Cone calorimeter data for the EUREFIC products using and not using a retainer frame

Lazaros Tsantaridis

Cone Calorimeter Data

for the EUREFIC Products

Using and not Using a

Retainer Frame

Trätek

C O N E C A L O R I M E T E R DATA F O R T H E E U R E F I C PRODUCTS USING AND NOT USING A R E T A I N E R F R A M E

Trätek, Rapport P 9208054 ISSN 1102 - 1071 ISRN TRÄTEK-R--92/054--SE Nyckelord building products fire tests heat release smoke release surface linings test procedure

Citat tillätes om källan ange.

Reporis issued by the Swedish Insiuuie for Wood Technolof^y Research comprise complete accounts for research results, or summaries, surveys and

studies. Published reports bear the designation I or P and are numbered in consecutive order together with all the other publications from the Institute. Extracts from the text may he reproduced provided the source is acknowledged.

som utförs med egna. samverkande och externa re-surser. Trätek har forskningsenheter i Stockholm, Jönköping och Skellefteå.

The Swedish Institute for Wood Technology Re-search serves the five branches of the industry: sawmills, manufacturing (joinery, wooden hous-es, furniture and other woodworking plants), fibre board, particle board and plywood. A research and development agreement between the industry and the Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development forms the basis for the Institute's activities. The Institute utilises its own resources as well as those of its collaborators and other outside bodies. Our research units are located in Stockholm. Jönköping and Skellefteå.

Page SWEDISH SUMMARY 3 ABSTRACT 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. EXPERIMENTAL 5 2.1 Tested products 5 2.2 Test method 5 3. TEST RESULTS WITH RETAINER FRAME 6

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN USING AND NOT USING 30 A RETAINER FRAME

4.1 Direct comparison of curves 30

4.2 Regressions 42 5. CONCLUSIONS 46 6. REFERENCES 46

användandet av en stålram som skyddar provets kanter inverkar på provningsresultaten. De 11 EUREFIC-materialen har provats i konkalorimetem med stålram. Provningen har skett med horisontella prov vid strålningsintensiteten 50 kW/m^. Provningsresultaten visar bl a antändlighet, värme- och rökutveckling.

Samma material har tidigare provats i konkalorimetem vid SP och Dantest utan stålram. Resultaten från de båda sätten att prova har jämförts. Jämförelsen visar att tiden till antändning blir något längre med stålram och värme- och rökutvecklingen något mindre. God överensstämmelse för värmeutvecklingen med och utan stålram fås om hänsyn tas till att stålramen medför en minskning av den exponerade provytan från 0.01 m^ till 0.0088 m^

Slutsatsen är att stålramen bör användas vid provning av byggnadsmaterial, vilket rekommenderas av både ISO och ASTM, men detta finns ännu inte inskrivet i standarden.

ABSTRACT

The 11 EUREFIC products have been tested in the Cone Calorimeter using a stainless steel retainer frame which protects the edges of the sample. The results at heat flux 50 kW/m^ and horizontal orientation are presented. They are also compared with results obtained when not using a retainer frame. It was found that testing with a retainer frame is very simple. The time to ignition is somewhat longer when using a retainer and the rate of heat release and the specific extinction area are somewhat smaller. When using a retainer frame the rate of heat release should be calculated by using the 0.0088 m^ area actually exposed. Then the rate of heat release agreement between using and not using a retainer frame is quite good. The retainer frame should be used for building products as recommended by both ISO and ASTM even i f it is not yet stated in the standard.

The early fire behaviour of products is important for many aspects of fire safety. One of the basic parameters describing the fire behaviour of products is the rate of heat release. The Cone Calorimeter is an apparatus for assessing the rate of heat release. Other parameters such as the time to ignition and the rate of smoke production are also determined simultaneously.

The results from the Cone Calorimeter tests of the 11 EUREFIC products have earlier been reported / I / . Those measurements were performed without using a retainer frame. This report presents ihe results from the same 11 EUREFIC products tested in the Cone Calorimeter at heat flux level 50 kW/m^ and with using a standard stainless steel retainer frame. Testing with a retainer frame seems to be a more realistic way of testing because in actual applications and in the room fire tests building products on walls and ceilings have areas, which artj much larger than the specimen area of 100 x 100 mm in the Cone Calorimeter. This means that no edges are exposed to incident heat flux in most applications of building products. In small-scale testing in the Cone Calorimeter, the retainer frame protects the edges and holds the multi-layer specimen together in a similar way.

Experience from our laboratory shows that using a retainer is very simple and does not cause any trouble or delays. Furthermore it has some practical advantages. One is that the distance between the bottom of the cone heater and the top of the specimen does not have to be adjusted prior to each test. It can be adjusted once a day, i f necessary. Then it is only to fill the njtainer frame to the bottom with the backing material. When testing without a retainer frame, this distance has to be adjusted prior to each test because the specimens have different thicknesses. It takes some time to do this. Another advantage is that melted products are prevented from flowing away.

A comparison betwetm these two ways of testing, using and not using a retainer frame, is also made here for building products. The comparison is also presented elsewhere 121. Another comparison for other products is underway /3/.

temperature of 20 °C and a relative humidity of 65 %. Table 1. Tested products.

Paint weight, g/m^

Base paper + surface covering, g/m^

Product Thickness Density

No. and type (mm) (kg/m^)

1 Painted gypsum paper plasterboard 12 100 *

2 Ordinary birch plywood 12 600

3 Textile wallcovering on gypsum 14-12 505 **

paper plasterboard

1055

4 Melamine-faced high density 1.5 + 12 1055

non-combustible board

5 Plastic-faced steel sheet on mineral wool 0.15+0.7+23 640

6 FR particle board, type B l 16 630

7 Combustible-faced mineral wool 1+30 87

8 FR particle board 12 750

9 Plastic-faced steel sheet on 0.1 + 1+40 160

polyurethane foam

10 PVC-wallcarpet on gypsum paper 0.9+12 1250 **

plasterboard

37

11 FR extruded polystyrene foam 25 37

2.2 Test method

The tests with retainer frame were performed according to ISO DIS 5660 /4/ and for smoke according to ASTM E 1354-90 /5/ since smoke measurements are not included in the ISO version. The tests were performed in the horizontal orientation. Double tests were performed at heat flux level 50 kW/m^. The samples were first wrapped in aluminium foil. The backing material underneath the sample was an insulating fiber blanket. These two parts were inserted into the standard stainless steel retainer frame (hereafter referred to as the "retainer frame"), which is very easy to do. The whole assembly was then placed on top of the specimen holder. In the tests without retainer frame, the samples were only wrapped in aluminium foil and placed on top of the specimen holder / I / .

The 11 EUREFIC prcxiiicts listed in Table 1 have been tested with a retainer frame. The

individual data curves aie shown in Figure 1 through 11. Each figure consists of curves for rate of heat release (RHR), effective heat of combustion (EHC), specific extinction area (SEA) and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release (RSP/RHR), all given for double tests. The results show good repea ability for all products. The most important parameters, listed in the key below, are given in Table 2.

tig — time to ignition (sustained flaming) (s)

tbp — burning period (time) from t^g until the average mass loss over one minute peiod has dropped below 150 g/m^ (s)

Q"t<^, — total heat release during the t^p (MJ/m^)

q"^x — maximum rate of heat release (kW/m^)

q"(avg) — average rate of heat release during the t^p (kW/m^)

q",8o — average rate of heat release over the period started at t^g and ending 180 s later (kW/m^)

q"3oo — average rate of heat release over the period started at tig and ending 300 s later (kW/m^)

m — total mass loss (during tbp) (g)

^hc.eff — ef rective heat of combustion (average during tbp) (MJ/kg)

a

o 4—• O j

I

O «n •*-> cd c« ••-> C/J o T 3 2 . ^ B > o 2 . 2 •C "S o CO g ^

e 1

<4-l t f l in fl) i i Ä c/5 ' (U

5

H <1 2 8 B

- i

^ c/5 4—> O N Ti-O N oo CN Cl. •T)

3

cn un o (T) (T) o 0 0 o u-> o CN CN q CN » O CO CN C C O OX) c 'C > o o '*-> X O) H C*1

1

_o X ) <u •4—» C/J J2 VH cx cd D , E CO cx OX) CN cn cn CN Os in q o ON CN c/j C (U TD OX) o I 0) c

s

13 o -O 3 - C £ o o I c o ö CN » O CN O ^ 'Q c/3 o

v

(L)

^ e

cx o ON C N vn CN CO CO o CN 03 CX •o Id o X ) "o cx cn o o CN in irj CO in in V D oo in CN CN CN 1 ^

I

_o X ) "o i OO ON CN in 0 0 t-CN 0 0 in CN CN CO o ON

8

c/3 2

8

OJ •r3 O CX Ti-CN O Tl-in Ti-T f CO o ON CN O CN O N m m B 3 t / 5 OX) § ^ 4-> cd (U O pH X cd (D p H CX CN T t in oo CN O CO Tl-NO OCD CO

PAINTED GYPSUM PAPER PLASTERBOARD 20D h TIME s) ru E 5 300 h EHC (MJ/kg) 80

ui TIME S (X 10) 100 200 300 400 TIME (s) 500 600

Figure 1. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for painted gypsum

ORDINARY BIRCH PLYWOOD 200 400 600 TIME Is) 800 1000 1200 EHC (MJ/kg 80

(X 10) 250 h 100 200 300 400 TIME (S) 500 er X cc \ Q -_m tr (X 10) 100 200 300 TIME (s) 400 500 600

Figure 2. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for ordinary birch

TEXTILE W\LLCOVERING ON GYPSUM PAPER PLASTERBOARD 60 ) h OJ G TIME s 200 h EHC (MJ/kg) 80 — 1 — ' — ' ' ' I 70 60 50 40 30 20 F-10

(X 10) 300 h

TIME 3

TIME 3

Figure 3. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for textile wallcovering

on gypsum paper plasterboard. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer

MELAMINE-FACED HIGH DENSITY NON-COMBUSTIBLE BOARD 100 200 300 TIME (8) 400 500 600 EHC (MJ/kg) 80

150

TIME (3)

TIME S

Figure 4. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for melamine-faced high density non-combustibie board. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

PLAS^nC-FACED STEEL SHEET ON MINERAL WOOL 2 30C 100 200 300 TIME (3) 400 500 600 EHC (MJ/kg

(X 10) 400 h 300 h n X er \ Q-C/l cr 200 h 100 200 300 400 TIME (s) 500 600

Figure 5. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for plastic-faced steel sheet on mineral wool. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

FR PARTICLE BOARD, TYPE B l

2 30C

TIME S

EMC (MJ/kg) 8C

(X 10) Ol < UJ 03 TIME 3) (X 10) 100 h B a cn cc

Figure 6. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for FR particle board, type B l . Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

COMBUSTIBLE-FACED MINERAL WOOL

TIME (s

EHC (MJ/kg) 80

J. 100 200 300 400 TIME (s) 500 100 200 300 400 TIME (S) 500 600

Figure 7. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for combustible-faced mineral wool. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

FR PARTICLE BOARD OJ e 200 400 600 TIME (S) 800 1000 1200 EHC (MJ/kg

(X 10) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 TIME (S) (X 10) 100 200 300 400 TIME (S) 500 600

Figure 8. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for FR particle board. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

PLASTIC-FACED STEEL SHEET ON POLYURETHANE FOAM

TIME (S)

100 200 300 TIME (s)

TIME S

Figure 9. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for plastic-faced steel sheet on polyurethane foam. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

PVC-WALLCARPET ON GYPSUM PAPER PLASTERBOARD 100 200 300 TIME (8) 400 500 600 EHC (MJ/kg) 80

TIME S

(X 10)

TIME s

Figure 10. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for PVC-wallcarpet on gypsum paper plasterboard. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

FR EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM

S 300

TIME (s)

EHC (MJ/kg 8D

^ 150 100 200 300 TIME (s) 100 200 300 400 TIME (s) 500 600

Figure 11. Rate of heat release, effective heat of combustion, specific extinction area and rate of smoke production per rate of heat release for FR extruded polystyrene foam. Double tests at 50 kW/m^ with retainer frame.

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN USING AND NOT USING A RETAINER

FRAME

4.1 Direct comparison of curves

The results from tests when the retainer frame was used and not used, respectively, are directly compared with respect to rate of heat release and specific extinction area. The individual data curves are shown in Figure 12 through 22. The sample area used when calculating the rate of heat release is 0.01 m^. The results for using and not using a retainer frame, performed at two different laboratories, show good repeatability for all products.

With the gypsum products in Figures 12, 14 and 21, there is no difference in time to ignition and in burning period between using and not using a retainer frame but there is some difference in tl e maximum rate of heat release. These products burn fast and have a short burning period. The smoke expressed as specific extinction area has almost the same appearance as ihe rate of heat release.

With the wood products presented in Figures 13, 17 and 19, there is some difference in time to ignition, espticially for the fire-retardent products which ignite earlier without a retainer frame because of edge effects. The retainer frame gives a longer burning period and a lower first maximum rate of heat release but a higher second maximum. The specific extinction area curves have the same appearance as the rate of heat release curves.

The melamine-faced high density non-combustible board in Figure 15 has differences for all parameters. With the retainer frame, the melamine breaks up and deforms upwards very quickly upon inserting the specimen. It comes closer to the spark plug and ignited faster. A grid used together with the retainer frame should avoid this.

The plastic-faced steM sheet on mineral wool in Figure 16 show a difference in time to ignition but not in the other parameters. The combustible-faced mineral wool in Figure

18 burns fast and has a short burning period. The specific extinction area has a difference in maximum.

With the plastic products in Figures 20 and 22, there are some differences in time to ignition and in maximum rate of heat release and specific extinction area. The retainer frame gives a longer time to ignition and a lower maximum rate of heat release and specific extinction aiea. The same differences as in the rate of heat release curves also appears in the specific extinction area curves.

300

250

HI 200

e

i

150

I

100

50

0

J—L ]With frame : Z . " - } Without

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

200 h

150 h

ru

<: LU CO

100 h

100 200 300 400 500

TIME (s)

600

Figure 12. Rate of heat release and specific extinction area for painted gypsum paper

plasterboard at 50 kW/m^.

ORDINARY BIRCH PLYWOOD

C\J

40C h

30C'

200

X

tx 100

O h r ]With frame - " J : } Without

200

400 600 800 1000 1200

TIME (s)

-7^

200

100 200 300 400

TIME (s)

500

600

cvj CE X CE

400 h

300

200

100

)With frame Without

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

t;.

200

S 100

0 100 200 300 400 500

TIME (s)

600

Figure 14. Rate of heat release and specific extinction area for textile wallcovering on

gypsum paper plasterboard at 50 kW/m^.

MELAMINE FACED HIGH DENSITY NON-COMBUSTIBLE BOARD

C\J X

20C h

15C

100

50

0

)With frame - " J : } Without

0

100 200 300 400 500 600

TIME (s)

400 h

300

-OJ LU

200 h

100

-100 200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

c\j CE X CE

100 h

80

60

40

20

0

100

jWith frame - " J : } Without

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

(X 10)

300 h

7^ 200

100 200 300

TIME (s;

400

500 600

Figure 16. Rate of heat release and specific extinction area for plastic-faced steel sheet

on mineral wool at 50 kW/m^.

FR PARTICLE BOARD, TYPE Bl

200

150

-E CE X X

100

50

)With frame - " J : } Without

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

40C

300

-rvj UJ CO

200 h

100

-0 1-0-0 2-0-0 3-0-0 4-0-0

TIME (s)

500 600

rvj

X cr

200

150

100

50

0

T Iwith frame -JZ jWithout

100 200 300 400 500 600

TIME (s)

(X 10)

100 h

^ 60

200 300 400 500

TIME (s)

Figure 18. Rate of heat release and specific extinction area for combustible-faced

mineral wool at 50 kW/m^.

FR PARTICLE BOARD

OJ

cc

X

oc

20 3

153

103

50

}With frame - " J : jWithout

400 600

TIME (s)

1200

400 h

3C0

cn

OJ IXl

2C0

ICO

200 400 600 800

TIME (s)

1000 1200

I

100

)With frame : Z . " J : ) Without

300 h

^ 200

0

100

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

(X 10)

200

150

OJ LU in

100

50

0

-if;

-i '-i

Il .

P^i '

•

i 'i

Il .

P^i '

1' / •^.Vv\

ij

1 , . 1 . . .

0

100

J —

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

Figure 20. Rate of heat release and specific extinction area for plastic-faced steel sheet

on poiyurethane foam at 50 kW/m^.

PVC-WALLCARPET ON GYPSUM PAPER PLASTERBOARD

E

CE X

20C'

15(1

100

50

}With frame - " J : } Without

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

(X 10

100

-60

100 200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

800

700

600

^ 500

1 400

X

300

X

200

100

0

jWith frame -i - " J : } Without _ i — L

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

TIME (s)

(X 10)

400 h

300

-CT cvi C/5

200

100

0 0

100

200 300 400

TIME (s)

500 600

Figure 22. Rate of heat release and specific extinction area for FR extruded

polystyrene foam at 50 kW/m^.

4.2 Regressions

A linear regression aialysis of time to ignition and specific extinction area when using

and not using retaine* frame are shown in Figure 23. Melamine-faced high density

non-combustible board (^^). 4) and FR particle board (No. 8) have big differences in time to

ignition, for No. 4 b(jcause the melamine breaks up and goes closer to the spark plug,

and for No. 8 because of edge effects. The retainer frame protected the edges and the

product ignited at the edges only after it had shrunk. The remaining nine products have

a much better agreement. The time to ignition is somewhat longer when using the

retainer frame. The cgreement for the specific extinction area is quite good for most

products.

The data in Table 2 were calculated by using the sample area of 0.01 m^. This does not

take into account the reduction in exposed area caused by the retainer frame. The

agreement, expressec as the relation between the regression line and the equal value

line, is much better when the rate of heat release values are recalculated using the actual

exposed area of 0.0088 m^ with the retainer frame. This is seen in Figures 24 and 25 for

maximum and 180 s average rates of heat release, respectively. However, there are still

differences in maximum and 180 s average rates of heat release for some products. The

maximum rate of he<.t release differs for melamine-faced high density non-combustible

board (No. 4), because the melamine breaks up, and for the plastic-faced steel sheet on

polyurethane foam (No. 9), because of edge effects. The 180 s average rate of heat

release differs for FR particle board (No. 8) and for plastic-faced steel sheet on

polyurethane foam (No. 9) also because of edge effects. The agreement between using

and not using the retiiner frame is on an average better for 180 s average (8%) than for

maximum (25%) rate of heat release. Both rates of heat release are somewhat smaller

when using the retainer frame.

The regressions shov/n in Figures 23 25 have correlation coefficients between 0.91

-0.95. This must be considered to be good for such difficult products as those used in the

EUREFIC and testec' at different laboratories.

From above it seems that melamine-faced high density non-combustible board, FR

particle board and plastic-faced steel sheet on polyurethane foam show the biggest

differences between comparing use and non-use of the retainer frame for almost all

parameters. These products are either multi-layered or treated. For the other products,

the retainer frame dc

-

es not cause any large differences. Also among these products there

are some multi-layersd and treated ones but in those cases it does not influence the fire

behavior. The retainer frame should therefore be used to test all building products in a

similar way, since there seem to be no disadvantages.

800

L With frame

600

400

200

0

_ i — I — I —

Without

400 600 800

Time to i g n i t i o n (s)

SEA (m2/kg)

- I 1 , . 1 r

With frame

1800 h

1500

1200

900

600

300

0

Without

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800

SEA (m2/kg)

Figure 23. Time to ignition and specific extinction area with and without retainer

frame. The correlation coefficient with linear regression analysis is 0.93 for

time to ignition and 0.95 for specific extinction area. (The broken line y=x

indicates equal results with and without retainer frame.)

Ma> . 800 600 I" 400 -200 RHR (kW/m2) T « ' • 1 ' W i t h frame Area 0 . 0 1 m2 W i t h o u t Area 0 . 0 1 m2 400 600 800 Max. RHR (kW/m2) Ma>,. 800 RHR (kW/m2) 600 h 400 h 200 O T • ' — • • 1 • • W i t h frame Area 0 . 0 0 8 8 m2 W i t h o u t Area 0 . 0 1 m2 400 600 800 Max. RHR (l<W/m2)

Figure 24. Maximum rate of heat release with and without using a retainer frame.

When using the retainer frame two different sample areas, 0.01 and 0.0088

200 150 100 T ' ' • • 1 - " — ^ W i t h frame Area 0 . 0 1 m2 / • i W i t h o u t Area 0 . 0 1 m2 50 100 150 180 s Ave. RHR (kW/ni2) 200 180 200 150 100 50 O s A v e . RHR (kW/m2) W i t h frame Area 0 . 0 0 8 8 m2 W i t h o u t Area 0 . 0 1 m2 50 100 150 180 s Ave. RHR (kW/m2) 200

Figure 25. 180 s average rate of heat release with and without using a retainer frame.

When using the retainer frame two different sample areas, 0.01 and 0.0088

m^, are used. The correlation coefficient with linear regression analysis is

0.91 in both cases. When the area is 0.0088 m^ the results are closer to the

broken line y=x.

5. CONCLUSICNS

The 11 EUREFIC prxlucts have been tested when using a retainer frame. The heat flux

level was 50 kW/m^ it horizontal orientation. A comparison was made between using

and not using the retidner frame. The results can be summarized as follows:

1. The retainer f -ame should be used for all building products as recommended in

both ISO and ASTM.

2. Testing with c retainer frame is as simple as testing without and does not causes

any trouble oi delays.

3. The time to i|;nition is somewhat longer when using a retainer frame.

4. The rate of hmi release and the specific extinction area are somewhat smaller

when using a retainer frame.

5. The area of 0.0088 m^ actually exposed when using a retainer frame should be

used when caxulating the rate of heat release. Then the difference in maximum

rate of heat release is 25% and in 180 s average only 8% on an average for all

products between using and not using the retainer frame.

6. REFERENCjES

/ I / Thureson, P.: EUREFIC-Cone Calorimeter Test Results. Swedish National

Testing Institute, SP-Report 1991:24, 1991.

12/ Tsantaridis, I - . and Östman, B.: Retainer frame effects on Cone Calorimeter

results for bu lding products. Fire and Materials, vol. 16, no. 4, 1992. In print.

73/ Babrauskas, v . , Twilley, W.H. and Parker, W.J.: The Effects of Specimen Edge

Conditions or Heat Release Rate. ISO/TC 92/SC 1/WG 5/Doc N 160, 1992.

74/ ISO DIS 5660. Fire tests — Reaction to fire — Rate of heat release from

building products. International Organization for Standardization, 1990.

/5/ ASTM E 1354-90. Standard test method for heat and visible smoke release rates

for materials and products using an oxygen consumption calorimeter. American

Society for Testing and Materials, 1990.

Trätek

I N S T I T l i T E T F O R T R A T E K N I S K F O R S K N I N G

Box 5609, 114 86 STOCKHOLM Åsenvägen 9, 553 31 J Ö N K Ö P I N G Skeria 2, 931 87 SKELLEFTE. Besöksadress: Drottning Kristinas väg 67 Telefon: 036-12 60 41 Besöksadress: Bockholmsvägen Telefon: 08-14 53 00 Telefax: 036-16 87 98 Telefon: 0910-652 00