8/12/2019 Ada 074490

1/115

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

2/115

NOTICEThe United States Government does not endorse productsor manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appearherein solely because they are con31dered essential tothe object of this report.

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

3/115

6 P) Tecb~i cal Report Documentation PageFM-D-612. Government Accession No. .1, Recipient's Catalog No..

4.Title and Svbtitl*6 .... .Auguit A9 79COMPARTVE EVALUATION OF PIREFIGHTING FOAM AGENTS, 6-. PefrigOrganizatia. '-od#

________________________ - &~ rforating Organization Report No.

Autforge ..- ---.. *B.IGeyer,awrence M. Neriii Charles H.1 Urban '7FA'A-NA-79-2Federal Aviation AdministrationNationtal Aviation Facilities Experimental Center 11. Contract or GrantNo.Atlantic City, New Jersey 08405 081-431-10012. Sponsoring Agency Namne 2nol Address -1.t.e~~pra~Pro oeeU.S. Department of Transportation Final il IiFederal Aviation Administration Juyki74-Ausus 17Systems Research and Development Service[Washington, D.C. 20590~15. Supplementary Notes

Informiation was obtained by condu.cting laboratory experiments and large-scale firetests which were of value in estimating the fire extinguishing effectiveness ofeight Aqueous-Film-Forming-Foams (AFFF), 11 fluoroprotein foams (FPF), and threeprotein foam (? F) agents.Large-scale fire tests were performed under fixed fire conditions employing air-aspirating and non-air-aspirating nozzles on 82.4-, 101-, and 143-foot diameterJet A fuel fires. Experiments were performed with only one foam agent which was.co~asideried representative of each class.Experiments tend to validate the continuation of allowing a 30-percent reductionin the water requirement at certificated U.S. airports when AFFF is substitutedfor protein foam (Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 139.49) and to maintain a1:1 equivaelency ratio when fluoroprotein ficam is autr~stituted for protein foam. Thedata also tend to substantiate the v;alidity of allowing an equivalent reductionin ater requirements at airports when the 3-perceut AFFF, FPF, and PF agentsare substituted for the 6-percent agents within ea'ch class.

1_7_.Key Words 18. Distribution StatementDocument is available to the U.S. publicLiquid Fuel Fires through the National Technical Informa-Suppression of Ai~rcrft tires tion Service, Springfield, VirginiaFirefighting Foam Agents 22161Aircraft Ground Crash Fire ____

19. Secueity Clossif. (of this report) 2.Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price112

Unclassified Unclassified _________Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72V Reproduction of completied poge a~uthorized ) .

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

4/115

a~ I

0w 00

5 =10

* a.

*z z : oz 6 1I ZpIIa 9 s i

A -E -1 -' `E

I-2

& r; R Iea~~~ iiI'Iii ~ ~ "I 5i iil- Ii liiiiicIli

'UD

9 8 16 4 V 2 1 nt~

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

5/115

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageINTRODUCTION I

Purpose 1Background 1DISCUSSION I

Composition and Types of Firefighting Foam Agents 1Laboratory Evaluation of Foam Agents 4Small-Scale Fire Extinguishing Experiments 22Large-Scale Fire Extinguishing Experiments 55Effectiveness Rating of Firefighting Foams 73

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 74CONCLUSIONS 76RECOMMENDATIONS 77REFERENCES 78APPPP'DICES

A Foam Rating SystemB Methods Employed to Determine Surface and InterfacialTension of Solutions of AFFF Agents on a Hydrocarbon

SubstrateLaboratory Determination of Compatibility betweenFirefighting Foam Liquid Concentrates

D Laboratory Foam-Powder Compatibility TestE Dry-Chemical Powder ManufacturersF Examples of two Specialized Firefighting Foam Agents

and the Solution Application Rates Required toExtinguish Some of the More Important IndustrialPolar (Water Soluble) Chemicals

G Stabili ty of Preformed Foams on Polar Solvents

iii

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

6/115

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conti,-.",)

H Method for Evaluating the Fire ExtinguishingEffectiveness of Firefighting Foam Agents

I The Thermal Stability of Mechanical Foam BlanketsJ The Effect of Terrain on the Fire Control andExtinguishment Times for Jet A Fuel FiresK Electronic Fire-Vonitoring EquipmentL Photographic Test Plan

ACCOWON ki __ _

iviS)USTiIICAT|ON ...

. :' IIIII~MIVIL ad i SPCWO'I ii '7

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

7/115

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

8/115

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure Page19 Comparison of the Foam Ground Patterns Produced by 60

the Fluoroprotein Agents XL-6 and XL-3 at SolutionRates of 600 Gal/Min at 250 PSIG from the Air-AspiratingFoam Nozzle

20 Comparison of the Foam Ground Patterns Produced by the 613-Percent and 6-Percent Prctein Agenta at SolutionRates of 800 Gal/Min at 250 PSIG from the Air-AspiratingFoam Nozzle21 Comparison of the Foam Ground Patterns Produced by the 62Non-Air-Aspirating Water tNozzle and the Air-AspiratingFoam Nozzle at 800 Gal/Min Using AFFF (FC-206)22 Variation of Foam Viscosity with Time after Formation 6523 Pictorial and Schematic Presentation of the Fire Test 66

Facility24 Typical gest Data Shoving Fire Preburn and Fire Control 67

Time25 Fire Control Time as a Function of Solution Application 71

Rate for AFFF, Fluoroprotein, and Protein Foams forJet A Fuel Fires

26 Foam Solution Application Density Required for Fire 72Contro! of Jet A Fuel Fires with AFFF, Fluoroprotein,and Protein Foams

vi

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

9/115

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

10/115

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page19 Effect of Water Spray on FPF Blankets 4820 Effect of Water Spray on PF Blankets 4921 Effect of a Simulated Tree-Studded Sod on the Control 51

and Extinguishment of Jet A Fuel Fires22 Effect of Sand Terrai,a on the Control and Extinguishment 52

of Jet A Fuel Fires23 Effect of Traprock Terrain on the Control and 53Extinguishment of Jet A Fuel Fires14 Fire Control and Extinguishing Times ot Water-Base 54

Jet A Fuel Fires25 Quality of Foam Produced by the 800-Gal/Mitt Turret Nozzles 6426 Large-Scale Foau Api-lication Experiments Employing the 69

800-Gal/Min Air-Aspiratitig Foam Nozzle27 Large-Scale Foam Application Experiments Employing Lhe 70800-Gal/Min Non-kir-Aspirating Water Nozzle28 Foam Rating System 75

viii

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

11/115

INTRODUCTION DISCUSS ION

PURPOSF. COMPOSITION AND TYPES OF FIREFIGHTINGFOAM AGENTSThe project objective was to study

and test all currently availablefirefighting fo4m agents and to rank PROTEIN FOAM AGENTS. There are twothese agents in accordance with the protein foam ('P) agents in generalmethod developed at the National use in the United States, basedAviation Facilities Experimental primarily upon the differen'es inCenter (NAFEC) (appendix A) according their use concentration. Theto their potential value where 6-percent type and 3-percent type areapplicable in the control and zxtin- recommended for proportioning withguishment of aircraft fuel ground water to produce 6-percent andfires. 3-percent solutions by volume.BACKGROUND. The 6-percent agent is used by the

Federal Government and procured underThe development of larger commercial Federal Specification O-F-555C (ref-aircraft and the enormous increase erence 1). At present there is noin general aviation aircraft activ- Federal or military specification forities has emphasized the need for the procuring the 3-percent agent .most effective firefighting capa- However, it is recognized by th ebilities at certificated and general National Fire Protection Associationaviation airports. This goal can be (NFPA) and listed for commercial useachieved both efficiently and econom- by the Underwriters' Laboratories,ically by employing the most effec- Inc. (reference 2). Most of thetive firefighting agents and equip- 3-percent PF foam liquid is consumedment combinations, by industry in the protect ion ofhydrocarbon fuel storage tanks andThe principal fire extinguishing related applications.agents employed in aircraft fireprotection are aqueous foams. The The definit ive 3-percent and 6-percentdevelopment and effective utilization PF liquid concentrates employedof these agents involve many o: the in the United States (U.S.) are not infundamental principles of chemistry common use on a world-wide basis.and the surface and interfaciaitension of liquid systems. As a AQUEOUS-FILM-FORMING FOAM. Theconsequence of the recent rapid recorded firefighting accomplishmentsadvance made in firefighting of PF agents are long and impressive.technology, a periodic assessment of However, the chemical advances inthe impact of these new developments fluorine technology made significanton aircraft fire protect ion is improvements in mechanical foamindicated.I 1

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

12/115

techrology a reality. It had long combinat ion of one or more highlybeen the goal of foam research fluorinated surfat:e-active agentschemists to develop new and improved in combination with foam stabilizersproducts which would m aterial ly and pour point depressants or otherreduce the fire control and extin- addi t ives (reference 7). In anguishing times for complex class B effort to reduce the cost as well asfires. to improve the fire extinguishingcharacterist ics of AFFe agentsThis goal was finally ochieved at the certain modifications to this basicNaval Res.arch Laboratory under composition were developed by Arthurthe direction of Dr. R. L. Tuve. A F. Ratzer in a paper presented at avery significant technical document technical meeting of concernedappeared in March 1964, entitled " A government agencies and manufacturersNew Vapor Securing Agent for Flim- convened on Campabello Island, N. B.sable Liquid Fire Extinguishment" during August 11 through 13th, 1964,authored by Tuve, Peterson, under the aegis of The Mearl Cor-Jablonski, and Neil (reference poration. This new composit ion3). This document provided detailed comprised a combination of hydro-informat ion on the chemical and carbon foaming agents and highly fluor-physical properties of a new class of inated surfactants which could bemechanical firefighting foams based readily formulated to meet the optimumon proprietary products developed by surface and interfacial tensionthe 3M Company. requirements of the aqueous film to

achieve the most rapid spread rateThe fluorochemicals provided by the and stability on a liquid hydrocarbon3M Company during these early efforts surface. Previous studies conductedwere derivatives of perfluorooctanoic by Bernette and Zisman (reference 8)acid produced by an electrolytic at the NRL demonstrated theprocess in the Simons cell (reference synergistic surface tension-4). An important paper authored by reducing effects produced upon waterR. A. Guenthner and M. L. Victor from mixtures of fluorinated alcoholsentitled "Surface Active Materials with conventional hydrocarbonfrom Perfluorocarboxylic and Per- surfactants. These fundamentalfluorosulfonic Acids" appeared in principles were subsequently incor-1962 (reference 5). porated in a U.S. Patent (reference

9) which discloses a fire extin-The aqueous-film-forming foam (AFFF) guishing composition comprising aagents are currently available in fluoroaliphatic surfactant and aboth the 3-percent and 6-percent fluorine-free surfactant. Presently,concentrations. The 6-percent type firefighting foam liquid concentratesis procured by the Federal Government incorporating these basic conceptsunder a military specification, are being produced on a world-wideMIL-F-24385, Navy (reference 6). basis.The original composition of the AFFF FLUOROPROTEIN FOAMS. A logicalfirefighting foam liquid concentrates offspring rf the development of AFFFdeveloped by the Naval Research was a combination of PF and th eLabora tory (NRL) comprised a fluorocarbon surf ce-active agents.

2

S '-~--...

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

13/115

This combination is called "-oro- The FPF l iquid concentrates wereprotein" foam (FPF), and Lhe variable developed by the Naval Applied Sciencephysical properties which can be Laboratory (NASL) and industry specifi-achieved by different proportions of cally to achieve an acceptable degreea protein hydrolyzate and fluorinated of compat ibi l i ty between PF andsurfactauts are indicated ira fig- Purple-K powder from candidate formu-ure 1. lations submitted principally by the

National Foam System, Inc. This effortIi this diagram, the FPF agents are therefore recognized the basic incom-indicated as lying in a variable patibility between the currentposition between PF on the left and 6-percent PF and Purple-K powder.AFFF on the right. If a smallquantity of a suitable fluorocarbon As a result of this work, a protein-is added to protein foam, the type agent was developed which demon-resulting product may produce foam strated a greatly improved compat-with excel lent stability toward ibility with Purple-K powder. ThePurple-K powde. (PKP) without the FPF agents demonstrate complete confor-formation of an aqueous film on the mance with the requirements of thesurface of the hydrocarbon fuel. Federal specificaticn for PF, and inHowever, when increased quantities of addition may display a high order ofsuitable fluorocarbon surfactants compatibility with Purple-K powder whenare added to a protein hydrolyzate, evaluated in accordance with teststhe surface tension of the solution developed by the NASL (referencedraining from the foam decreases 10).until it reaches a point where it mayspread across the surface of a liquid From the standpoint of chemical compo-hydrocarbon. Under these conditions sition, the onl" difference betweenthe generic term "fluoroprotein" foam the FPF agents and those approved underwould still apply, but the physical the Federal Specification is the pres-characterist ics of the foam would ence of a relatively small quantity,approach and perhaps equal those of a generally less than I percent bytrue AFFF. weight, of a perfluironated surfactant.

FLUOROPROTEINFOAM

PROTEIN FOAM [o AFFF 1I I

OU AQUEOUS FILMFILM FORMED . FORMED

POWDER ] MAY DEVELOPCOMPATIBLE A OAQUEOUS FILM 79-2-1

FIGURE 1. RELATIONSHIP OF FLUOROPROTEIN FOAM WITH PROTEIN FOAMAND AQUEOUS-FILM-FORMING FOAM (AFFF)

............................---

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

14/115

These fluorocarbons convey powder the foam-destructive mechanismcompatibility to PF through a phys- involving Purple-K, fuel, and foam.ical rather than a chemical property. This system is dynamic, however, andThe fluorocarbot molecule is func- only a few seconds are required totionally double ended; that is, one establish the optimum foam-fuelend is hydrophilic, or water loving, interfacial equilibrium condition.and the other is hydrophobic and/oroleophobic; that is, water and oil LABORATORY EVALUATION OF FOAM AGENTS.hat ing.

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF AQUEOUS FLUORO-The manner in which the fluorocarbon CARBON FILMS PRODUCED BY THE AFFFprotects the protein foam from AGENTS. The firefighting effectivenessdestruction by powder may be vis- of the foam produced by the perfluor-ualized by considering the way in onated surfactants is greatly enhancedwhich a drop of hydrocarbon fuel, by the aqueous fluorocarbon film whichsuch as JP-4 or gasoline, spon- floats on the surface of h)drocarbontaneously spreads when placed on the fuels as it drains from the foamsurface of water. This same blanket.spreading phenomenon may be con-sidere-I to occur when an aqueous The mechanism whereby the fluorocarbonprotein-base foam is placed on the surfactants function so effectivesurface of a hydrocarbon fuel. That vapor securing agents is based uponis, a very thin film of fuel, their outstandirtg effect in reducingprobably monomolecular in thickness, the surface tension of water and of"climbs" or spreads up and across the their controllable oleophobic andfoam surface. this hydrocarbon film hydrophilic properties. These proper-in itself is not destructive to the ties provide a means for controllingfoam. However, when Purple-K powder the physical properties of wateris present in the system, a syner- enabling it to float and spread acrossgistic foam-destractive mechanism is the surface of a hydrocarbon fuel evenestablished between the powder and though it is more dense than thethe fuel which causes a very rapid substrate. This unique property led toand progressive destruction of the term "light water" whlrih appearedthe foam body. When a fluorocarbon in several of the earls militaryis present in the foaimed solution, specifications defining the propertiesthe surface tension of the aqueous of this class of agents.phase is lowered from approximately45 dynes/centimeter (cm) to approx- According to classical theory (refer-imately 34 dynes/cm in some formu- ence 11) concerning the spreadinglations, and the fluorocarbon mol- of insoluble films on liquid surfaces,ecules are oriented ir, the foam the following equation maintains:wall in such a way that the fluoro-carbon end is extended outward and SC = o - (Yw + Yi )forms an oleophobic or oil-repelling where: SC spreading coefficient ofbarrier at the interface btetween the the aqueous fluorocarbon solution,foam and fuel. This interpretation Yo - surface tension of theof the phenomenon implies that the fuel,hydrocarbon film is no longet, able to Yw - surface tension of thespread over the surface; therefore, aqueous film, andthe fuel parameter is excluded from Yi - interfacial tension between

fuel and the aqueous film.4

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

15/115

If the spreading coefficient has a active fluorocarbon moietie(s) withinvalue Sreiter than zero (i.e., the body of the foam from which it waspositive), the aqueous phase can slowly released toward the end of thespread spontaneously upon or "wet" foam drainage cycle. however, thisthe fuel. A coefficient below zero same agent produced relatively highi.e., negative) indicated that it spreading coefficient values for thecannot spread spontaneously. When unfoamed solution and of the thirdthe spreading coefficient is zero, aliquot fraction which drained from thethe two liquids are miscible, foam.Although this equation is applicable Similar experiments were performedto pure liquids, there is wide using the three 3-percent AFFF agents,variation possible when aqueous and the results are presented in tablef luorocarbon films spread on a 2. A comparison of the film spreadinghydrocarbon fuel because of the coefficients obtained for the 3- andvariable oleophobic and hydrophobic 6-percent type AFFF agents shows aproperties of the fluorocarbon strong similarity in pattern betweenmoieties. Therefore, to assess the the unfoamed solution and the threeinterrelationship between fire- aliquot fractions of the drained foamfighting effectiveness and the liquid, with the exception of th esurface activity of the aqueous films anomalous performance of Lorcon 6.produced by the 3- and 6-percent AFFF Based upon these data, it is apparentagents, a study was conducted to that all of the AFFF agents produce andetermine the film spread rate of aqueous fluorocarbon film capable ofeach agent as a function of its spontaneously spreading over th einterfacial tension on Jet A aviation surface of Jet A fuel.fuel (appendix B). The Jet A fuelemployed in these and all subsequent However, a second factor considered oflaboratory experiments had a surface equal significance in determiningtension of 27.0 dynes/cm. the firefighting effectiveness cf the

AFFF agents is the rate at whichIn an effort to obtain better insight the aqueous fluorocarbon film spreadsinto the aqueous fi lm spreading over the hydrocarbon fuel surface.phenomenon on hydrocarbon fuels four To accomplish this objective, theseparate aliquot liquid fractions apparatus shown in figure 2 waswere taken of the solution as it developed.drained from the foam body. Thespreading coefficients obtained by The film spread rate experiments werethis procedure using four different conducted by discharging 4 m illiliters6-percent AFFF solutions on Jet A (ml) of solution down the inclinedfuel are summarized in table 1. From trough onto the surface of the Jet Athese data it is apparent that fuel at the uniform rate of 0.10only one agent (Lorcon 6) showed a ml/second and observing the distancenegative spreading coefficient traveled by the solution at appropriateindicating that the first aliquot time intervals. The film spread raterliquid fraction which drained from obtained for the unfoamed soluLion andthe foam would not spread spontane- each of the three aliquot foam drainageously on Jet A fuel. It is specu- samples are presented in table 1 forlated that this behavior resulted the 6-percent agents and in table 2 forfrom the temporary adsorption of the the 3-percent agents.

5

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

16/115

ad. 40 n n0 CIe aD~i.4rV4 AnC; C;

ot

P4*u' 0 0 C 0LnN o041V4O OLM.rl %MDr.%.4n

Ow D . -

4jdl C4C

0.4141 C0 o' UmC%0o 4

LA C; A. - . .a

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

17/115

zI-P4 00

0

0E44 .0 0 * 0 0 0 4 ein 0a

0.) I5A .

1-4 41P4&34 ' 4 ' U

0

I-- 04

00

44

16o1 -4 0qClICOO 41

En cr0it7

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

18/115

00C1%

4n

ci

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

19/115

For comparative purposes, these data of the manufacturers and the agentsare plotted in figures 3 and 4 for tested for compatibility within eachthe 6-percent and 3-percent AFFF clrs is presented in table 3.agents, respectively. A comparisonof these profiles show similar trends Appendix C 'ontains the results of thefor both the 3-percent (FC-203 and compatibility experiments conductedAer-O-Water 3) and 6-percent (FC-206 with binary mixtures at concentrationsand Aer-O-Water 6) agents. However, of 25, 50, and 75 percent by volumeit is considered noteworthy that the of each agent. From these data it isfilm spread rate obtained with the apparent that the four 6-percentthird aliquot sample drained form AFFF agents demonstrated an acceptableFC-206 and Aer-O-Water 6 foams degree of compatibility when evaluatedachieved the same fi lm spread in accordance with the test proceduresrate as the unfoamed solut ion. established in appendix C for allTherefore, these data tend to liquid mixtures.indicate that the foaming of an AFFFsolution may retard the rate at which Although the 3 -percent AFFF agents arethe aqueous film spreads over Jet A not manufactured in accordance withfuel. This phenomenon was, in fact, a military specification, as are thelater demonstrated in large-scale 6-percent agents (reference 6), theyfire tests in which the foam solution also deronstrated excellent mutualwas discharged through a non-air- compatibility in all of the laboratoryaspirating nozzle. experiments.Visual evidence of the rate at which In contrast with the AFFF agents, thean aqueous fluorocarbon film (Aer-O- 6-percent FPF liquid concentrateiWater 6) spreads over Jet A fuel is showed a low order of compatibility inillustrated by the sequential photo- the accelerated aging cycle. Ofgraphs presented in figure S. Lhe l0 ,.-inary corhir~ttat1ns tested, onlytwo showd a sediment of 0.25 percentMUTUAL COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN FOAM (maximum allowable) or less in theLlaUID CONCENTRATES. The probability aging experiments.that firefighting foam agents pro-duced by different manufacturers will Similar results were obtained whenbe used concurrent ly in airport combinations of the 3-percent fluoro-firefighting operations is increasing protein agents were subjected to theand requires that tests be performed accelerated aging test. A totalto determine the effects upon the of six mixtures were tested of whichresulting composite liquid system if only cne combination produced athese agents are inadvertently mixed. sediment of 0.25 percent or less byAccelerated aging tests were there- volume.fore performed in nominal conformancewith Federal Specification O-F-555C From these data it is evident that(reference I) to determine the degree combinations of the fluoroproteinof compatibility between the dif- agents should be avoided if they are toferent brands within each class of be stored for any prolonged period ofagents employed at the same usage time. However, it does not necessarilyconcentration (i.e., either 3- or preclude their being mixed when they6-percent by volume). A summary are required for immediate use.

9

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

20/115

0

H '.0

00

u CIDzz

8 Ul3 Moliillisriorl~v-40 1a.

10~

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

21/115

1

H4:

0 o a e(I4:*

*

H0 b i0

ji4 014zilo.0-4 -4H

0

I,'S rz4II pU --

'0'I

I I 00 0 0z SN 0

- M0T YI1. SflO3flV AO LVI

11

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

22/115

(a)FLM FRONT DSTANCE TRAVELED AT 2.8 SECONDS

gCILM FRONT

(b)FLM FRONT DSTANCE TRAVELED) AT 13. 1SECONDSFIGURE 5. FILM SPREAD RATE OF AN AQUEOUS FLUOROCARBON FILM(AER-O-WATER 6) ON JET A FUEL (1 OF 2)

12I

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

23/115

FILM VRoNI'

c) FI LM RONT DI STANCE TRAVELED~ AT '2.5.9 SECONDS

-4VTWA FRON

(d) ILM FRONT DISTANCE TRAVELED AT 546 SECONDSFIGURE 5. FILM SPREAD RATE OF AN4 AQUEOUS FLUOROCARB5ON FILM(AER-0-WATER 6) ON JET A FUEL (2 OF 2)

13

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

24/115

- ( O1?t S~p .. I t S W 5S N il)m

ill

iiz.9-4LI

i.I

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

25/115

It is speculated that the reason for principal use in combatting complexthe low order of compat ibi l i ty three-dimensional fuel-spill fires isbttween the fluoroprotein agents as a as auxiliary or complementary agentsclass is the absence of a suitable in conjunction with one or more ofspecification to define pertinent the foam-blanketing agents.r aquirements and thereby provideguidance during their manufacture. The increasing use of dry-chemicalIn this regard, rference 12 specif- powders as auxiliary agents inically emphasizes the fact that the aircraft accidents requires a knowl-mixing of protein, fluoroprotein, or edge of the compatibility of theseXFFF liquid concentrates of different agents with different foams. Thetypes oc produced by different results of large-scale fire testsmanufacturers shall not be per- performed at NAFEC (reference 14)

mitted unless it has been established with incompatible powder-foam com-that they are mutually compatible binations resulted in an almostunder long-term storage conditions complete cancellation of the fire-and that the mixture 1ill not reduce fighting effectiveness of boththe firefighting effectiveness of the agents, and fire control was neverequipment in which it is used. obtained. To be successful thedry-chemical powders used in either aOnly one experiment was conducted combined agent attack or as mop-upusing 3-percent PF liquids (Aer-O- agents should demonstrate a rea-Foam 3 and Mearl 3) in the accel- sonable degree of compatibility witherated aging tests. The results of the foam.this experiment showed that anacceptable degree of compatibility The compat ibi l i ty between dry-maintained between the agents, chemical powders and different foamswith sediment not exceeding 0.05 is usually one of degree rather thanpercent by volume after aging. an absol:te value. Theref ure, lab-oratory tests designed to evaluateNo compatibil i ty experiments were this property must be correlated withconducted with the 6-percent PF the results obtained using the sameagents because of the work previously agenti under actual full-scale crashaccomplished with these agents fire conditions. The laboratory test(reference 13) and the fact that they outlined in appendix D contains thear; gnnrr'llv nroduced in conformance four parameters existent in all air-with the federal sp*cif cation craft fire situations in which foam(reference 1) which requires mutual and powder are employed; i.e., fuel,compatibility for approval, heat, foam, and dry-chemical powder.

The purpose of employing this testCOMPATIBILITY OF FIREFIGHTING FOAMS procedure, in which the materials areWiTH DRY-CHEMICAL POWDERS. The int im ately mixed and expesed tofirefighting performance of all intense thermal radiation, was andry-chemical powders may be regarded attempt to simulate the most severeto he of the "go" or "no go" type. conditions which might be realizedThat i., the fire is either under actual crash firefightingcompletely extinguished with the conditions and to avoid the ambiguityenvironment cooled below the flash sometimes associated with inter-point of the fuel, or the fire preting the results of tests repre-will reflash. Therefore, their sentative of some unknown inter-

mediate degree of fire severity.

15

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

26/115

The results of experiments performed Previous foam powder compatibilityin accordance with this procedure experiments conducted in nominalusing a variety of foam and dry- conformance with reference 16 indicatedchemical sgents !ndlcated that if the that the major parameter contributingtime required to collect 25 ml of to incompatibility was the tuel .foam solution was 2.0 minutes (min) Therefore, to assess the effect of theor more, an acceptable degree of fuel parameter, a second series ofcompatibility would be obtained under experiments was conducted similarly toconditions involving a high-degree the first in which the fuel was omittedof turbulence of the burning fuel, from the system.foam, and dry-chemical powder incrash-fire situations (references 13 The results of these experiments areand 15). The experimental results summarized in table 5. From theseobtained using this test method and dat a it is apparent that thefive different dry-chemical powders compatibility between the PF and FPFwith each agent comprising the three type foam agents and dry-chemicalclasses of foams are summarized in powders showed marked improvement intable 4. The manufacturers of the the absence of fuel. However, it isdry-chemical powders are presented in obvious that any tr-it method purportingappendix E. to measure the compatibility between

f irefighting agents which are rec-From these data it is apparent that ommended for use either in combin:ationall of the 6- and 3-percent AFFF or sequentially (veference 17) thatagents demonstrated an acceptable does not take cognizance of th edegree of compatibility with each of presence of fuel is unresponsive to th ethe five dry-chemical powders when conditions maintaining in aircrafttested in accordance with the pro- accidents involving fire. It was forcedure outlined in appendix D. this reason that the test procedurepresented in appendix D was developedIn contrast with the AFFF agents, 6 and determined to be reasonablyof the 10 fluoroprotein agents showed consistent with the results obtained inan acceptable degree of compatibility full-scale outdoor fire tests.with Monnex and compatible dry- Therefore, the foam and dry-chemicalchemical (CDC), while only four powder compatibility data presented indemonstrated acceptable compatibility table 4 are considered to more closely

with monomonium phosphate (ABC) approximate the compatibil i ty to bepowder. No compatibility was shown anticipated in aircraft accidentsbetween any of the 10 fluoroprotein involving mabsive fual spll fires.agents and Super K or Purple K powder(PKP). None of the five dry-chemical COMPATIBILITY OF FIREFIGHTING FOAMSpowders were compatible with either WITH VAPORIZING LIQUIDS (HALOGENATEDthe 6- or 3-percent regular PF agents HYDROCARBONS). The halogenated hydro-tested. As a consequence of these carbons are considered among th eadverse results, a second series more stable of the organic compounds.of experiments was conducted in an Although all of the vaporizing agentseffort to identify the parameter employed in firefighting are chemicallyresponsible for the incompatibility related, each member of the group has abetween the PF and FPF agents and the different chemical structure resultingdry-chemical powders. in different degrees of thermal

16

Whim

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

27/115

3 040WI.

04

U 0 n On. n ~ *.1*-

Ln4

~C*4on 0n MC ,f- -0P 0

r,-4 J n - 4 0 c lc

o n n L - n n - - -

$01 0 4 n- 4 4q- W I-0n cne ,

0 300-4 IH I41-4 eQ. $4

0 u een 04 PL4 400-

;94

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

28/115

TABLE 5. COMPATIBILITY OF AFFF, FPF, AND PF AGENTS WITHDRY-CHEMICAL POWDERS (WITHOUT JET A FUEL)

FOAM SOLUTION DRAINAGE TIME FOR 25 ulSHin:SecFoam, Powder. and Heat

Foam and Dry-Chemical PowdersFoam Asenta Heat Alone Super K PKP CDC Aq MONNEXb AFFF

FC-2AO 6:55 4:05 5:00 3:44 5:05 4:45FC-206 4:50 3:35 3:45 2:55 3:20 3;15AER-O-WATER 6 5:20 3:35 3:15 3:24 3:50 3:50LORCON 4:15 2:45 2:50 2:10 2:30 2:40ANSUL 5:20 5:20 6:18 2:19 5:20 5:20FC-203 6:15 3:50 4:00 3:26 4:50 4:40AER-O-WATER 3 6:55 2:40 3:00 2:28 3:30 2:40AER-O-WATER PLUS 3 4:24 3:27 3:26 2:07 4:09 3:45

FPFAER-O-FOAM XL-6 4:10 3:00 2:05 2:06 4:40 40LORCON K 7:05 4:45 3:15 2:37 4:15 4:40LORCON PP 6:48 4:00 4:15 2:03 5:15 5:00ANGUS FP-570 7:22 3:16 2:59 2:19 5:37 3:50PYRENE PLUS F 4:38 3:16 3:15 3:04 5:07 4:28PROTECTOFOAM 5:30 2:44 1.30 2:12 3:35 3:00AER-O-FOAM XL-3 6:00 2:18 1:25 1:46 3:25 2:40LORCON FP 3 5:10 1:48 4:20 2:21 4:00 4:15ANGUS FP-70 4:59 2:15 2:01 2:00 4:52 4:35MEARL 5:16 4:09 3:41 2:00 5:15 6:13

PFTYPE O-F-555C 6:15 3:08 1:35 1:56 3:45 4:20AER-O-FOAM 3 5:75 2:14 0:20 1:33 2:15 2:55MEARL 6:49 4:12 2:11 2:44 3:36 4:46

18

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

29/115

stability. The molecular stability combatting large outdoor free-burningof individual compounds is a function pool fires no significant incom-of the dissociation energies for the patibility has been observed orweakest bonds in the molecules; reported when employing the vaporizingaccordingly, the weaker the bond agents and aqueous foams either simul-energy, the more readily thermal taneously or sequentially.dissociation will be accomplished.

STABILITY OF PREFORMED FOAMS ON POLARAs a consequence of the low chemical SOLVENTS. The primary hazard asso-reactivity of these agents at ambient ciated with aircraft firefighting istemperatures and their very low water the large quantity of hydrocarbon fuelsolubility, they are compatible with and oil carried. These petroleumall preformed aqueous foams. In products are insoluble in water and areaddition, the AFFF solutions were sometimes referred to as nonpolarshown to be compatible with chloro- compounds, to differentiate them frombromomethane (CB) in reference 15, the polar compounds or p ir solventsand in reference 3 the premixed AFFF which are either completely soluble orsolution was "blown" (foamed) with partially soluble in water. All otherFreon 12 (dichlorodifluoromethane). flammable liquids associated with the

operation of the aircraft are extremelyAlthough the pure vaporizing agents small by comparison. However, th eshow an acceptable degree of compat- large increase in cargo shipments ofibility with preformed foams, there highly flammable polar solventsmay be some minor transient incompat- presents a potential hazard worthy ofibility with their pyrolyses prod- consideration by the Crash-Fire Rescueucts. An extensive series of tests (CFR) services at airports in th econducted by ICI America under future.practical fire condit ions usingbromochlorodifluoromethane indicated Regular AFFF, FPF, and PF agents arethat about 98 percent of the agent is satisfactory for extinguishing/securingvolitalized in an unchanged con- large aviation fuel fires at nominaldition. Analyses of the data avail- application densities from 0.022 toable on the thermal decomposition 0.053 gallons per square foot (gal/products of the hologenated compounds ft 2 ) depending upon the fire con-indicates that these are quite ditions. However, these agents are notsimilar for all of the agents. The capable of securing large quantities ofproducts include principally the polar solvents exist ing in-depth athalogen-acid gases such as hydrogen these application densities.fluoride, hydrogen chloride, hydrogenbromide, and to a lesser extent the To effectively fight polar solventfree halogens (chlorine, bromine, but fires of significant depth, a specialnot fluorine) carbon monoxide and class of extinguishing agents has beenvarious analogs of phosgene (COC1 2 ) developed which are variously referredsuch as COFCl, COF 2 , COFBr, etc. All to as being of the "alcohol-type,"of which are highly toxic. It is "polar solvent type," or "all-purposethese acidic pyrolysis products which type." An example of the solutioncould conceivably be incompatible application rates recommended by onewith established blankets of pre- manufacturer using specially formulatedformed foams. However, because of foam agents (reference 18) tothe dynamic and highly turbulent extinguish several different classes ofenvironmental conditions inherent in

19

.

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

30/115

polar solvent fires is presented in densities: AFFF, 0.042 gal!ft 2 ;appendix F. From these data, it is FPF, 0.071 gal/f t 2 ; and PF, 0.084apparent that the solution appli- gal/f t 2 . As a consequence of thecation rates required to extinguish relatively large volume of methanoldifferent polar solvent fires, even employed in these experiments, thewith these specially formulated dilution caused by the liquid whichagents, requires somewhat elevated drained from the foam was negligible.solution application rates over thojerecommended for hydrocarbon fires. The results of the foam stabilityThese data also emphasi;.e the depend- experiments conducted with AFF7, FPF,ence of the foam solution application and PF agents on neat methanol andrate on the particular type of polar aqueous solutions of 75, 50, and 25solvent fuel involved. Although the percent by volume are summarized inpolar solvents carr ied as cargo table 6. These data tend to indicatepose a potential fire hazard the that the rate at which the foams areactual quantity and packaging destroyed decreases as the solutionrequirements (reference 19) for becomes more dilute and that th eshipment tend to reduce the hazard to critical concentration required towithin the Capabilities of the CFR delay the very rapid destruction of theservices using regular nonpolar fire foam lies somewhere between 25 and 50extinguishing agenis, percent by volume. The most stable

foam blanket on methanol and itsThe polar solvent most frequently solutions were produced by th eused onboard aircraft is methanol, fluoroprotein foams (Aer-0-Foam XL-6,either neat or in the form of its XL-3, Angus FP-70) and protein foamsaqueous solutions. The quantity of (Aero-O-Foam 3 and Hearl 3).neat methanol carried may very from afew gallons to 45 gnllonv or more In these experiments, the estimateddepending upon the configuration of average foam solution applicat ionthe aircraft. Therefore, laboratory density varied between 0.071 and 0.084foam stability experiments were galift 2 when the foam was placedperformed on neat methanol and its gently on the methanol surface.aqueous solutions in acc-ordanca However, in actual practice, wherewith the experimental requirements these foams are normally applied fromoutlined in appendix G. an air-aspirating nozzle, the appli-

cation density would have to beIn these experiments the volume of increased by a factor of 2 to 3 tofoam used (35.77 in 3 ) and the area offset the deleterious effects producedof interfacial cortact with the fuel by the turbulent action caused by(26.01 in 2 ) were held constant. this mode of di3charge.These parameters were considered mostrepresentative of actual firefighting FOAM QUALITY DETERMINATIONS. After thefield conditions, completion of the laboratory experi-ments, a series of small-scale fireBecause of the wide variation in the tests was scheduled employing th efoaming characteri.stics of each standard U.S. Navy C-gal/min foamclass of agents the average foam nozzle specified in reference 1. Priorexpansion ratiow varied as follows: tu performing these experiments, theAFFF, 18-20:1; FPF, 10-12:1; and PF, quality of foam produced by those8-10:1 by volume, which resulted in agents , which were consideredLhe following solution application candidates for future evaluation, wac

determined.20

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

31/115

TABLE 6. STABILITY OF PREFORMED FOAMS ON NEAT N4ETHANOL AND ITS AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS

Fos StabilityHin:58c

Apen% FC-200 FC-206 Mt--04-1AT 6 lUL LONtCON A&t-0-WATlt 3 AhR-0-WAT1 IC-203P5l8 3solutioncon.c.(2) 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 4methanolCone.Percentby Volume

100 0:09 0:08 0:08 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:0275 0:25 0;18 0.39 0:10 0:07 0:27 0:11 0:4650 30:00 30:00 30:00 30:00 12:48 30:00 30t00 3010025 - - - 30:00 - - -

FLUORO?NOTUN FOAM AUITSAeent A&R-0-IOAM ANGUS YMPYR Ahf-0-70AM ANGUSIL-6 1ItCON K W1ON FP "1-570 Plue F XL,-3 11-70 LOat(N 7 3 IUAJtsolutionconme. () 6 6 6 5 4.5 3 3 3 3MethanolCone.Percentby Volume

100 4:50 0:04 0:00 0:50 0:00 1:02 1:03 0:00 0:0775 30:00 7:44 1:28 30:00 0:09 30:00 25:36 0:46 220A50 - 30:00 30:00 - 30:00 - 30:00 30:00 30:0025 - - - - -

PtOTRXN FOAMAgent Federal Spec.

0-7-555C ARR-0-1OAM MIARLSolutionCone. (Z) 6 3 3ilethanolCone.Perce-irby Volume

100 0:08 0:59 0:0675 19:45 30:00 30:0C50 30:02 5 .0

21~ ~ ~.

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

32/115

The quali ty of AFFF, FPF, and PF was selected from each class and typeagents was determined in terms of the for detailed analysis of the changeexpansion ratio and 25-percent in foam viscosity as a function of timesolution drainage time, in accordance after formation. These data werewith NFPA methods (reference 12). A considered of value in assessing foamthird physical property of f ire- fluidity, which is one of the principalfighting foams not included as a properties defining fire control time.requirement in current federal, The increase in foam viscosity withmilitary, or civil specifications time is indicated by the profilesis viscosity. presented in figure 7.The instrument employed in measuring SMALL-SCALE FIRE EXTINGUISHINGthe foam viscosity in these experi- EXPERIMENTS.ments is shown in figure 6.Essentially, the instrument consists COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FIREFIGHTINGof a constant speed rotating torsion FOAMS ON 100-SQUAkE-FOOT JET A FUELwire and vane which may be adjusted FIRES. The foam equivalency rankingto shear a sample of foam held in a procedure presented in appendix Aspecial container, requires a determination of th erelative fire extinguishing effec-The torsion wire and vane are rotated tiveness of agents under a variety ofby a geared motor in Lhe head of environmental conditions encountered inthe instrument. The torsion wire is actual aircraft accident situations.enclosed in a brass tube on the Therefore, a series of small-scale firedownward facing spindle of the gear tests was developed based upon the firebox. Attached to the lower end of requirements of Federal Specificationthis tube is an adjustable circular O-F--555-C using the standard 6-gal/mmnscale which is divided into 100 foam nozzle. Experiments were con-divisions. Tho vane is sttached to ducted with the three classes of foamthe torsion wire which is also fitted agents in accordance with the modifiedwith a steel disk of sufficient size procedure presented in appendix H. Theto keep the wire taut. These com- results of these experiments areponents are arranged so that they can summarized in tables 10 through 12.be moved vertically as a unit, andthe sliding head is fitted with Table 10 presents a summary of the dataadjustable stops which can be preset obtained using the 3- and 6-percentso that when the head is depressed AFFF agents. These data show thethe vane is fully emersed in the foam average fire control and extinguishingto its uppermost edge. times for both concentrations to be of

the same order of magnitude, with theThe results of the foam quality 3-percent showing a slight advantageexperiments are presented in tables 7 over the 6-percent agents.through 9. These tables show foamquality data in terms of the foam The data presented in table 11 indicateexpansion ratio and 25-percent that all of the FPF agents passed thesolution drainage time for the foam sealability and burnback require-candidate agents subsequenttly ments. However, the fire control andemployed in the small-scale fire extinguishing times varied widely amongtests. However, only one agent the different FPF agents. In general

22

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

33/115

MOTOR IGEARbox

Ira,1110 woolI TOM3ION WiREHOUSlNO

KIUPORTBEARINGCOMPRESSIONSPRING34

ENGRAVEDCAL WRATIEDSCALE

SPACING . ALANCEDNUTS POINTIR

WEIGHT

RONTAINGR

79-2-678-24-C-1

FIGIIRE 6. FOAAM VISCOMETER

23 S.. .. .. ... .

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

34/115

e4IHI04 -.4

p.9

4Jk4

24

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

35/115

N C4

0.e4.

II

4 .0. i*

4Jkn**4 N4 91 0

bb 0k:4-4 0 25

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

36/115

VN

0'

04

't '

*91.r 44 4l I

v4 H00

V4 00 0

4.4

Ihi,

4-4 w'-100

C.'FA

o 26

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

37/115

400FEELSCFATO FEDEALECI1CAIONO-P-555C TEST NOZZLE 6 pil/ml

350

300

.,200TYEOVsC

SAER.O-WATAXL 6SAER-O-WATER Xt 3

AFFAGE~NTSloo rc - Z06

so... ............

0 30 i60 90 -2 li. S 230 24 0

FIGURE 7. VARIATION OF poAE VISCOSI~ WITH TIME~ AFTrER F~ORMATION

27

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

38/115

IN l

S IC0

F,04

u um 0 1- 6..3

28~

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

39/115

I I l.." .'

293I

B, U::. j

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

40/115

the average fire control and extin- foam application. In general, theguishing times for the 6-percent temperature of the water and foamagents were lower than for the liquid was determined to be more3-percent foams, while those for the influential than the ambient air4-, 4.5-, and 5-percent agents were temperature in establishing the foamfound to lie between these extremes, quality produced by any part icularfoam-dispens ing system.The results of experiments conductedwith one 6-percent and two 3-percent The results of small-scale (tO0-PF agents are summarized in table L2. square-foot) fire tests and foamThese data indicate that all PF quality experiments conducted atagents passed the sealabili ty and solution temperatures of 35" F and 125"burnback requirements and that F with AFFF and those agents based uponneither class of agents demonstrated protein hydrolyzates are summarized ina significant advantage in the fire table 13. The general trend among allcontrol and extinguishing times over foams was for the expansion ratio tothe other. increase (figure 8) and the 25-percent

solution drainage time to decreaseThis experimental procedure demon- (figure 9) as the solution temperaturesaLrated the adequacy of AFFF, FPF, was increased from 35r F to 125" F.and PF agents to meet the minimum The effect of these diverse trends inrequirements for compliance with foam quality upon fire control time isthe federal specification at a foam indicated in figure 10 for the dif-solution arplication rate of 0.06 ferent classes of agents. From thesegal/min/ft . However, the 3- and profiles it is apparent that th e6-percent AFFF agents exhibited the firefighting effectiveness of th efastest fire control and extir- AFFF's tends to increase as the solu-guishing times of all agents tested. tion temperature is increased, while

the proteinaceous agents required aEFFECT OF SOLUTION TEMPERATURE ON longer time for fire control at th eFOAM QUALITY AND FIRE EXTINGUISHING higher solution temperatures. OneEFFECTIVENESS OF FOAM AGENTS. The interpretation of the improved fire-effect of the ambient air temperature fighting effectiveness of the AFFFupon foam production under simulated agents concerns the more rapid releasecrash fire conditions has not been of the aqueous perfluorinated sur-extensively investigated because of factant film (figure 5) from the foamthe logistics problems inherent in body at elevated solution temperatures,conducting full-scale fire tests which is the predominant factorunder extremely low-temperature defining rapid fire control by theseconditions. However, it was evident agents.in one series of exper iments(reference 13) conducted at temp- However, since no aqueous film iseratures from 18" to 20" Fahrenheit produced by the protein-base agents,(F), that the ambient air temperature the predominant factor defining fire-was of minor importance in deter- fighting effectiveness is foam quality,mining the fire control time, which is indicated in figure 9 toprobably, in part, because of the rapidly deteriorate r.hrough the loss oftemperature-moderating influence liquid as it drains from the foam bodyproduced by the intense thermal at elevated solution temperatures. Theradiation on the environment during extended fire control time is further

30

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

41/115

TABLE 12. FIREFIGHTING EFFECTIVENESS OF PF AGENTS ON 100-SQUARE-FOOT FIRES

TYPE AER-O-FOAMFoam Agent O-F-555C 3 MEARLClass of Agent PF PF PFConcentration-Z 6 3 3Ambient Air 80 78 74Temperature- FWind Velocity 0-3 2 Z-9

mphFire Control 0:55 1:00 0:46Time-Min: SecFire Exting. 2:27 3:00 1:42Time-Min: Se cSealability Pass Pass Pass

TestBurnback Test Pass Pass Pass

31

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

42/115

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

43/115

0 N410 inU) 0- o 6

01-

00 04

0

ao %aJo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0siecmio io

33~

L6

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

44/115

140 -AFFF AGENTS

CC - 206120- FC- 203

FLUOROPROTEIN AGENTS()xL-60, XL - 3

o 100 \w PROTEIN AGENTS

STYPE O-F-555C8 AER-O-FOAiA 3

800-4z

60

60

40

2Or-

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 70025 - PERCENT FOAM SOLUTION DRAINAGE TIME - SECONDS 79-2-9

FIGURE 9. EFFECT OF FOAM SOLUTION TEMPERATURE ONTHE 25-PERCENT SOLUTION DRAINAGE TIME

34

[[I]'.,;,,-,..,_t,,._ " .,1.--------------------------------------------------------------.-...............................

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

45/115

30004.

U4-

S u l y L C U 7 N-4rlsw'-

F ~ ~ 0 5

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

46/115

augmented by an increase in the foam Since it is known that variousexpansion ratio, as indicated in quantities and combinat ions offigure 8, which, in the case of contaminating ionic moieties couldlow-expansion prote in- type foam have a degrading effect upon fire-agents, is accompanied by a rise in fighting effectiveness, it was con-foam viscosity (reference 9). sidered expedient to identify anyAs the fosai viscosity increases, the adverse reactions caused by waterfluidity decreases, and the foam may hardness by conducting a series ofbecome more d'fficult and time- laboratory foam quality experimentsconsuming to distribute uniformly and small-scale outdoor fire tests.over a burning fuel surface.Therefore, excessively high or low The results of the foam qualitywater temperatures are to be avoided experiments conducted with each classto obtain optimum firefighting foam of agents at water hardness levels ofquality, particularly with regard to 18 ppm and 470 ppm are summarized inthe protein-base agents. table 14. Only one agent was selectedfrom each class in an effort toEFFECT OF WATER HARDNESS ON THE identify any general trends concerningFIRE-EXTINGUISHING EFFECTIVENESS the effects of water hardness onOF FOAM AGENTS. With respect to foam quality.hardness, waters may be roughlyclassif ied as soft, less than 50 The profiles presented in figure 11parts per million (ppw); moderately show a decrease in the foam expansionhard, 50 to 100 ppm; and hard, above ratio for increasing water hardness100 ppm. with the exception of AER-O-Water 3

which increased and XL-16 whichWater hardness derives principally remained unchanged, while figure 12from the presence of the calcium and shows a general decrease in themagnesium cat ions jind to the 25-percent solution drainage time forchloride, sulfate, carbonate, and all classes of agents with an increasebicarbonate anions which are dis- in water hardness. The slope of thesolved in variouo amounts as they curves constructed for the AFFFcontact different geologic formations agents indicate that the foam solutionand are subsequently exposed to local drainage rates increase with increasingenvironmental conditions. A deter- water hardness, thereby, releasing themination of the water hardness at a fluorocarbon film more rapidly from thenumber of airport locations through- foam body. Therefore, it is apparentout the United States indicated that that both elevated solution temn-the hardness varied from approxi- peratures and an increase in the watermately 3 ppm to 410 ppm (reference hardness accelerate the release of the13). As a consequence of this aqueous fluorocarbon film from AFFF.finding, it was decided to conductthe evaluation of agents at 18 ppm, The effect of water hardnesswhich is the approximate hardness of firefighting effectiveness waswater at NAFEC, and at 470 ppm, which determined by selecting one repre-is roughly equivalent to one-half the sentotive 3- and one 6-percent agenthardness of coastal sea water. from each class and conducting tests

36'I

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

47/115

U)'.4 1 a. Q 44 4 10 N f 80Em4 . - - N .%A..

-. d 4

Em.4 0 N ... e..; a.A..Em -' S aU I il

C a. % NNa. 0 - a P. 4 St a.hi - - aEm) N 4 i S N U..-

a. o o-eU)I-I hi

. . 4 0 4 ii.. U4 I P. 0 .A

'.4 .. N .. 4

9 ,. - - N a.hi 0 N 0 0 U4 P. : S

0 '. S.

C0 a. - - ' UN - P. S . a

- U) a. -. - N .r. a.

P. S U- a.

P.. -hi s 9o - .0t

a -hi ______________________________________Em) a. a.a. a U Si .. l .4 4 U. g*..j A

37-

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

48/115

114Uall

z, U e 14z ~0 (rz C4 4 0r) 0 0 c

00

=1I100

0 1.4(n0

ssa~~aUVH~UaVANIfiISW38,

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

49/115

040

44U

.0

............

0(Ilroutld

390

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

50/115

in the 100-square-foot test tank depth and fuel reignit ion times are(reference 1). The results of these good. However, foam quality in termsexperiments are summarized by the of heat resistance also appears to beprofiles presented in figure 13. The significant, as evidenced by FC-206fire performance of these agents which produced o 7-inch-deep foamtends to suggest that their indi- blanket that resisted fuel reigni-vidual effectiveness is strongly tion for 9.5 minutes, which was theinfluenced by water hardness in the longest for any of the AFFF agents.fire environment. However, it is The generally longer fire extin-noteworthy that all of the 6-percent guishing t imes required by thetypes demonstrated shorter and all of 3-percent over the 6-percent AFFFthe 3-percent types longer fire agents is attributable in part to thecontrol times with hard water higher viscosi ty of the 3-perccntregardless of their class, foams.THERMAL STABILITY OF FOAMS ON JET A The fire test results obtained with theFUEL FIRES. The relative thermal FPF agents are summarized in table 16 .stability of mechanical foam blankets These data display a rather broad rangewas determined for AFFF, FPF, and of fire control and extinguishing timesPF agents by modifying the fire test among the various commercia l lyprocedure required in reference I available products. The quality ofto include a source of thermal foam produced by the different agentsradiation and flame impingement on also varied widely, especially in termsthe established foam blankets. Foam of the 25-percent drainage time whichblanket stability was determined as a ranged from 55 seconds to 6 minutes.function of the time required for It is noteworthy, however, that thefuel reignition to occur as a con- thermal stability of the resulting foamgration of the foam blanket. A reignition time, was 10 minutesequence of the thermal disinte- blanket, in terms of the fueldescription of the equipment and test or more for all foams with the excep-method is presented in appendix I. tion of Aer-O-Foam XL-3 which required

5.5 minutes. These results tend toIn these experiments, 6-percent PF indicate that the overall effectivenessconforming to the federal specifi- of the FPF agents may be more closelycation (reference 1) was chosen as a associated with the oleophobic prop-frame of reference for comparing the erties of the expanded foam conveyed byfoam blanket stability with that the f luoronated surfactant thanobtained for other agents. to the purely mechanical properties ofthe foam. However, none of the FPFThe results of the fire tests are agents displayed any significantpresented in tables 15 through 17. tendency to produce a spreadingFrom the data presented in table 15 aqueous film upon the surface of Jet Afor the 3- and 6-percent AFFF agents, fuel.it is evident that fire control wa sachieved with all foams within 37 to The results of the fuel reignit ion47 seconds. At the conclusion of the exper iments performed with on e10 minute fcam application period, 6-percent and two 3-percent PF agentsthe residual blankets vAried from are presented in table 17. These5.75 to 10 inches in depth. In data indicate that the PF agentsgeneral, the correlation between foam provided rapid fire control and extin-

guishment of the Jet A fires which40

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

51/115

rall

0~

0 '4

411

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

52/115

on f.4 r 4 LM

+ fn6% LN4

t3 aA A* t

E-C 4 IN a I o goc A0P4

'.42

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

53/115

'0. ff

4.4 *4

#43

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

54/115

TABLE 17. THERMAL STABILITY OF FOAN BLANKETS PRODUCED BY PF AGENTS

TYPE AIR-O-VOANFOAM AGENT O-F-555C 3 HMARL

Class of Agent Py PF P?Concentration - 6 3 3Ambient Air 55 54 69Temperature - *FWind Velocity 10 10 6-8

mph

Fire Contr,, 1:15 1:20 0:46Time - Min:SecFire Exting. 3:00 2:30 3:40Time - Min:SecFoam Depth 7.75 6.0 10.0

InchReignition 13:.15 8:03 13:18Time - Min:Sec

iip

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

55/115

resulted in a heavy cohesive blanke't The wide variation in the results ofover the fuel surface after foam experiments conducted with FPF agentsdischarge. The foam produced by the manufactured and distributed or a6-percent aIgent was the most world-wide bases, strongly suggests thethermally resistant to radiant enerjy raquirement for a specification toas evidenced by its lower dateri- provide b*3ic guidelines for manufac-oration rateo. The rate at which the turors in formulating :hose agents tofoam blanket produced by the two achieve their maximum effectiveness3-percent agents deteriorated was for use in the CFR services.essentially identical. However, the3-perciort Mioairl foam provided pro- THE EFFECT OF WATER SPRAY ONt.'ct ion equivalent to that of the ESTABLISHTFD BLNKTS OF AFFF, FPF, AND6-percent foam because of its greater PF FOAM. A study of the roltvedopth. effet of water-spray on establishodblankets of firefighting foams wasA comparison of the fire control avid considered necessary to provide irfor-oxtinguishing timed obtained with mation which would be usefui -n esti-AFFF and PF illustrates the very mating the disruptive effect that couldranid fire control times that are bie cauised by heavy rain or by wate'rcharacteristic of the AFFF agents. discharge from firefighting oquiptwnt.It was observed during these teststhat fire control, and particularly A small-scale water-spray test proce-~the fire-extinguishiment time, was a dure was developed baued upon thefunction of foam flukdity. The drum 100-square-foot firie te3t tank andrequired thti foam to flow around the federal1 spec if ication (reference 1).back of the obstacl#,, and the moreviscous foams produced a V-shaped The procedure required that the 100-opening in this area which required a squere-foot test tank be Filled to amasoaive buildup of foam to close, depth of 12 inches with watar uponThis condition was most evident with which 100 gallons of Jet A fuel wert,PF. floatedd. The fuel was then ignited awl

allowed to burn for 60 seconds, afterAlthough there was wide variation which fooAn was discharged onto the firebetwaen Individual agents within for oi period of 5 minutes, and theIeachi class, a comparison of the times required to obtain co'ntrel andthe rmalI resist~ance of the f ire- ext inguishment were rtbcorded. In thesefghtingl foama, based upon their experimnents, the fire control time wasdiitga o aetnst ugdt etetm eurdfr9indiatethe following ra-akirag order percent of th-o fuel surface to befrom most to least stable: FPF covered by foam, and the tire extin-6-percont FPe 3-percent > PF guishment t ime was recorded as thle,6-percent > PF 3-percent > AI'FF 6- total elapsed time until &P~ lamesIpierc,nt > AFFF 3-p4,rcent. T.it werei ext nguished within the tank. Thenotoworthy thtt this ranking order foam blank'et sealability was evaluatedis not represon~ativo of tne f irea- for a periad of Imiiiute by continuallyfight i.q effect iveness of these p.iissinR A ILghttod torch held 1/2 inchagentis but only oC the stability of above the surface in accordar'ce withestablished blankets of these foams the requirement of the federal speci-to prevent roignition after fire ficaition. At the conclusion of the

45

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

56/115

1-minuto torching period, ihe water- and ext inguishment times for dif-sprinkler system was activated and ferent foam agents were performed onallowed to discharge for 30 seconds, larg* water-base pool fires. Ina fteor which t ev syatemo weas those experiments, a water substratedeactivated and the torch passed was used under the fuel to adjust theover the remainingt foam blanket for I level of the liquid surface andminkute in an attempt to i~nito any prevent the intrusion ut islandsoesapinit fuel vapors. This entire through the surface. Although thisprocess was repeated until permanent procedure led to the establishment ofilgnition tit the fuel occurred. uniform fire test conditions, it wasThe number of successful water-spray not necessarily representative ofcycle@ completed was considered a aircraft crash-f re conditions.measure o f the f a m blIan eot Therefor*, to establish a more validstability, basis for the estimation of foamblanket stability, a series of small-

The results or the water-spray tests scale experiments wiis porform-)d onusaing AFFF are presented in table 16 throe different types of terraiti uaingatid for the WPF and PP ageonts in AFFp, PPr, and PP, A deecript ion oftable* 19 and 20, respect ively. the f re test procwdure and the equip-

ment employed in these experiments isA bar chart relating the foam blatiket contained iai appendix J. The types ofstability of each ageont tested is terrain employed to evaluate foamprosented in figure 14, where the stability included sand, traprock.namber kif spray cyclea obtahied, simulated tree-studded sod, and Abt,.oro. blank-,*t tehukre occurred, is standard water-bease pool fit forplottod on tho ordinate. A COm- comparison of the f ire cont rol andpotisisn oft thitse test rosults shows extinguiishment times. In these tests,that the number of spray cycles the primary objectives were to evaluAtecomploted by FPF aso a class of thit stability of the foam in contactagtent s, significantly exceeded that with the burning fueol-soakod surfacesof eith~er APP or PPF. Those data also and to estimate the rate of flow ofindicate that zhe on* concentration foam across the various simuleted(ageont type of the agtents within # terrains. A stool backboard, roquiringspecific %:lass s not a major contri- foaou stream impingement bWore draininghuti inig factor in determining the into the fire p.it, wast used to exposeroetivitAtce of ant ostablishod foam the foams to the most sover* environ-blankt-t to destrtiction by water mental conditions possible. Foam wasaproy, with the excoptiott of PP. Theo dispenoed at a solution rate of 0.06water-0tof~ resistAnce demonstrated gtal/win/ft 2 for all tests, whichby 1'F oppoars to bet theo rooslt of a approyimatos the threshold value foroynergistic reaction between the PP. The. effect of these differentper(tluoronated suirfactants and terrainso kpon the fire control andprotein hydrolyitest which prodlice a ext ingtuishmont t ines for Jet A fuelfoam siltnificantly superior to 7ither flires employing representative me~mborsof the eomvi-onntR individual ly, of the three claeses of firofighting

foams are presented in toblem 21EFFCT OF TERRA'IN ON~ THECONTROL AND thraugh 23.BYA. roio teustsconducted at Prom the Jata presented in table 24, itWIAkFcompar lug the f ire cont rol is apparent that all of the foam

46

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

57/115

9;. '0'.4 ..C -

M - * UI- 9.4 U.%.. " .9o -.97 ';:P5 9.-

o -

.9.. ... . .9

o '.4 -4

C -.. '9

k.

-

'NIq cx..V% 4 9.4 4

4

e'4RI ii . !A -U,-.-'U.0 ? F *bI..'4' a.

47

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

58/115

M 4

04 lk

ON4 4 o

~~ ..-4 -4 U.-m~48

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

59/115

TABLE 20. EFFECT OF WATER SPRAY ON PF BLANKETS

TYPE AER-O-rOAMFOAM AGENT O-F-555C 3 MEARL

tlass of Agent PF PF PFConcenzration - 6 3 3Ambient Air 71 78 30Temperature - 'FWind Velocity - mph 6-10 2-4 0-5Avg. Fire Control Time 1:12 1:12 0:57(2 Teets) - Min:SecAvg. Fire Exting. Time 2:55 2:52 1:57(2 Tests) - Min:SecAvg. Foam Depth 2.75 3.5 2.4(2 Tests) - InchAvg. Water Spray Cycles 13 9 3Completed (2 Tests)

49

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

60/115

IM"NVOE--T 4~malYRM

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

___________ ______ __ 9r 1

ISIVAi.0URYV

90z-0

fl OD)*U

CJ.V OA l3c st-a

UUM-0-12

S3o1 XAd SVVW

50:~i~

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

61/115

00 4on

00

cn -404L

I-E- 0 04 1.0 t0or

1-4 X. in4-,-oA o

C) - 4Z W0

-4 P4 IfI-4 -4 W 0W W

~F4Cj *.4 4 W b.U~51 1

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

62/115

Ln0 0 * Cl4wnn %D0

o C;X440 a 0 0cn 1jfI-4 0 04 C4ICIO

C4 -4 -4

1-4-0001-4C-4 Z- 0 I

0 C'1' C--4H ~E-4C4

4N 00 C44 Cl

-4 U14l--) A.) 0- a).,4 w4

00 0jA 0 A,44 CO4

52

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

63/115

N 44

-4 4

C4 4

60 0)0 ?A

b)0 V4 .4 %-

014 %4 -4

.~. .. .. . ....- --

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

64/115

1 04-4- A

04a 4 4

4.' Vp404 LIN'0 J0 C

"4 UU '-ej .,j . ;

U I- ~UE-4 E4

54

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

65/115

agents met the nominal fire control are among the factors which mayand extinguishing times established affttt the fire control time.in reference I for PF. However, noneof the foam agents met the 4-minute LARGE-SCALE FIRE EXTINGUISHINGcontrol and 5-sinuta extinguishing IiKRIMENTS.times required in the federal speci-fication when discharged on any of FULL-SCALE FOAM DISPEOSINGEQUIPMENT.the other simulated terrains, with Two different turret nozzles werethe exception of the AFFF agents on employed in the large-acale fire-the sandy terrain, modeling experiment:. One (figure 15 a

and b) was an air-aspir&tirq single-The data presented in tables 21 barrel unit witlh a nomin&l 3olutionthrough 23 show that of the three discharge rate of 800 gal/min at 250terrains tested the simulated tree- pounds par square inch (lb/in 2 ) atstudded sod posed the most complex the pump. This nozzle was capable offire situation, since it comprised imparting high energy to the foamboth class B and three-dimensional solution by creating a condition ofclass A fires. By contrast, the high shear and turbulation to the foamsandy terrain Jet A fire was the during passage through the barrel.least difficult to ext inguish, Foam shapers at the end of the barrelfollowed in complexity by the were capable of changing the foarmitraprock fire configuration. These pattern from straight stream to th eresults therefore tend to emphasize fully dispersed pattern in a contin-the importance of the physical uous manner.properties of the foam, in terms ofexpansion ratio and foam viscosity to The second nozzle (figure 16 a and b)provide a rapidly spreading vapor- was a non-air-aspirating single-s ecuring blanket over the fire barrel unit comprising a discharge tubehazard. and a stacked deluge tip with a1.5-inch orifice capable of dischargingThe results of these tests also foam solut ion at the rate of 800suggeat that fire control and extin- gal/min. Foam shapers were adapted toguishment times obtained under simple the end of the nozzle which werepool tire condit ions may not be capable of varying the dischargeadequate to accurately define the from straight stream to A fully dis-actazal requirements with regard to persed pattern.the solution application densitynecessary and the time cequired to Figures 16 and 18 through 21 showachieve fire control and extin- the foam ground patterns producedguishment when different natural by the 3- and 6-percent AFFF, FPF,surface structures are involved, and PF agents when dispensed in theThese facts were confirmed by pre- straight stream and fully dispersedvious ful l -scale fire tests using modes. These patterns are of valueB-47 aircraft (reference 13) which when adjusting the initial foam dis-emphasized the fact that other persion pattern and for estimating theparameters are involved in aircraft nozzle elevation required after eaxhfirefighting than those encountered successive traverse across the fire pitin simple, pool fire experiments, to achieve the minimum fire control andThe aircraft configuracion And its extinguishing times.position relative to the winddirection and the type of terrain The quality of foam produced by the800-gal /min turret nozzles is

55

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

66/115

(a) PROFILE VIEVJ

44

(b) FRONT VtEWFIGURE 15. CENEU0AL CONFIG;URATION OF THE AIR-ASPIRATING FOAM NOZZLE

56

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

67/115

240 240

-100 20 0

160 140*J w'120 0XC 12 0

I.-U. I,-

40 40

o o20 1 0o102 20 10 0 00 200 o0o 20 20 10 o 'o 20

DISPERSED STRAIGHT DISPERSED STRAIGHTSTREAM STREAM STREAM STREAM

WIDTH - FEET WIDTH - FEET

(A) FOAM GROUND PATTERNS FOR 11J" (b) FOAM GROUND PATTERNS FOR THE6-PERCENT AFFF AGENTS 3-PERCENT AFFF AGENTS 79-2-16

FIGURE 16. FOAM GROUND PATTERNS PRODUCED WITH AFFF AT 800 GAL/MINUSING THE AIR-ASPTIRATING FOAM. NOZZLE

57

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

68/115

SVMIE'R'S CONTROL

FLOWREU C E RS

U.) PROFILE VIEW

cq ~NOZZ LE

(b FRONT VT E

FIGURE 17. GENERAL CONFIGURATION OF THE NON-AIR-ASPIRATING WATER NOZZLE

58

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

69/115

2N 2s0

240 - 240

1200 - 200 -w uww w

I I i i

s,- so0 140

0iI

III

l2 I0 o to )0 20 t0 0 20 20 I0 a 10 20 200 0 20DIMI'bISID1 STRAIGHT O|SPERSID STRAIGHTSTREAM STREAM STIARAH STREAM

WIDTH - PIET WIDTH - PERT(A) FOAM GROUND PATTERNS FOR TotE (N) FOAM GROUND PATTERNS FOR THE4 -PERCENT APFF AGAWTS I -IRCENT AFP AGENTS 79-2-18Il'

-A) P .AN GROUND PATTERNS PRRDUCED (IT) PA R PATTN R THEIISINC, TTHE NON-AIR-ASPIRATING WATER NOZZLE

59

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

70/115

W6 4

w l M

oo'42

VI Ot

L

C > 011

* WAW

2r(2

60

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

71/115

C1

co

r4

M

4A aO i,, -oz

c L

-z Nw PA *O

1-- LW H

'o 12x wI . uI A ~

0 WW'-t~ O-41-0iLI-- 0

Nw fnnL IL H

0611

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

72/115

'Im4LIIL I

ac

____ ____ ______ ____ ___ wCIim l 6

LoNk

'V4

622

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

73/115

sunmarited in taole 25 in terms of described. in appendix K. Heat sensorsthe foam expansion ratio, 25-percent were located at the pool perimeter onsolution drainage time, and foam the diameter and at right angles to theviscosity. However, there was wind direction. Thermal data wereinsufficient foam produced by recorded on instruments within athe non-air-aspirating nozzle to specially prepared trailer.. Motionevaluate foam viscosity. The pictures for Ioa-umentation and dataincrease in foam viscosity as a analysis of each test was obtained atfunction of time after formation i, locations on the top of two speciallyindicated by Lte profiles presented debigned varas (appendix L).in figu-e 22. Uniform fire test conditions wereFIRE TEST FACILITY AUID TEST METHODS. maintained throughout the testingThe fire test environment employed program by allowing a minimum preburnin these experiments is schematically tirae of 30 seconds at maximum radiationand pictorially prepented in figure inensity prior to initiating fire23. The test bed comprised a 200- control action. The connotation of thefoot-diameter pit constructed with a terms, preburn time and control time,12-ivtch-thick soil cement base ond a as defined by the test perameters, ispolyvinyl chloride membrane embedded iitustrated by the idealized profiles6-inches below the surface to serve in figure 2,, where heat flux versusas a fuel and water barrier. Within time after ignitio-i is plotted tothis area, fires were confined in illustrate the type of thermalconcentric pools of 82.4, 101, and radiation data obtained from th e143 ieet in diameter. The two fire-monitoring system, It will beinnermost Fools were constructed of noted that after the fuel was ignited,9- and 13-inch-high con,riete dikes, the heat flux slowly rose until aand the outermost by an 10-inct.-bigh maximum radiation level was reached,earthen dike. By employing this tinder the exist ing conditions, andconfiguration, it was possible to maintained for a minimum of 30 secondschange from one fire size to ':he next prior to the start of foam discharge.larger by the addition of the water This period of maximum radiationsubstrate to the proper pool. intensity before foam application is

defited as the preburn time; in thisThe fixed fire conditions incor- case, 45 seconds. Fire contrcl isporated a cruciform cluster of seven defined as the elapsed time between the55-gallon ateel drums as an obstacle initiatiov of the ext inguishingfactor in the center of the fire operation to that time when the heatpools. This served as a heat sink in flu , as measured by the radiometers,support of a three-dimensional fire was reduced to 0.20 British Thermalsituation which was sustained by a Units (BTU)/f t 2 -s. In thesespray of fuel from a 2-foot-high, experiments, the fire control time was1/4-inch-diameter stainless steel recorded as the major test parametertube. Fuel tanks f..d the burn defining fire performance, because itarea by gravity through an under-- was more consistently reproducible thanground network of pipes. the fire extinguishing time.The instrumentation employed in FIRE EXTINGUISHING EFFECTIVENESS OFmonitoring the proGress of fire AFFF. FPF, AND PF AGENTS. The purposecontrol is shown in figure 23 b and of the large-scale fire extinguishing

63

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

74/115

~e CAC,4.,,,..%der,..a' 4

', ~~~1 , ,,,,, ,,,, ""a "

oo

* -a-64

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

75/115

500

SINGLE BARREL 800 IlI/rnin AIR-ASPIRATIN:ZFOAM NOZZLE Z50 PSIG450

400

N 350

300

2500

150 AER-O-WATER XL 3AFFF AGENTS(0 FC -206I

100 9FC -203

50

i I I I I tSO 60 90 120 5SO 180 210 Z40

TIME - SECONDS 79-2-22

FIGURE 22. VARIATION OF FOAM VISCOSITY WITH TIME AFTER FORMATION65

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

76/115

(o)PICTORIAL VIEW

ORSTACLECONFIGURATION

RADIOMETERNTSMTRUMNTAN

CONCp.ETF D:KES

CAMERAEARTJAT DMOUN

ULOME CAG3E RADIOMETERISINSTRUMENTtTIONI 7TRAIL.ER INSTRUMENT VAN 0 AEABwl up'WINDIJRtCTION

EARTHEN MOUNDFUEL STORAGE TANK(S 79-2-23

(b)SCHEMATIC VIEWFIGURE 23. PICTORILU, AND SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF TIlE FIRE TEST FACILITY

66

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

77/115

STARiT.) O | ! XTIlIIIIIIi iNG

.1 - S oIII o l c~

-~a

| P~I~lURVN ,CIN TRILLS5.0 TIME " I aTO,

3.-

" IISIt1liNT HEAT Ir ~I a

LL,,

TIM AFE IGK iT IN.EOD

79-2-24

FIGURE 24. TYPICAL TEST DATA SHOWING FIRE PREBURN AND FIRE CONTROL TIME

67

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

78/115

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

79/115

TABLE 26. LARGE-SCALE FOAM APPLICATION EXPERIMENTS EMPLOYING TH E800-GAL/MIN AIR-ASPIRATING FOAM NOZZLE

ArGt solutiom solutionsolutiom Fire Pit Fir Pit Jet A Control Application ApplicationFoem Coneutnration Dianetf Are,% Fuel Tim &ate DessitzAgtents (2) (feet) (f*-) (141) (04 J(Itl-21afft2) Sltz

FC-203 3 82.4 5,333 1.500 17 0.13 0.0425YU-203 3 101 8,000 2,400 17 0.10 0.028314C-20313 16.000 5.000 30 0.05 0.0250

FC-206 6 82.4 5,333 1.300 16 0.15 0.0399FC-206 6 101 8,000 2.400 16 0.10 0.0266FC-206 6 143 16,000 5,000 26.5 0.03 0.0218

1'?P GENrSIL-3 3 82.4 5,333 1,500 20 .0.15 0.0500XL-3 3 101 9.000 2,400 22 0.10 0.0366X1-3 3 )43 16,000 3,000 52 0.05 0.0435XL-6 6 82.4 5.333 1,500 20 0.15 0.0500XL-6 6 101 8,000 2,400 20 0.10 0.0333IL-6 6 143 16,000 5,000 56 0.05 0.0467

PP AiIUTSAer-4-fou 3 3 82.4 5,333 1.500 20 0.15 0.0300Aar-O-Fos- 3 3 101 8,000 2.400 20 0.10 0.0333Aer-0-Foas 3 3 143 16.000 5.000 43 0.05 0.0358

TYPE O-F-555C 6 82.4 5,333 1,500 21 0.15 0.0525TYPE 0-F-555C 6 101 8,000 2,400 21 0.10 0.0350TYPE 0-F-555C 6 143 16,000 5,000 50 0.05 0.0418

69

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

80/115

30 0j0 A 414 C'JC0 00%

41

-,4 AJ -40 -40Co ~ oU 00 0_4'4 goto-

00

zCd-t00 QO

.- 4 00 080w c44rzz w

k00AiC' 0 0 00

t-4N ,4

044 0-

C4-

00uI

0 U C'I

0 u0

70

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

81/115

14-

a0 0 00 00 91u~~ u~ u~ H W~0:z

CE:4 E-.

CzC)14J0 04

C4 E-iZ0

Ov-E'4 (N

1~4-4

0 ~Li sawo~swiN 1 r0iollN0D THdT

71

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

82/115

z0 0

en z00~ ~ N N0 e WW I I:D:l 0~ 04z~0 114 U U ~ -4 C41W > 0 W U U

NN w

t-4.-

z4.4 04 1

LA PL

w H>

'0 1'-N4

-iIm AJLISNaa N0IVV.lI'ddV NOTfIMOS

72

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

83/115

he t ween 0 022 anal 0 .07 gasI/ f the potent iri economies realized from(0.0 ,tal/mill/ft:2). Based nzpon the a reduction in hardware and manpower,test procedures and agents employed which wa.y constitute a substant atlin these exper-iments it is evident and continuing economy.that tit reduc'tion in thle fire controlt me or soltt ion appl icat ioin occuarred As a cnsequence of a con~tractualthrotibgl the time of FPF over the PF effor, supported by the U.S. AirAge'nt it. Force and the FAA-NAFEC (refetrener 13)

sufficient data were develope'd toThe resil sa of etxperiment a condue ted permit a ranking of AFIF and Pr in,with the $00 gal/min nont-air- overall effectivenevs. The methodaspirating notrle are' presented developid is present,'a in appendix Agraphical iv in f igireit ?S atvd 26. and was subsequently stubmitted by tileThese prof i en indicate that a U.S. delegate to the lnterti-rtionaIshort *'r f ire etont rot t ime was CivilI Aviat ion Organizat ion ( CAO)r.'qiaiir.'d at discharge rates vI O.(S during the secornd meet ing of theMnll' 0 . 10 gal / illn/ tt2, wit i h Rt'aciae anti Fire' Fighting Panel in June'rqi.a4I d i n a1 tr.,- r soI tut iotilpI'l i - of192cat iii1 kdetirit v. 11tever. ail ter (ire'cont rilt and ext iragti shiiient had bet-iat In th i ranking procedure., the ove ratobt a ned. 1 i than 'I'S porcent of( the etfectt ivenesta v I? fire figh ti ng foiamsfte' suaar face' htad r'eetnitciati'd by is bAsed upotn a jxsit system (append ixlo t * a Itotoisgit the're wa~ ev ide'nce' of A) w it h a max imum or perfet.' toacolrethe prepence' ot .in aqtaeotas fituoro- of 400 points b eitrg postsible. Thereea I.bol f ilIM. Art' 10( major parmait era. #-sall of wit i c Iwas assigned a point value that wa sMet'e 411)(04r itr..at x kig~est lithe Ivoten- c"O"Ajidered repr.erent at iv. of it ittint AdvAnt ages ot a prot otype' nozzle ac tat ive impor t an~ce in t It e p roperVa cWOUrpor i wig t hie Itsnp-t hrow- r 4tge tuinc t inn ing of Ole agent cintder IivIidtlin ra * I- r ist i . o f I lie nosi-at r- -condit ikill. It will he' note'd that itemsa.ptat1 iatg nozzle~ with t he- siir- I antd aiiihdivide'd into. lvcrtimeat?

s 'aa.it Inag a jiab i I it V oi's thle fosam Cotai1P41nent a, --4 h oft which roast r ilitecsat',i'whti ch c oia I be' cont roll i'd by to thie Iota 1V lise otI that t emt l' t atit I *pe'rAt "I ( pisodTce r hi4ret.ieatire'd loam eitI its' in a coontinotaoie The est imateid va lisen shown in appendiaxmaltir. A for AFFF and PF under eacii p'arask-ter

ark. based ..aponi lahtoratotyv experiments*l*'*t~t%*FNFS'% KATINC OF FIRMCA:LTINt: Anil tile resut.!ts of "M;~I- alid large'-FOAM taVAt' fire teits4. This ranking syslew

permt It e'd a reducist ioln sit apprkoximA~t I'Vi.'tMAe'4,t .a1i e'misaaA i aIs he'in :s1 aCed W perceent in file- Water requs remeat 0 i11sail'tis the cost .'t fi e p'rol ct ioa At I i rof ight aog ofierat ita's when AFFFai rpo: t a, selhac it isa, In fadc[, t he i t stibst it taele fo FF. Sabtseiquent IV,ptl im.~.rv Z'5I1.ns bfr .. onsi dea 'ig tile ..o~-rt orgalixat ilns much air th e%%,w andi ftve' 'It e'ctive I o&.m agent i, I AO and NFPA reit *wat.ed a r.'diactioine-Vt'l t ItOl Igh Olac may be 1orIe' expectl- oit.it tn-t h i r4 iii I le water requ Ietumentsav ,e . 11ow rvi.r * %1V po~ it i aI when AFI F iiP suh.It it tited for PF andil, i iain l'A. L is.. tile c-op( of agenit a it" FederalI Avi at ion RegIu I at iton% (FAR)4,11t a ill .otIIIo tsof givent firs' Part 1 114.44) a redus:t ion ot 40) pervont"itiulat it"I millst N.'I:;ace allainot ii sep rm it terd a t 1 . S. Cert I I iCAted

airports (re'ference 19).

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

84/115

As a consequence of the large 1. Only the 3- and 6-percent typeincrease in the use of the 3-percent AFFF agents produced aqueous fluoro-foam agents at U.S. airports and the carbon films which spread across theready availability of numerous FPF Jet A fuel.agents, the ranking method employedin appendix A was expanded in table 2. When the 3- and 6-percent ' type28 to include these newer agents. AFFF and PF liquid concentrates wereFrom a comparison of the grand totals mixed in proportions of 25, 50, and 75developed for each class and type percent by volume and subjected toof ageut, it is apparent that no accelerated aging, the sediment pro-significant change in the original duced was less than 0.10 percent byranking of the 6-percent IFFF and PF volume. Under identical conditions,agents occurred. The data also show :.he 3- and 6-percent FPF agents pro-that the values obtained for the 3- duced sediment in excess of 0.10and 6-percent AFFF and protein foams percent by volume.were essentially equivalent.However, there was no improvement in 3. Laboratory foam-powder com-the overall ranking of the 3- an. patibil i ty experiments indicated that6-percent FPF agents over the cor-- all combinations of 3- and 6-percentresponding PF agents. This was AFFF with five dry-chemical powdersdue in part to the very low order of showed 25-mI solution drainage times u,compatibility between the FPF agents 2 minutes or more. None of the FPF oras a class and the dry-chemical PF agents demonstrated 25 ml drainage1owders. In addition the FPF liquid of 2 minutes or more with all powders.concentrates of the samne type demon-strated a very low order of mutual 4. All of the AFFF, FPF, and PFcompatibility when mixed. agents when tested in accordance withthe fire requirements of FederalThe results of this ranking procedure Specification O-F-555C demonstratedtend to confirm the validity of fire control times of lece than 4allowing a 30-percent reduction in minutes and fire extinguishing timesrSthe water requirement at certificated under 5 mtinutes.8airports when either the 3- orf,-;rcent type AFFF agents are used 5. In small-scale fire tests con-to replace PF agents. The data ducted with AFFF, FPF, and PF a enstsfurther indicate that when either the the effect of elevated sklution tem-3- or 6-percent type FPF agents peratures was to decrease the fireare substituted for sis.ilar types of control time for the AFFF agents and toPF agents, the total wtter require- increase th.- control time for FPF andment for foam production should PF agetts.Sremain the same. . In small-scale fire tests, the

effect of permanent water hardncssSUNMARY OF RESULTS of 470 ppm demonstrated a reduction inthe fire control times for FC-206,XL-6, and 6-percent PP (ho,.arl) and anThe result, obtained from laboratory increase in the fire control times )f

and large-scale fire testv employing FC-203 and Aer-O-Vater 3. Fire controlAFFF, FPF, and PF on 82.4, 101, and could not be obtained uasing FPF XL-3143 feet in diasster Jet A fuel fires within the test duration t imeare: (5 minutes).

74

.....

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

85/115

10 U-U- 0

I0N N o s

o

- F.1

1.4 0 0~~~ C;U0 0 pF. 0~ P"tI 475

C C U- 0 0

8/12/2019 Ada 074490

86/115

7. In small-scale fire tests the application rate was 0.10 gal/min/ft 2.thermal disintegration of established However, when the solution applicationblankets of AFFF varied from 0.0158 rate of the 3- and 6-percent type AFFFin/sec for the 6 percent to 0.023 agents was reduced to 0.05 gal/min/ft 2in/sec for the 3-percent agents. The (50 percent), the fire control time wasthermal disintegration rate of FPF increased by approximately 65 percent.agents varied from 0.0033 to 0.0096in/sec for the 6- and 3-percent 11. Based upon a rating system with aagents, respectively. The 6- aznd maximum or perfect score of 400 points,3-percent PF agents demonstrated the relative values obtained for eacha thermal decomposi t ion rate foam agent were: AFFF 3-percent 360,from 0.0098 to 0.0125 in/sec, 6-percent 374; FPF agents 3-percentrespectively. 251, 6-percent 274.5; and PF 3-percent

267.5, 6-percent 279.8 Small-scale fire tests conductedto determine the resistance ofestablished foam blankets to CONCLUSIONSdestruction in terms of the number of

water-spray cycles survived indicatesan average of !.2 for the 6-percent Based upon the results of tests con-and 7.3 for the 3-percent AFFF ducted during the evaluation of theagents. The number of water-sprey foam firefighting agents, it is con-cycles sustained by the 6- and cluded that:3-percent FPF agents varied from 3.4to 21.5, respectively. The 6-percent !. The spreading coefficient of thePF blanket survived 13 water-spray aqueous fluorocarbon films calculatedcyclea and the 3-percent agents in accordan-e with the laboratoryan average of 6 cycles, procedures outlined was greater than

zero for both the 3- and 6-percent AFFF9. The snail-scale fire tests agents, indicating that the AFFFconducted in which Jet A fuel was solution %as capable of spreadingspilled on different types of freely upon the surface of Jet A fuel.terrain, indicated that only the6-percent AFFF (FC-206) was suc- 2. The AFFF and protein foam (PF)cessful in extinguishing fires in liquid concentrates, as individualtree-studded sod. However, both .lasses of agents, demonstrated anthe 3- and 6-percent AFFF, FPF, and ac..otable degree of mutual compati-PF agents ext inguished fires on bility when subjected to th esandy and traprock terrains which accelerated aging test requirements.required from 2.33 minutes for6-percent AFFF (FC-206) to 14.66 3. The 3- and 6-percent fluoroproteinminutes for 3-percent PF, respet- foam (FPF) liquid concentrates demon-tively. strated an unacceptable degree ofcompatibility as a class when subjected10. Large-scale fire tests conducted to the accelerated aging test require-on Jet A fuel fires at solution ments.application rates of 0.05, 0.10, and0.15 gal/min/ft 2 using both 3- and 4. All of the AFFF, FPF, and