# IFR curtain FAILS flame test



## faroseman (Sep 21, 2010)

I have looked through the forums and have not seen a similar problem. I have a main curtain and valence that are IFR (Inherently Flame Resistant). They were purchased and installed in 2007. Three years later they have FAILED the flame test. Has anyone had a similar issue? Obviously I am going to contact the manufacturer and demand that they solve the problem. My understanding is that the material will not hold standard flameproofing because of the tight weave, etc. It sounds like the only solution is replacement.

I have seen great things said about IFR in the forums, and I myself was quick to jump on the bandwagon. Who wouldn't want to get rid of all that nasty spraying and record-keeping? Now I am wondering when the rest of my IFR curtains will fail.


----------



## MNicolai (Sep 21, 2010)

Find the manufacturer and give them a call. First, understand a few things. If the wrong fabric was installed for the wrong purpose, that's not on them -- that's on your installer. Also, IFR status doesn't mean your AHJ has to approve its use. IFR just means that the fabric, in an untreated state, will cease to burn once an ignition source has been removed. There are other factors that might cause your AHJ to have problems with it, such as smoke production, or as is most often the case, when aflame, the material melts and drips down -- something that can cause serious burns to anyone the molten fabric might drip onto.

Another piece of the puzzle to consider is that in field tests, some materials do not perform very well but in large-scale NFPA tests the materials do reveal their inability to maintain a flame. This was the case with some muslin I bought from Rose Brand earlier this year. That specific fabric performed _horribly_ in the field test, but with the sample I also gave my AHJ the documentation signed by the NFPA that specifically states while that material appears to perform poorly in field tests, their larger-scale tests in NFPA labs showed that the materials were actually IFR, despite what the field tests showed. If such a document exists for your material, the manufacturer will be able to provide it.


----------



## faroseman (Sep 25, 2010)

MNicolai said:


> Find the manufacturer and give them a call. First, understand a few things. If the wrong fabric was installed for the wrong purpose, that's not on them -- that's on your installer. Also, IFR status doesn't mean your AHJ has to approve its use. IFR just means that the fabric, in an untreated state, will cease to burn once an ignition source has been removed. There are other factors that might cause your AHJ to have problems with it, such as smoke production, or as is most often the case, when aflame, the material melts and drips down -- something that can cause serious burns to anyone the molten fabric might drip onto.
> 
> Another piece of the puzzle to consider is that in field tests, some materials do not perform very well but in large-scale NFPA tests the materials do reveal their inability to maintain a flame. This was the case with some muslin I bought from Rose Brand earlier this year. That specific fabric performed _horribly_ in the field test, but with the sample I also gave my AHJ the documentation signed by the NFPA that specifically states while that material appears to perform poorly in field tests, their larger-scale tests in NFPA labs showed that the materials were actually IFR, despite what the field tests showed. If such a document exists for your material, the manufacturer will be able to provide it.


 I was the installer, and I'm not sure how this could be a case of "the wrong fabric for the wrong purpose". It's a curtain. It's not supposed to catch on fire. It does. And as I told the company that sold me the drape, I don't care if it doesn't burn in a lab -- I work in a theater, and it seems to burn very nicely in my theater, thank you.

I would like to hear from others who have had similar issues with IFR materials.


----------



## headcrab (Sep 25, 2010)

It seems the manufacturers should learn the philosophy of "test for the application." How many theatres have a controlled lab environment on stage?

Of course this is the ideal scenario and is unlikely to happen with most companies.


----------



## MNicolai (Sep 25, 2010)

No need to be snarky. You sounded like an end-user having problems, and if that were the case, the natural person/group for them to speak to is the installer. Given that you _are_ the installer, the next highest place on the food chain for grievances is the manufacturer.

It's not really a matter of lab versus field, it's a difference in the test that's applied. The NFPA 705 recommended field test only calls for a 1/2" by 4" rectangle as the sample size, while the NFPA 701 (1989 ed.) test calls for 12" by full width, as does the Boston Fire Department IX-1 test. The documentation Rose Brand has on the issue states:


> Due to the lightness of this fabric, however, its behavior in the NFPA 70 (1997 or later) Field Test Method for Textiles may lead the observer to conclude that the fabric is not flame resistant. As per the NFPA, lab test results demonstrate a truer measure of the flame resistance of the fabric than the field test.
> 
> Full Document



The above document also discusses that while it is IFR, accumulated dust on the fabric may become a hazard. The solution is to rinse the fabric with cold water, a gentle detergent, and allow it to air dry.

Now the above is for my fabric. The 1999 revision of the NFPA 701 test calls for an 18" x full width test plus the use of weights on edges of the fabric to keep it taught.

Consider that in an NFPA 705 field test, the sample size is so small, that some materials fail because they do not extinguish the flame fast enough, making it look like the entire sample went up like a tinder box. Larger tests leave none of this to theory and show on a practical scale whether or not the material is capable of self-extinguishing.

A Live Design article on the matter also brings up some other important points:


> “The devil is in the details” is a cliché, but it's true with the standards commonly used to assess the flammability of scenery: NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films, and NFPA 705, Recommended Practice for a Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films. The two tests are sometimes used on the same piece of scenery, but they can give different results with inherently flame-retardant fabrics. Figuring out how the standards can be changed for more consistency is one of the main agenda items for the Flame Resistance Task Group, part of ESTA's Technical Standards Program. A look at the details of the tests and how they are conducted shows lots of places for lurking demons.
> 
> NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films, and NFPA 705, Recommended Practice for a Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films, are both tests that give pass/fail results with materials based on how much or how readily they burn. NFPA 701 is a laboratory test and is referenced by NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code, which says that, in an assembly occupancy, “combustible scenery of cloth, film, vegetation (dry), and similar materials shall meet the requirements of NFPA 701…”
> 
> ...



The point is, the problem might not be the fabric, but the test. If you can offer a larger sample size (possibly courtesy of the manufacturer) to your fire marshal for a larger test, you can try that. You should also be able to get the manufacturer to provide documentation showing which tests the fabric you purchased should be able to pass.

If they cannot provide documentation to you, then you shouldn't purchase from them in the future.


----------

