Gypsum based adhesives for thermal/acoustic insulation composite panels and gypsum boards. Definitions, requirements and test methods

2017 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
Byoung-Jik Park ◽  
Yong-Ho Yoo ◽  
Yangkyun Kim ◽  
Jin-Ouk Park ◽  
Hwi-Seong Kim

Composite panels are designed to be fabricated by adding Styrofoam, glass wool, and urethane into steel plates before integration with adhesive materials. As these panels exhibit good workability, cost efficiency, and heat insulation performance, they are widely used as building materials for plant or storage facilities. However, fire safety still needs to be addressed, because these panels can potentially cause large fires. As firewater cannot easily penetrate the material inside the panel, extinguishing any fires caused is difficult. Furthermore, the imperfect combustion of the core material tends to generate a large volume of toxic gas, resulting in serious damage to human life. In addition, the high risk of collapse makes fire-fighting activities more difficult. Flame spread prevention systems optimized for composite panels have been developed for more effective fire suppression based on accumulative research outcomes obtained thus far. Related test methods were reviewed before successfully demonstrating the performance of the developed systems. The existing composite panel structure—wherein the developed system was not applied-burned out after 5 min; however, when the developed system was applied to the composite panels, the structure was covered in soot after 15 min. The structure was designed by applying the developed system to a virtual factory building, and the construction standard was reviewed.


2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A586-A587
Author(s):  
L BEST ◽  
S JO ◽  
V VANZANTEN ◽  
D HALDANE ◽  
V LOO ◽  
...  

1990 ◽  
Vol 64 (03) ◽  
pp. 478-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Exner ◽  
Douglas A Triplett ◽  
David A Taberner ◽  
Margaret A Howard ◽  
E Nigel Harris

SummarySix lyophilized plasma samples were sent to 20 “expert” laboratories for assessment of lupus anticoagulant (LA). Four samples contained pooled LA of graded potency mixed with aged normal plasma. One contained LA plus cephalin phospholipid and one contained a nonspecific venom anticoagulant. Sixteen methods were used overall with some participants using up to 8 methods. Results were scored in regard to the known potencies of LA in the samples and other known induced defects.Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) tests used by most participants for preliminary screening were relatively sensitive, but non-specific. Platelet or phospholipid neutralization procedures (PNP) appeared to be sensitive and specific but showed a non-linear response to increased LA content. Kaolin clotting time (KCT) tests showed the most sensitive response to increased LA content but the weaker LA were not scored as abnormal by most laboratories as the samples may have contained platelet fragments. Other commonly used tests such as the tissue thromboplastin inhibition (TTI) test and the dilute Russell’s viper venom test (DRVVT) were carried out somewhat inconsistently. The variability in performance of tests in different laboratories indicates that standardization of methodology is urgently required.Generally it seemed that most clotting tests were “bypassed” by the addition of phospholipid to a known LA-positive sample in apparently direct proportion to their sensitivity. Sample preparation, especially prevention of contamination with activated platelets is a vital preliminary part in the assay of LA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document