EXTINGUISHMENT AND BURNBACK TESTING OF FIRE FIGHTING AGENTS

Similar documents
MINIMUM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT FOR AIR FORCE FLIGHTLINE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS:

HALON FLIGHTLINE EXTINGUISHER EVALUATION: DATA SUPPORTING STANDARD DEVELOPMENT [INCLUDES NOVEMBER 2007 ADDENDUM]

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

FIRE PROTECTION FOR. Dist A. MILITARY GROUND VEHICLES. Steve McCormick US Army RDECOM-TARDEC.

Vision Protection From Lasers Overview for Dr. Beagley, Australia

A Novel Approach for a Hostile Arms Fire Sensor

The Conservation Fund The Center for Conservation and Development

Low Impact Development at Naval Facilities: Opportunities and Constraints

DURIP: Fast Oscilloscope and Detectors for Air Laser Research

ECBC SBIR/STTR Projects. ECBC SBIR/STTR MSCoE STRF Conference

Industrial Workshop Gettysburg, PA February 26, 2004

AFRL-ML-TY-TR

Direct measurement of the aerosol absorption and extinction cross section for a variety of chemical and biological simulants in the LWIR

Converting Existing Copper Wire Firing System to a Fiber-Optically Controlled Firing System for Electromagnetic Pulsed Power Experiments

EVALUATION OF FIKE CORPORATION S EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION SYSTEM FOR ULTRA-HIGH SPEED FIRE SUPPRESSION APPLICATIONS

Force Protection Joint Experiment (FPJE) Battlefield Anti-Intrusion System (BAIS) Sensors Data Analysis and Filtering Metrics

Unattended Radiation Sensor Systems for Remote Terrestrial Applications and Nuclear Nonproliferation

Design Considerations for Abrasive Blast Rooms & Recovery Systems

FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SUPPORTING FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM DESIGN OF A CHEMICAL PROCESS FACILITY ABSTRACT

AFRL-RB-WP-TR

A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF FLUORINATED FOAM FIREFIGHTING AGENTS, PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS/ ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS REVIEW

AFCEC-CX-TY-TR

Recent Advances in Mercuric Iodide Detector Fabrication and Instrument Development*

An Overview Of Fluorinated Firefighting Foams: Past, Present & Future Presented by: Jerry Back, JENSEN HUGHES FOAM SYSTEM SYMPOSIUM

AFRL-RX-TY-TR

AFRL-RX-TY-TR

Sustainability Criteria for Planning, Constructing, and Operating Contingency Bases

Distribution Restriction Statement

HANTAVIRUS PREVENTION: CLEANUP OF RODENT CONTAMINATION

High-Reach Extendable Turrets With Skin-Penetrating Nozzle

Distribution Restriction Statement

M E M O R A N D U M. According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

lighting control systems Division - Name - Date - Language 1

Public Input No. 2-NFPA [Chapter F]

A.U.P.C.I ASOCIACIÓN URUGUAYA DE PROTECCION CONTRA INCENDIO AUPCI

WILLIAM HICKS. MSc, CFEI, CFPS, IAAI-CFI, MIFireE, EFO, CFOD, F-IAFI. Associate Professor Eastern Kentucky University

Foam Systems U.S. Quick Reference Guide

Film Forming Fluoro-Protein Foam Extinguishing Agent

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

February 23, Skanray Technologies Private Limited Yolanda Smith, Consultant Smith Associates 1468 Harwell Ave Crofton, Maryland 21114

SECURITY BLANKET Foam Fire Protection Products

Fire Safety. Presenter, Kevin V Coleman September 14 th 2016

Portable Fire Extinguishers

Summary. firefighter training in Since that time the firefighter had attended semi-annual

MSC Guidelines for Foam Fire Suppression Systems

[Docket No. FAA ; Product Identifier 2017-NE-02-AD; Amendment ; AD ]

Fire Prevention Plan Program

2009 International Fire Code Errata. SECOND PRINTING (Posted April 6, 2010)

Self Expanding Foam Fire Suppression System SPECIFICATION SHEET Rev

Technical Article. Foam Systems - Low Expansion, Medium Expansion, High Expansion. Martin Workman, Product Manager Special Hazards Division

AGUSTA S.P.A. Amendment Docket No. FAA ; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-33-AD

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

7AD-All9 F/ 13/10 MAY 82 E J1 JABLONSKI, R E BURNS, J I HUGHES NOOOSNSI1C-2221 UNCLASSIFIED. EhEEEEh~hEEE

TWO TIMES THE FIGHT Twin-Agent Fire Suppression Systems

Dr. J. Douglas Mather U.S. Army Contractor

& Fire Extinguisher Training

Aircraft Hangers. ft. (3,716 sq. m) per hangar construction type as defined by NFPA 409

REQUIREMENTS. For FIRE DEPARTMENTS. State of West Virginia. Bob Wise Governor THE DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Aircraft Hangars DESCRIPTION. A single fire area not larger than 40,000 sq. ft. (3,716 sq. m) per hangar construction type as defined by NFPA 409

NOTICE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

SKILL VERIFICATION BOOK FIREFIGHTER I MODULE II FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU. Assigned to: Name:

IMPLEMENTATION OF A NOVEL STRUCTURAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR STEEL BRIDGES

M E M O R A N D U M. Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting. NFPA 403 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression System Evaluation-Intermediate-Scale Studies

Appendix H Trans Mountain Tank Farm Fire Protection Meeting INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM

HKIE CPD Training Course (II) 23, 25 June and 7, 9 July 2009

PERFORMANCE TEST REPORT. Rendered to: VELUX America, Inc. PRODUCT: SUN TUNNEL Acrylic Dome

RE: BASIC FIRE SAFETY PROCEDURES AND OPERATION OF FIRE EQUIPMENT

[Docket No. FAA ; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-176-AD] Airworthiness Directives; DASSAULT AVIATION Airplanes

School Emergency Practices and Procedures

TECHNICAL MANUAL OPERATOR'S, ORGANIZATIONAL AND DIRECT SUPPORT MAINTENANCE MANUAL (INCLUDING REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS LIST)

U.S. Fire Department Profile 2015

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Standard Operating Procedures

3rd International Conference Polymers in Mining", University of Lancaster, United Kingdom (The Plastics and Rubber Institute), September 26-27, 1989

Pavement Evaluation of the Concrete Tie-bars and Dowel Baskets on Irvin Cobb Drive, US 60, McCracken County, KY

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

FUEL. Fire & Flammable Liquids Properties. Flammable & Combustible Liquid Safety. Safety. Practice. Laws: OSHA & NFPA. Safety.

Airworthiness Directives; Kidde Aerospace Part Number (P/N) Hand-Held Halon Fire Extinguishers

BRITE II Characterization and Application to a New Advanced Flight Motion Simulator

Design & Construction Standards, Revised January

Community Development and Recreation Committee

CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL PLAN SAFE USE HANDLING AND STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS

FIRE SPRINKLER SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF MOUNT GAMBIER BUILDING FIRE SAFETY COMMITTEE

DUAL MIRROR ALUMINIZED FABRICS. Protection You Can Count On. Value You Can t Beat.

UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

RetardantsInc. The Decision You Make May Save A Life! 123 Columbia Court North Suite 201 Chaska, MN 55318

Requirements for ships carrying hydrogen and compressed natural gas vehicles

2017 Annual Report. King County Fire District No. 27 Fall City, WA

Autonomous Wide Aperture Cluster for Surveillance (AWACS) WHOI Component

Public Comment No. 3-NFPA [ Chapter 7 ]

J. R. Qualey III, L. Desmarais, J. Pratt Simplex Time Recorder Co., 100 Simplex Drive, Westminster, MA 01441

Technical Data Approvals UL Listed and FM Approved. Refer to Tables 1, 2, and 3, as applicable.

KWA. Evaluation of the Morrison Bros. Co. Liquid Sensor, Adjustable Level Sensor and Multi-Level Sensor. Final Report

EASTERN ARIZONA COLLEGE Fire Department Operations II

Fire PROTECTION Standards. In a new environmental trend

SECTION REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. A. Relationship between Code, Ordinances, Standards and Contract Documents

Fire FY Performance Plan

Twin-Agent Fire Fighting/Securing Systems Specifications

ANSI/AHRI Standard 620 (I-P) 2014 Standard for Performance Rating of Self-contained Humidifiers for Residential Applications

Transcription:

AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2005-4581 EXTINGUISHMENT AND BURNBACK TESTING OF FIRE FIGHTING AGENTS Kimberly D. Barrett Jennifer L. Kalberer Applied Research Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 40128 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 Interim Report, 2004 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT B: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only; test and evaluation; September 21, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to AFRL/MLQO, 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2, Tyndall AFB FL 32403-5323. DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of this document. Air Force Research Laboratory Materials and Manufacturing Directorate Airbase Technologies Division 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5323

Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 26 SEP 2005 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Extinguishment and Burnback Testing of Fire Fighting Agents 2004 Report 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER F08637-03-6006 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER SYSSUP 6. AUTHOR(S) Kimberly Barrett; Jennifer Kalberer 5d. PROJECT NUMBER GOVT 5e. TASK NUMBER 0007 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER GOVT0007 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Air Force Research Laboratory/MLQ,Airbase Technologies Division,139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2,Tyndall Air Force Base,FL,32403-5323 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2005-4581 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR S ACRONYM(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR S REPORT NUMBER(S) 14. ABSTRACT The Air Force, in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration, is screening new fire fighting foam concentrates to determine their effectiveness at extinguishing and resisting burnback for hydrocarbon fuel fires. This report documents the evaluation performed on the fire extinguishing agents FLAMEOUT, FlameOut Foam and Hawk SUPER B in accordance with the parameters set forth in Military Specification (MIL SPEC) MIL-F-0024385F, Section 4.7.13 for the twenty eight square foot fire test using three percent of Type 3 foam (normal concentration). Under the MIL SPEC test protocol, agents were required to meet a maximum extinguishment time of 30 seconds and a minimum burnback time of 360 seconds for normal concentrations. None of the three agents tested at the normal concentration met these minimum requirements. 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 9 a. REPORT unclassified b. ABSTRACT unclassified c. THIS PAGE unclassified 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 8 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

SUMMARY The Air Force, in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration, is screening new fire fighting foam concentrates to determine their effectiveness at extinguishing and resisting burnback for hydrocarbon fuel fires. The DoD and FAA are interested in a simple, reliable test to evaluate the effectiveness of new foams being introduced into the market as potential Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) replacements. This report documents the evaluation performed on the fire extinguishing agents FLAMEOUT, FlameOut Foam and Hawk SUPER B in comparison with the performance of 3M AFFF in accordance with the parameters set forth in Military Specification (MIL SPEC) MIL-F-0024385F, Section 4.7.13 for the twenty-eightsquare-foot fire test using 3% of Type 3 foam. The MIL SPEC test offers a screening method to determine the extinguishment and burnback characteristics of each foam in comparison to MIL SPEC AFFF. For an agent to pass the performance requirements, it must have a maximum extinguishment time of 30 seconds and a minimum burnback time of 360 seconds. Of the three agents tested, none met the 3 percent, Type 3 minimum requirements. 1

I. INTRODUCTION A. Background The Air Force, in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), is screening new fire fighting foam concentrates to determine their effectiveness at extinguishing and resisting burnback for hydrocarbon fuel fires. Potential Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) replacements are required to exhibit an increased level of fire fighting effectiveness above current MIL SPEC AFFF. Because many new manufacturers of Class B fire fighting foams have entered the market, the Air Force and FAA are interested in a simple, reliable test to rule out those foams that do not meet minimum MIL SPEC requirements. B. Purpose This report documents the evaluation performed on the fire extinguishing and burnback properties of FLAMEOUT, FlameOut Foam and Hawk SUPER B in comparison with the performance of 3M AFFF in accordance with the parameters set forth in the MIL-F-0024385F, Section 4.7.13 for the twenty-eight-square-foot fire test. C. Scope This evaluation of the agent effectiveness on a Class B hydrocarbon fuel fire included the fire extinguishment time and, when possible, burnback time, using a three percent concentration. This testing was conducted as a screening method to determine the extinguishment and burnback characteristics of each new foam in comparison to MIL SPEC 3M AFFF. The complete 28 ft 2 fire test is comprised of 5 different tests including lean concentration with seawater and freshwater, normal concentration with seawater and freshwater and rich with seawater (Table 1). For an agent to successfully complete this requirement, all five components of the 28 ft 2 fire test must be passed. As a means to quickly screen agents, only the normal concentration with freshwater was tested. Table 1. MIL SPEC AFFF Test Concentration Values and Fire Performance. Solutions Type 3 Type 6 Maximum Extinguishment Time (seconds) Minimum Burnback Time (seconds) Lean¹ 1.5 ± 0.03 3 ± 0.1 45 300 Normal strength 1 3 ± 0.05 6 ± 0.1 30 360 Rich² 15 ± 0.2 30 ± 0.2 55 200 ¹One test with freshwater and one with seawater ²One test with seawater II. METHODS AFRL test protocol calls for performing a minimum of three tests per agent. The number of test can be altered based on the performance of the agent. These tests were conducted following the parameters and requirements set forth by Military Specification MIL-F-24385F, Section 4.7.13 for AFFF 3 percent, Type 3 (three parts 2

concentrate to ninety-seven parts freshwater) and compared to the performance of 3M AFFF. These tests were used only as a screening process to determine if the manufacturer should continue with the complete MIL SPEC test. All tests were conducted inside the Air Force Research Laboratory Fire Hangar, Test Range II, Tyndall AFB, FL to minimize the effects of wind on testing. A. Equipment and Materials The equipment used during testing included a large circular pan (28 ft 2, ¼ inch thick stainless steel pan with a 4-inch high side) placed on a level surface, a smaller circular pan (1 foot, with a 2 inch side) to perform the burnback portion of the testing and a 2 gallon per minute (gpm) nozzle for foam application as specified in MIL-F-24385F, Section 4.7.5. The foam mixture was of normal strength for 3 percent, Type 3 made with freshwater. Ten gallons of unleaded gasoline, Mogas, which conforms to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D439, was used during each test. B. Procedures Prior to each test, all equipment was cleaned, the nozzle was verified to disburse 2 gpm of foam and a layer of freshwater (1/4 inch deep) was placed in the bottom of the larger pan to guarantee complete coverage of the area with fuel. At the beginning of each test, ten gallons of fuel was poured into the larger pan within a 30 second period and the fuel was then ignited. After a 10 second pre-burn, the fire was attacked aggressively, with agent being first applied to the center and then to the outer edges to effectively coat and extinguish the flames. The exact moment of extinguishment was recorded and foam application continued for a total of 90 seconds, which ensured a consistent foam volume for all agents for the burnback test. C. Burnback Procedures Within 60 seconds of the completion of the foam application, the 1 foot pan containing 1 gallon of fuel was lit, placed in the center of the larger pan and the timer started. When the fire had spread outside the smaller pan and was burning steadily, the smaller pan was removed. The burnback time was recorded as the time when 7 square-feet (25 percent) of the total area were in flames. However, intermittent flash-overs, characterized by creeping faint blue or invisible flames over the foam surface, were not considered part of the 25 percent of the total area. Burnback tests were only performed on agents that were able to completely extinguish the fire within the initial 90 second application time. III. RESULTS Each agent s performance was compared to the Military Specification performance requirements. The results of testing fell into 2 categories: extinguishment time and burnback time. Results from each agent are shown in Table 2. 3

Table 2. Summary of Test Results. Agent Control Agent 3M AFFF Percentage Extinguishment Time Burnback Time Comments 3% 0:38:00 Self Extinguished @ 551 sec Small pan was not taken out 3% 0:32:00 Self Extinguished @ 362 sec 3% 0:34:00 Not performed Burnback test was not performed during this test FLAMEOUT 3% DNE None Recorded Did Not Extinguish 3% DNE None Recorded Did Not Extinguish 3% Test not performed per previous FlameOut Foam 3% DNE None Recorded Did Not Extinguish/ Agent application > 130 seconds 3% DNE None Recorded Did Not Extinguish/ Agent application > 130 seconds 3% Test not performed per previous Hawk SUPER B 3% DNE None Recorded Did Not Extinguish A. Extinguishment The average extinguishment time for 3 percent, Type 3 3M AFFF was 34 seconds. During this test series none of the agents tested fully extinguished the fire, even though application of the agent continued for more than 90 seconds. In the case of Hawk SUPER B, the fire seemed to be further agitated by the application of the agent. Hawk SUPER B was only tested once due to the intense heat generated when applying the agent. This agent caused the fire to flare up and the firefighters could not safely maintain the close position to the pan necessary to conduct additional tests. B. Burnback The control agent, 3M AFFF, self-extinguished after the pan was removed once the burnback fire was established. Self-extinguishment was determined to be the point when all flames from the burnback pan were extinguished. No backburn tests were performed on any of the 3 percent, Type 3 agents because the initial fire could not be extinguished. C. Summary of Results For an agent to pass the performance requirements it must have a maximum extinguishment time of 30 seconds and a minimum burnback time of 360 seconds. FLAMEOUT, FlameOut Foam and Hawk SUPER B did not meet the minimum requirements for extinguishment and burnback at normal concentrations. Reference: Military Specification MIL-F-24385F, Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), for Fresh and Sea Water, January 7, 1992. 4