaller smoke particles to form

larger particles as evidenced by the increase in

smoke particle concentrations in conjunction with

increasing fractions of larger smoke particles. This

was more evident for non-flaming fires (smoldering)

than flaming fires.

43


Key Findings - Gas Analysis and Smoke

Characterization Measurement

Smoke Gas Effluent Composition - Gas effluent analysis

showed the dominant gas components were water vapor,

carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Water CO2 CO

SO2 NO2 Methane

Ammonia Phenol Styrene

Formaldehyde HCN Propane

HCl HF Ethylene

Acrylonitrile

44


Key Findings - Influence of Material Chemistry

• Combustion Behavior: Synthetic vs Natural Materials –

Cone calorimeter tests indicate synthetic materials (e.g.

polyethylene, polyester, nylon, polyurethane) generate

higher heat and smoke release rates than the natural

materials (e.g. wood, cotton batting). This is anticipated

to be primarily due to the modes of degradation and

chemical structure of synthetic versus natural materials.

• Charring Effects - Materials exhibiting charring behavior

such as wood alter the size and amount of smoke

particles generated as the combustion process

progresses.

45


Key Findings - UL 217/UL 268 Fire Test Room Tests

• Influence on Smoke Particle Size - In general, the

synthetic materials generated larger mean smoke

particle sizes than natural materials in flaming mode.

• Smoke Stratification - Non-flaming fires result in

changes in the smoke build up over time, such that

stratification of smoke below the ceiling occurs. This

time-dependent phenomenon results in less obscuration

at the ceiling than below the ceiling. This caused both

detection technologies to drift out of alarm.

46


Outcome of Smoke Characterization Research

1. UL Smoke Characterization Project has produced extensive

new knowledge about smoke characteristics.

2. Each material (or combination) as a unique “fingerprint”

composed of gases, particle chemistry and size distribution.

3. This “fingerprint” varies with the mode of ignition

(smoldering vs flaming).

4. The dominant factor of the smoke fingerprint is dictated by

chemical composition (polymer chemistry and additives).

5. Synthetic materials (derived from crude oil) tend to soften,

liquefy and decompose rapidly (depolymerize).

6. Natural materials (more complex composition) tend to char

and decompose in a more complex fashion.

7. Major changes to UL 217 were made from this research.

47


Evolution of Battery Technologies

2016

2005

2008

2010

48

1985

Batteries in end products require independent,

third party certification

• Formats: button, cylindrical, prismatic, pouch

• Laptops (Required)

• Cell Phone Batteries

• Appliances, Power Tools and Consumer Products

• Light EV Batteries and Systems

• Commercial / Industrial Transportation / EVs

• Stationary Batteries / Energy Storage

2018


Cell Failure and Internal Short Circuit Behavior

Dendrite

Process

Issue(s)

Mechanical

Abuse

Unstable

Design

Internal

Short-Circuit

Overcharge

Imbalance

DropCrush

Material

Properties

Impact

Shock / Vibration

Contamination

Burrs

Other (bad welds,

loose metal parts, etc.)

Severe

EnvironmentAbnormal

Pressure Abnormal

Temperature

Tab/electrode

misalignment

Improper

Separator

Over design

Handling

Use

ManufactureOperation

Design

49


Typical Localized Failure Mechanism in an ISC

Heating is triggered locally in the

beginning at ISC point. However, the

active material at the ISC point can

usually become less active due to the

electrochemical reaction

Active materials surrounding the ISC

point is still at high chemistry potential

that is more active while suffering a

over-heating propagating from the ISC

point

50


Thermal Decomposition of Cell Components

51

The full report is at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AIR1401.pdf

Boeing 787 Battery Functions

52

Main Battery

• Powers airplane systems before APU or engines start,

• Supports refueling and other ground requirements,

• Emergency power source for instruments and

electric braking systems.

Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Battery

• Power to start APU, back-up electrical

power in flight, and power on ground.

52 52


Three Boeing 787 Aircraft Incidents

53

Boston, Mass Takamatsu, Japan Narita, Japan

Date: January 7, 2013 January 16, 2013 January 14, 2014

Battery

version:

“-901” (original) “-901” (original) “-902” (redesign with

containment box)

In-flight or

on ground

Ground Flight Ground

Position APU Main Main

Airplane-

level result

Smoke in cabin in

unpowered airplane.

Thermal damage near

battery. One fire fighter

minor injury.

Precautionary

landing. Some

passengers smelled

the failure.

Venting of battery in

containment box was

vented overboard.

Battery-

level result

Venting propagated

through all 8 cells.

Venting propagated

through all 8 cells.

One cell vented. No

propagation.

Fleet grounded January 16 - April 26, 2013

Battery modifications and enclosures added for return to flight.

53 53


787 incident at Boston, January 7, 2013

54

• 14 Months after 787 introduced

• 3 Weeks after airplane delivered

• Airplane on ground with APU power

• Cleaning crew, mechanic, manager

• Smoke event for about 45 minutes

• Minor burn to one firefighter

• Normal access through floor

APU battery removed

Sketch by mechanic

who saw flame

54


NTSB Investigation Results

• Investigation complete and NTSB report is in public docket

• Multiple potential causes for cell internal short circuit

• 23 safety recommendations include: • To FAA: approach to new technology, certification process,

certification

• For designers: BMU monitoring, impact, adoption of industry

design standards, worst case testing/validation at aircraft level

• Future research needs: development of new design and

safety standards, cell isolation/mitigation, battery failure

impact on digital avionics

5555


Aviation Normal Flight Profile Assumed Risk

22% 61%

Source: Flight Safety Foundation

56


Aviation Risk Transporting Batteries

Time from Fire to Loss of Control:

17-19 Minutes

Source: Transport Canada

“Smoke on aircraft is more serious than an engine shutdown”

Capt. Bob Brown, IPA UPS Airlines

57


Mitigate Emerging Hazards

58


Summary and Conclusions

1. UL has a 124-year history of involvement in public safety

with research, testing, standards and surveillance

programs.

2. Public safety is a dynamically changing driven by

socioeconomic, technical and environmental challenges.

3. Discipled approaches exist (HBSE, FTA, FMEA) to

identify potential hazards by trained scientists and

engineers optimally organized in matrixed teams.

4. Exploring the “boundaries of safety” requires long-term

vision, expert staff, sophisticated equipment and facilities.

5. The reward of this journey is most often embodied in new

and revised standards, education and outreach programs.

59


THANK YOU

60

The Intersection of Research and Standards€¦ · FTA / Safety Model Characteristics FTA, Fault...

Documents

Transcript of The Intersection of Research and Standards€¦ · FTA / Safety Model Characteristics FTA, Fault...