BRE Test Report. Load and Slip Testing of 4 types of Paving Light and 1 Smoke Outlet Panels. Prepared for: Marc Parkinson. BRE Watford, Herts WD25 9XX

Transcription

1 BRE Test Report Load and Slip Testing of 4 types of Paving Light and 1 Smoke Outlet Panels Prepared for: Marc Parkinson Date: 14 March 2018 Report Number: P Issue: 1 BRE Watford, Herts WD25 9XX Customer Services From outside the UK: T + 44 (0) F + 44 (0) E enquiries@bre.co.uk Prepared for: Marc Parkinson Director New Age Glass Ltd Unit 4 Phoenix Business Centre Spur Road, Chichester West Sussex PO19 8PN

2 Prepared by Name Geoff Ashall Position Principal Consultant, Building Technology Group Date 14 March 2018 Signature Authorised by Name Dr Martyn Webb Position Principal Consultant, Building Technology Group Date 14 March 2018 Signature This report is made on behalf of Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE) and may only be distributed in its entirety, without amendment, and with attribution to BRE to the extent permitted by the terms and conditions of the contract. Test results relate only to the specimens tested. BRE has no responsibility for the design, materials, workmanship or performance of the product or specimens tested. This report does not constitute an approval, certification or endorsement of the product tested and no such claims should be made on websites, marketing materials, etc. Any reference to the results contained in this report should be accompanied by a copy of the full report, or a link to a copy of the full report. BRE s liability in respect of this report and reliance thereupon shall be as per the terms and conditions of contract with the client and BRE shall have no liability to third parties to the extent permitted in law. Page 1 of 38

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Test programme Ultimate load tests Slip tests 3 3 Load Test Details of the Test Programme 4 4 Load Test results NAG SG Smoke Outlet Panels Panel Panel Panel NAG P Pavement Light Panels Panel Panel Panel NAG P Pavement Light Panels Panel Panel Panel NAG P Pavement Light Panels Panel Panel Panel NAG P Pavement Light Panels Panel Panel Panel Slip Test Details of the Test Programme 28 6 Slip Test results NAG P Panel NAG PC Panel NAG P Panel Appendix A Technical Details of the panels 33 Page 2 of 38

4 1 Introduction Following instructions from Marc Parkinson (New Age Glass Ltd), BRE have completed a series of load tests on a 4 types of paving lights and one type of smoke outlet panels. The panels were delivered to BRE on the 5 th February The testing was carried out between 12/02/2018 and 26/02/2108. Mr Marc Parkinson and Mr Dan Brown (New Age Glass) witnessed the testing at BRE on the 13/02/2018. This report provides a factual account of the testing carried out. 2 Test programme BRE have carried out the following tests: 2.1 Ultimate load tests Ultimate load tests on 3 panels of each of the following: NAG - S smoke outlet panel NAG - P pavement light NAG - PC pavement light NAG - P pavement light NAG - P pavement light Technical details of each panel can be found in Appendix A of this report 2.2 Slip tests Slip testing following The Assessment of Floor Slip Resistance: The UK Slip Resistance Group Guidelines. Issue 4: 2011* Slip tests were carried out one panel of each of the following panels: NAG - P pavement light NAG - PC pavement light NAG - P pavement light *Please note BRE is UKAS accredited for these tests. Page 3 of 38

5 3 Load Test Details of the Test Programme BRE were instructed to undertake a series of load tests on four types of pavement light and one type of smoke outlet panel produced by New Age Glass, in order to determine the ultimate failure loads. Each test specimen was therefore installed into a custom-built load testing rig in the BRE Structures Laboratory. Each panel measured approximately 1200 mm square. The outer 100 mm perimeter of the panels were supported on 120 mm x 120 mm x 10 mm steel square hollow section (SHS) leaving the central 1000 mm square area of the panel unsupported (once the rounded shoulders of the SHS were taken into account). Figure 1 shows the test set up. Loading was applied to the test specimens using a 30 tonne hydraulic loading cylinder. A NCB. Type kN load cell (serial number 1678) was connected in series to the hydraulic cylinder in order to measure the applied force. The load was spread over a 300 mm square steel plate located at the centre of the pavement light or smoke outlet panel. For Panels 1,2,3 a stiffer load testing rig had to be built, and the panels were tested using a 935 kn jack and a NCB. Type 1000kN load cell (serial number 2149N). The displacement of the centre of the test panel under load was measured using a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT serial number 1521). This was positioned alongside the hydraulic loading cylinder and the measurement tip rested upon the steel spreader plate *see Figure 2). The applied load and displacement of the panel were both continuously monitored and recorded using a Schlumberger Scorpio data logging device (serial number IF ). Loading was applied to the panels via the spreader plate and gradually increased until failure occurred. These tests have been conducted in order to provide the Client with ultimate load data for the various panel types. There are therefore no performance criteria (i.e. pass/fail specifications) against which the panels are to be assessed. Page 4 of 38

6 Figure 1: Showing test set up Figure 2: Showing the position of the displacement transducer. Page 5 of 38

7 4 Load Test results Given below in Table 1 is a summary of the load test results further test details are given in subsequent sections. BRE Panel Number Date Tested Maximum sustained load (kn) Deflection at maximum load (mm) Comments 1 12/02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/2018 Table 1: Summary of the load testing Page 6 of 38

8 4.1 NAG SG Smoke Outlet Panels Table 2 summarises the results for this type of panel, BRE Panel Number Date Tested 4 12/02/ /02/ /02/2018 Maximum sustained load (kn) Deflection at maximum load (mm) Comments Table 2: Summary results for NAG SG Chart 1 shows the load deflection plots for Panels 4, 5 and 6 figures SG165 x 100 Test 04 Test 05 Test 06 Applied Load - kn Loading Plate Deflection -mm Chart 1: Load deflection plot for Panels 4, 5 and 6 Page 7 of 38

9 4.1.1 Panel 4 Figures 3 and 4 show the results of the testing. Figure 3: showing the top of Panel 4 after failure Figure 4: showing the underneath of Panel 4 after failure Page 8 of 38

10 4.1.2 Panel 5 Figures 5 and 6 show the results of the testing. Figure 5: Showing the top of Panel 5 after failure Figure 6: Showing the underneath of Panel 5 after failure Page 9 of 38

11 4.1.3 Panel 6 Figures 7 and 8 show the results of the testing. Figure 7: Showing the top of Panel 6 after failure Figure 8: Showing the underneath of Panel 6 after failure. Page 10 of 38

12 4.2 NAG P Pavement Light Panels Table 3 summarises the results for this type of panel, BRE Panel Number Date Tested 7 15/02/ /02/ /02/2018 Maximum sustained load (kn) Deflection at maximum load (mm) Comments Table 3: Summary results for NAG P Chart 2 shows the load deflection plots for Panels 7, 8 and P150 x 100 Test 07 Test 08 Test 09 Applied Load - kn Loading Plate Deflection -mm Chart 2: Load deflection plot for Panels 7, 8 and 9 Page 11 of 38

13 4.2.1 Panel 7 Figures 9 and 10 show the results of the testing. Figure 9: Showing the top of Panel 7 after failure Figure 10: Showing the underneath of Panel 7 after failure. Page 12 of 38

14 4.2.2 Panel 8 Figures 11 and 12 show the results of the testing. Figure 11: Showing the top of Panel 8 after failure Figure 12: Showing the underneath of Panel 8 after failure. Page 13 of 38

15 4.2.3 Panel 9 Figures 13 and 14 show the results of the testing. Figure 13: Showing the top of Panel 9 after failure Figure 14: Showing the underneath of Panel 9 after failure. Page 14 of 38

16 4.3 NAG P Pavement Light Panels Table 4 summarises the result for this type of panel, BRE Panel Number Date Tested 10 15/02/ /02/ /02/2018 Maximum sustained load (kn) Deflection at maximum load (mm) Comments Table 4: Summary results for RG Chart 3 shows the load deflection plots for Panels 10, 11 and PC 170 x 100 Test 10 Test 11 Test 12 Applied Load - kn Loading Plate Deflection -mm Chart 3: Load deflection plots for Panels 10, 11 and 12. Page 15 of 38

17 4.3.1 Panel 10 Figures 15 and 16 show the results of the testing. Figure 15: Showing the top of Panel 10 after failure Figure 16: Showing the underneath of Panel 10 after failure. Page 16 of 38

18 4.3.2 Panel 11 Figures 17 and 18 show the results of the testing. Figure 17: Showing the top of Panel 11 after failure Figure 18: Showing the underneath of Panel 11 after failure. Page 17 of 38

19 4.3.3 Panel 12 Figures 19 and 20 show the results of the testing. Figure 19: Showing the top of Panel 12 after failure Figure 20: Showing the underneath of Panel 12 after failure. Page 18 of 38

20 4.4 NAG P Pavement Light Panels Table 5 summarises the result for this type of panel, BRE Panel Number Date Tested Maximum sustained load (kn) Deflection at maximum load (mm) 13 15/02/ /02/ /02/ Comments Table 5: Summary results for P Chart 4 shows the load deflection plots for Panels 13, 14 and P165 x Test 13 Test 14 Test 15 Applied Load - kn Loading Plate Deflection -mm Chart 4: Load deflection plots for Panels 13, 14 and 15 Page 19 of 38

21 4.4.1 Panel 13 Figures 21 and 22 show the results of the testing. Figure 21: Showing the top of Panel 13 after failure Figure 22: Showing the underneath of Panel 13 after failure. Page 20 of 38

22 4.4.2 Panel 14 Figures 23 and 24 show the results of the testing. Figure 23: Showing the top of Panel 14 after failure Figure 24: Showing the underneath of Panel 14 after failure. Page 21 of 38

23 4.4.3 Panel 15 Figures 25 and 26 show the results of the testing. Figure 25: Showing the top of Panel 15 after failure Figure 26: Showing the underneath of Panel 15 after failure. Page 22 of 38

24 4.5 NAG P Pavement Light Panels It should be noted that Panel 1 was initially loaded on the 12/02/2018 however the 300 kn jack had insufficient capability to cause the panel to fail. The panel was reloaded on the 26/02/2018 (as were the other two panels) using a stiffer load testing rig, a 935 kn jack and a NCB. type 1000kN load cell (serial number 2149N). Figure 27 shows the revised set up. Figure 27: The revised set up. Table 6 summarises the result for this type of panel, BRE Panel Number Date Tested Maximum sustained load (kn) Deflection at maximum load (mm) Comments 1 12/02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ Table 6: Summary results for P Page 23 of 38

25 Chart 5 shows the load deflection plots for Panels 1, 2 and 3 P165 x Test 01 Test 02 Test Applied Load - kn Loading Plate Deflection -mm Chart 5: Load deflection plots for Panels 1, 2 and 3 Page 24 of 38

26 4.5.1 Panel 1 Figures 28 and 29 show the results of the testing. Figure 28: Showing the top of Panel 1 after failure Figure 29: Showing the underneath of Panel 1 after failure. Page 25 of 38

27 4.5.2 Panel 2 Figures 30 and 31 show the results of the testing. Figure 30: Showing the top of Panel 2 after failure Figure 31: Showing the underneath of Panel 2 after failure. Page 26 of 38

28 4.5.3 Panel 3 Figures 32 and 33 show the results of the testing. Figure 32: Showing the top of Panel 3 after failure Figure 33: Showing the underneath of Panel 3 after failure. Page 27 of 38

29 5 Slip Test Details of the Test Programme The slip resistance testing was carried out using a TRRL Pendulum Tester and followed the method described in The assessment of floor slip resistance, The UK Slip Resistance Group Guidelines (UKSRG) Issue The test was carried out in both wet and dry conditions using the Slider 96 (standard pedestrian) type rubber. Photographs of the setup and equipment used for conducting these tests are shown in Figure 34. Testing was carried out by Ian Rance (BRE) on the 14/02/2018. The results of the testing has allowed an assessment of potential for slip to be made based on Table 5 from the above publication reproduced below. Slip tests were carried out at 6 locations on each of the following panels: NAG - P pavement light NAG - PC pavement light NAG - P pavement light Figure 34: Showing BRE s Pendulum tester. Page 28 of 38

30 6 Slip Test results Given below in Table 7 is a summary of the slip test results further test details are given in subsequent sections Location Panel 7 L1 Frosted glass Concrete Frosted glass Mean PTV dry Potential for slip dry Mean PTV wet Potential for slip wet 62 Low 48 Low L2 Frosted glass 63 Low 44 Low L3 Frosted glass 90 to L2 61 Low 42 Low L4 Clear Glass 56 Low 29 Moderate L5 Clear Glass concrete Clear Glass 55 Low 34 Moderate L6 Frosted glass 90 to L4 57 Low 33 Moderate Location Panel 10 Mean PTV dry Potential for slip dry Mean PTV wet Potential for slip wet L1 Frosted glass 61 Low 36 Low L2 Frosted glass 90 to L1 60 Low 34 Moderate L3 Frosted glass concrete frosted glass 62 Low 41 Low L4 Clear Glass 55 Low 23 High L5 Clear glass 90 to L4 60 Low 25 Moderate L6 Clear Glass concrete Clear Glass Location Panel 13 L1 Frosted glass concrete frosted glass 52 Low 35 Moderate Mean PTV dry Potential for slip dry Mean PTV wet Potential for slip wet 66 Low 62 Low L2 Frosted glass 66 Low 55 Low L4 Frosted Glass 90 to L2 69 Low 56 Low L3 Clear Glass 61 Low 30 Moderate L5 Clear glass 90 to L3 60 Low 33 Moderate L6 Clear Glass concrete Clear Glass 65 Low 42 Low Page 29 of 38

31 6.1 NAG P Panel 7 Figure 35 shows the test locations for Panel 7. Each location was tested in one direction and then repeated in the reverse direction in both a wet and dry condition. A total of 5 repeat tests were performed in each direction. The results are given in Table 8. Figure 35: Slip test locations on Panel 7 Location Panel 7 L1 Frosted glass Concrete Frosted glass Mean PTV dry Potential for slip dry Mean PTV wet Potential for slip wet 62 Low 48 Low L2 Frosted glass 63 Low 44 Low L3 Frosted glass 90 to L2 61 Low 42 Low L4 Clear Glass 56 Low 29 Moderate L5 Clear Glass concrete Clear Glass 55 Low 34 Moderate L6 Frosted glass 90 to L4 57 Low 33 Moderate Table 8. Slip Test results Panel 7 Page 30 of 38

32 6.2 NAG PC Panel 10 Figure 36 shows the test locations for Panel 10 each location was tested in one direction and then repeated in the reverse direction in both a wet and dry condition. A total of 5 repeat tests were performed in each direction. The results are given in Table 9. Figure 36: Slip test locations on Panel 10 Location Panel 10 Mean PTV dry Potential for slip dry Mean PTV wet Potential for slip wet L1 Frosted glass 61 Low 36 Low L2 Frosted glass 90 to L1 60 Low 34 Moderate L3 Frosted glass concrete frosted glass 62 Low 41 Low L4 Clear Glass 55 Low 23 High L5 Clear glass 90 to L4 60 Low 25 Moderate L6 Clear Glass concrete Clear Glass Table 9. Slip Test results Panel Low 35 Moderate Page 31 of 38

33 6.3 NAG P Panel 13 Figure 37 shows the test locations for Panel 13. Each location was tested in one direction and then repeated in the reverse direction in both a wet and dry condition. A total of 5 repeat tests were performed in each direction. The results are given in Table 10. Figure 37: Slip test locations on Panel 13 Location Panel 13 L1 Frosted glass concrete frosted glass Mean PTV dry Potential for slip dry Mean PTV wet Potential for slip wet 66 Low 62 Low L2 Frosted glass 66 Low 55 Low L4 Frosted Glass 90 to L2 69 Low 56 Low L3 Clear Glass 61 Low 30 Moderate L5 Clear glass 90 to L3 60 Low 33 Moderate L6 Clear Glass concrete Clear Glass 65 Low 42* Low Table 10: Slip Test results Panel 13 *please note this location was tested one row down from that shown in the picture after the load testing had been completed. Page 32 of 38

34 7 Appendix A Technical Details of the panels Page 33 of 38

35 Page 34 of 38

36 Page 35 of 38

37 Page 36 of 38

38 Page 37 of 38

39 Building Research Establishment Ltd Report Ends Report No. P Page 38 of 38