June 26, 2012 To whom it may concern:
We recently ran the third in a series of tests on aluminum clad sandwich panels manufactured with a polyurethane foam core and a skin of .5mm aluminum with 1mm aluminum corrugated backing on the “cold” side. The goal was to generate corroborating data on an entire specimen of this particular type of panel from Technical Supplies & Services Co.L.L.C. a division of Harwal Group. Their web site with more technical data can be viewed at: (http://www.tsscuae.com/category?catid=108&name=Insulated+Composit
e+Panels) . One concern we had was whether or not the polyurethane foam insulation in the core of the panels would have a positive effect, a negative effect that might reduce the overall level of protection, or no effect at all. Each panel was prepared by lightly sanding and then applying six coats @ 10 mils each for a total net dry film thickness (dft) of 30 mils and then finishing with two coats of Rust-­‐O-­‐Leum™ Professional Grade alkyd enamel. Ordinarily three 20 mil/wft coats drying to a total of 30 mil/dft would be adequate however; our clients project is located in an extreme environment where temperatures often exceed 120°F with 95% humidity. Coating, in these conditions, must be reduced dramatically in order to allow each coat to dry adequately otherwise moisture may be trapped between coats which may result in blistering and peeling. One of the panels was delivered with an overspray of Type 142 coating from National Paints (www.national-­‐paints.com.) Four tests were conducted. The first test was an adhesion test following ASTM D3359 by applying a special highly adhesive aluminum tape and then peeling it off, which clearly demonstrated that our adhesion is perfect. The results were the same as our other adhesion testing available on our web site. The goal was to insure that the Type 142 National Paints overspray did not delaminate after the Contego coating was applied. The second test was a spot flame test (on both the over sprayed panel and the freshly treated panel) the panels with a 3,600o F torch aimed at a fixed point and not allowed to move around. This is about twice the temperature of a typical ASTM-­‐E119 test furnace at any accredited fire testing laboratory. The idea was to see if we could trigger a failure by focusing on one single point. The test ran for two hours without appreciable damage and was shut off to accommodate the other tests we had planned. After the panel cooled, the surface was scraped and the aluminum skin was scorched, but intact. The foam underneath was unaffected. In fact, the first coat of Contego had not even fully deployed and was still evident from the video footage. The third test was a closed cell furnace test that was identical in protocol to the earlier test we did on sheet aluminum. The results were the same and the test was terminated at two hours. The only damage was to the foam on the edges that was inadvertently exposed to flames that wrapped around the panel at the interface of the panel and the oven. Unlike the ovens at most test facilities, the flames from our furnace are essentially in direct contact with the substrate (See video of furnace burner). The foam was undamaged (except the exposed edges) and the aluminum stayed intact. The test was terminated after two hours. The final test was a panel that was not protected with Contego. That panel was entirely consumed within five minutes and experienced intense, bright orange flaming. The burn generated an enormous cloud of dense, black smoke. Although we did not have a cone colorimeter to measure the content of the smoke, we are certain that the polyisocyanurate composition generated cyanide gas. That would explain the very dangerous and lethal outcome that occurs when these materials are burned. We ran nonstop video with a time stamp covering every second of each test. We will keep the entire video feed archived for future reference. An edited version of the video accompanies this written report. This is the third test run on this project. If the end user wants any additional testing, we can do that, but it would be at their expense, estimated to be about $20,000.00 US plus the provision of enough panels to cover the walls and ceiling of three 8x8x12 burn chambers. This would take about a month to do and should be done to UL-­‐1040/NFPA-­‐286 standards to provide a slightly different data set since the current protocol has been done repeatedly with identical results. Tony Scott Executive Vice President Corporate Development Contego International, Inc. 334 Greyhound Pass West Carmel, IN 46032-­‐7007 317-­‐580-­‐0665 -­‐ Direct 317-­‐580-­‐0663 -­‐ Fax 317-­‐432-­‐0665 – Cell [email protected] www.ContegoFireBarrier.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/Contego/167681133258008 -­‐ Facebook http://www.youtube.com/ContegoFireBarrier -­‐ YouTube http://www.twitter.com/contegopaint -­‐ Twitter