Henry Persson Magnus Bobert FAIRFIRE Fire Fighting Foams: Small Scale Fire Test Procedure Small Scale Fire Tests European Commission Measurements and Testing Programme Project MAT1-CT94-0041 al Testing and Ri h InstituteAbstract FAIRFIRE-Fire Fighting Foams: Small Scale Fire Test Procedure-Small Scale Fire Tests ‘The primary intention of the FAIRFIRE-project has been to develop a small scale fire test method giving results which correlates with the existing standard scale fire tests according to prEN 1568 part 3 and 4, ‘This report mainly presents the results and specific observations from about 130 small scale fire tests, 90 with heptane and 40 with acetone. In addition, test results from corresponding standard scale fire tests are presented to enable a direct com- parison between the two scales, The tests were conducted in several steps, beginning with "scaling fire tests" in order to find a suitable combination of tray size and geometry, nozzle position and application rate in order to correlate the results with those achieved in standard scale. ‘This report is focused on summarising the test data obtained and the results are summarised in tabulated form with additional comments and observations together with radiation graphs from each test. The analysis of the correlation between the standard scale and the small scale results and corresponding classification was part of an other work package within the FAIRFIRE project and is presented by Mulligan [4, 5]. ‘The majority of the tests have been performed with a synthetic foam (S-1), a fluoroprotein foam (FP-2) and an alcohol resistant AEF (AFEEVAR-1). These foams were chosen based on the "Typical performance” given in prEN 1568-3 with the aim to represent the three extinguishing classes, where the synthetic foam repre- sents Class IIT, the fluoroprotein Class IT and the AFFF/AR Class I. Later in the test series, also other types of foam concentrates were used. Some fire tests in small scale were conducted in a fire tray with transparent bottom. This arrangement was used to study the foam application and foam flow in detail during the fire tests, The foam flow was recorded by a video camera mounted be- neath the tray. The analysis of these tests, which was part of an other work package within the FAIRFIRE project, was made by image processing and is presented by Lancia, et al (8). Key words: Fire fighting, foam, fire test, test methods standards, small scale Sveriges Provnings- och Swedish National Testing and Forskningsinstitut Research Institute SP Rapport 1996:27 SP Report 1996:27 ISBN 91-7848-631-9 ISSN 0284-5172 Boris 1996 Postal address: - Box 857, S-501 15 BORAS, Sweden Telephone + 46 33 16 50.00 Telex 36252 Testing S Telefax + 46 33 13 55 02Table of contents PepeLe woo eons bREEES EE ROBE RBRERB A YUN SaSSARARARAARASRRARS Bee" SesekS teat TeioeL Abstract. FAIRFIRE -Fire Fighting Foams: Small Scale Fire Test Procedure- Small Scale Fire Tests Table of contents Foreword Introduction and background Test programme ‘Test equipment and procedures Foam nozzles Fire trays, backboard plate and burnback pot ‘Test arrangement-gentle and forceful application ‘Measurements and evaluation Test conditions and procedures ‘Test results and comments Heptane-verification test results with the circular 21B tray Gentle application test results Gentle application-Synthetic Gentle application-Fluoroprotein Gentle application-Film forming fluoroprotein Gentle application-AFFF/AR Gentle application-Protein Forceful application test results Forceful application-AFFF/AR Forceful application-FP Forceful application-FFFP Forceful application-FFFP/AR, Forceful application-AFFF Forceful application-Synthetic Forceful application-Protein Scaling fire tests on heptane ‘Acetone-verification test results with the circular 13B tray Scaling fire tests on acetone Discussion and conclusions Fire test results-heptane Fire test results-acetone Small scale test procedure References Annex A Annex B Annex C BeneForeword This report is one of several technical reports describing the work and results within the CEC project, FAIRFIRE-Fire fighting foams: Small scale fire test procedure, contract MATI-CT940041. Fire fighting foams arc the only effective means for extinguishing most medium and large seale fires involving hydrocarbons or other flammable liquids. CEN TC191/WG3 began its work in 1989 approaching a conclusion in 1992. At that time, the need emerged to reduce the scale of the fire test from present 4.5 m? to possibly less than | m? especially in order to cope with the increasing problems in running such tests for environmental and economic reasons. The present work aims to develop a “small scaie fire test method” to be considered by the CEN standardisation committee, CEN TC191/WG3, needed to complete their standardisation activity ‘The FAIRFIRE project was carried out by three partners; ‘TRIs pain Ital European Commi TRI's contribution was in project co-ordinating, liaison with the jon, planning and in data acquisition and analysis. SP-Fire Technology in Sweden. SP was involved in planning, and in carrying out the bulk of the experimental work, in particular the fire test programme at their labo- ratories in Bors. Angus Fire in UK. Angus Fire's contribution was in planning and in interpretation of data plus liaison between the FAIRFIRE project team and the CEN TCI9IAVGS.1 Introduction and background ‘The main goal with the FAIRFIRE project was to develop a small scale fire test method for fire extinguishing foams. In total, about 130 small scale fire tests and 45 standard scale fire tests have been conducted, In addition to this, about 80 "cold foam flow tests" have been conducted as a complement to the "real" fire test. This report describes the results from all the small scale fire tests conducted during the FAIRFIRE project on heptane and acetone. In order to get as wide acceptance as possible of a small scale test method, the results should preferably correlate with the existing 4.5 m?standard scale heptane fire test in prEN 1568-3 [1] and the 1,73 m? acetone fire in prEN 1568-4 [2], respectively. The aim was therefore to get experimental data to find a correlation betveen standard scale and reduced scale ("sealing tests and to very thi correlation, As a base for comparison, two series of standard scale fire tests have been conducted {3]. In the first standard scale test series, three foam concentrates, assumed to represent the three different extinguishing classes specified in prBN 1568-3 [1] were chosen, A set of extinguishing and burnback tests were conducted with each foam. These results were used as a comparison base during the development of the small scale method The results from the second standard scale test series, which included a wider range of foams, was used as a complement to further verify the small scale method. ‘This report is focused on presenting the results and specific observations from the small scale fire tests. In addition, some results from relevant standard scale fire tests are presented together with the small scale test data to enable a direct comparison. ‘The analysis of the correlation between the standard scale and the small scale results and corresponding classification was part of an other work package within the FAIREIRE project and is presented by Mulligan (4, 5} Also the analysis of the "scaling fire tests" and the foam flow tests was part of other work packages within the FAIRFIRE project. This work has been made by T.R.L. and is presented in separate reports [6, 7, 8, 9, 10}.2 Test programme ‘The "scaling fire tests" have been performed in a number of phases. This was done in order to find a suitable combination of tray size and geometry, nozzle position and application rate. ‘The majority of the scaling tests on heptane have been performed with the same three types of foam which was used in the standard scale fire tests [3]. Those were a synthetic foam (S-1), a fluoroprotein foam (FP-2) and an alcohol resistant ATTF (AFFE/AR-1). These foams were chosen based on the "Typical performance" given in annex A in prEN 1568-3 with the aim to represent the three extinguishing classes. The synthetic foam represents Class IIT, the fluoroprotein Class II and the AFFF/AR Class. Later in the test eis also other yps of foam concentrates were used, ‘The foams were standard qualities delivered from different manufacturers. In order to achieve a variation in the performance using only three foam concen trates, the tests in standard scale were conducted using various proportioning rates. ‘Most tests were conducted using fresh water but sea Water was used in some tests as well. The same conditions have now been used in these small scale fire tests in order to have a wide range of comparison data, As in the standard scale tests, the FP and AFFF/AR concentrates were mainly tested using forceful application while the S concentrate was mainly tested with gentle (backboard) application. ‘The AFFFYAR was also tested on acetone according to the PrEN 1568-4. Also here the proportioning rate was varied to achieve different performances. In general, all tests have been made with foam concentrates from the same batch to ensure best possible correlation. However, the P| and FFFP/ARI foam was con- sumed and new deliveries were needed. Unfortunately it was not possible to get foam from the original batches and the foams are therefore designated FP1 and FP1b and FFFP/ARI and FFFP/AR 1b, respectively to identify the different batches. In total, about 90 small scale heptane tests and 40 acetone tests were conducted. ‘The tests are designated with the type of foam concentrate used and a test number given in consecutive order, $1-01, $1-02, etc. The “scaling fire tests" were started varying the tray size, tray geometry and appli- cation rate using heptane. A scheme for these tests was outlined by the project ‘group based on a scaling correlation proposed by Lancia [7] giving application rate as a function of path length. The path length is the distance the foam has to flow across a fuel surface, corresponding to the diameter for a circular tray and the length (or width depending on point of application) for a non-circular tray as shown in figure |. Prior to the fire tests, a series of cold flow tests were conducted [6] to get some preliminary data which could be used to reduce the number of necessary fire tests. The scheme was outlined based on the use of the UNI 86R nozzle and the possi- bilities to vary the flowrate of this nozzle by changing nozzle tips as suggested by Lancia (11, [2] from 2.5 Vin down to 0.96 minTable 1 Scheme of tray sizes and shape, foam flow and application rate used as a base for the first scaling tests on heptane in order to define the small scale fire test Tray | Surface[L= ]D 1G Tow | Appl desig- | (m2) |G+D | m)_ | (m) rate | rate nation (m) min) | ym? min) T07__[ 1-17 117 [0.00 13s [145 21B 0.66 [0.92 [0.92 [0.00 | 0.96 [Tas Tee 0.66] 1-12 [0.68 [0.44 0.96 1. Ll 2IBIL= [0.66 [1.29 [0.57 0.72 096 [TF 1.29 13B AL 0.72 [0.72 [0.00 TSBIL= J 0.41 [0.79 [0.62 | 0.17 0.79 TSB/L= [O41 [0.89 [0.53 [0.36 [1.67096 [234 0.89 TSBIL= [O4T [TOT [0.43 [056 [224096 [234 101 L (Pathlenght) G D Figure 1 Principle design of trays used for the first scaling tests. ‘The fire tests were conducted in several phases during the project to enable an analysis of the results by all three partners in the mean period. Based on this analy- sis, the test schedule for the next test phase was outlined to give the best possible information necessary for future decisions. In this way, the number of tests could be limited as much a8 possible.‘The primary scaling tests were conducted with the synthetic foam (S-1) and gentle application to achieve as well defined application conditions as possible. The first tests were conducted as single tests representing most of the conditions given in table 1. Based on an analysis of these results, the conditions giving the best corre- lation was used for further testing varying the water quality, proportioning rate and type of foam to get a wider comparison agains! the standard scale tests. After a further analysis, the choice of the test condition which so far gave the best correla- tion could be made. In these test series some basic evaluation of possible burnback procedures were also made After these initial scaling test series, further tests were conducted using both gentle and forceful application using the chosen test tray geometry. The three types of foam and proportioning rates used in the first heptane standard scale test series were primarily used to enable a comparison against standard scale results in all tests, Bumback tests were included in most of these tests During subsequent test phases, a number of further sealing tests using various trays and different conditions were made to provide further and necessary data for the scaling correlation made by T.R.J. When the primarily scaling tests on heptane had been conducted, initial scaling tests on acetone were performed in the same way. Among these tests, a series of fire tests was conducted in a fire tray with transparent bottom. This arrangement was used as a part in the T.R.L. scaling work, giving a possibility to study the foam application and foam flow in detail during the fire tests. The foam flow was recorded by a video camera mounted beneath the tray and the video tapes have then been analyzed by image processing and compared with the cold foam flow tests by T.R.L. Bumback testing were not made in all scaling tests. In the final experimental phase of the project, when the test set-up and procedure was defined 10 give the best possible overall, a wider range of foams were used both in standard scale (second test series) (3) and in small scale to verify the corre- lation even further.3 Test equipment and procedures 31 Foam nozzles ‘The UNIB6R foam nozzles were used during the small scale test series. The nozzle is designed by Lancia {12] in order to give foam properties similar to the UNI86 nozzle specified in prEN 1568-3 and used in the standard scale fire tests. The nominal flowrate of the UNI86R nozzle is 2.5 V/min which might be reduced by dividing the foam stream through two outlet nozzles (tips). Using equal sized tips, 6.5/6.5 mm, gives a nominal flowrate of 1.25 min which was used in most heptane fire tests. ‘Most tests have been conducted with the UNI 86R nozzle no 45 which in a prelimi- nary testing of the foam generation properties was considered to give the best correlation with the standard UNI86 nozzle (no 110) used in the standard scale tests, at SP [11]. In this report, this nozzle is designated "UNI86R SS" when used with a single foam stream (2.5 /min) and "UNI 86R (6.5)/8.5" when used with twin tip arrangement. The figures given is the tip diameters and the tip which was not used are within brackets. In order to achieve a possibility to use other foam flow rates and improve the repro- ducibility of the nozzles, further development work was done by T.R.L. In the scaling tests, slightly modified nozzles were used to achieve the necessary range of application rates. Prior to these tests, the foam properties were checked by T.R.L. or /and SP for comparison with the standard scale nozzle. 3.2 Fire trays, backboard plate and burnback pot Various types of trays were used, especially during the first phase of the project. The size and geometry is given in table 1. All trays up to 0.66 m? were made of 2.0 mm and larger trays of 2.5 mm mild steel plate. ‘The tray with transparent bottom was made of 2.0 mun stainless stee! with a circular fire resistant glass as bottom, The rim height was 150 mm in accordance to the specification of fire trays in EN-3 [13]. The tray areas also correspond to the EN-3 trays and the EN-3 desig- nation have therefore been used in the report. For the non-circular trays the desig- nation also includes information about the tray length (path length) used in the test (21B, 21B/L=1.29, etc). ‘The amount of fuel and water in the tray was chosen to give the same conditions as in the standard scale heptane tests, a nominal water layer of 20 mm and a fuel layer ‘of 30 mm (13 | of fuel in tray 13B, 21 1 in tray 21B, 34 | in tray 34B, etc). In the acetone tests, the amount of fuel was chosen to give the same fuel depth as in stan- dard scale, 72 mm (125 | in tray 55B corresponding to 30 in tray 13B). ‘A number of backboard steel plates were used. The thickness was 2.0 mun and the size was 600 mm x 600 mm while the radius was varied in order to correlate with the tray diameter used. During the burnback tests, a small tray of 2.0 mm stainless steel ,with a horizontal dimension of 130 mm x 130 mm was used, see figure 2. The size and location was chosen based on the first series of scaling tests. (In the gentle application tests, the backboard plates have to be removed before putting the bumback tray in position.)10 ‘The height of the burnback tray was 200 mm. (In some of the first test seties, the height of the burnback tray was only 150 mm but this caused fuel spill due to boiling effects.) The side towards the fire tray was limited to 90 mm in height. This ‘was done in order to enable the flames the expose the fire tray wall as in the wall of the burnback tray does in standard scale, The burnback tray Was filled with 0.2 1 water and 0,3 1 of heptane. 130 13 rere 200} 90] Burnback tray Nozzle direction Figure 2 The burnback tray was applied to the rim of the fire tray opposite to the foam nozzle. 33 Test arrangement-gentle and forceful application The fire tray was placed on a stand about 1 m above the floor under a smoke ex- traction hood (SP Furniture Calorimeter system) as shown in figure 3. This pro- vided the same wind conditions for all tesis. A separate stand, easily adjustable in position, was used to support the foam nozzle during the test. Premix foam solution was used and the foam nozzle was connected to a 150 1 pressure vessel through a 12 mm plastic hose. The operating pressure at the nozzle was measured by a pressure transducer (Druck DPI 700) connected to the nozzle by a short 4 mm plas- tic tube. The correct operating pressure was adjusted and maintained by regulating the air pressure into the pressure vessel.i ‘Smoke oxtr action hood Foam nozzle Premix pressure vessel SSS i. Bagc——z™ To. Figure 3 Principal sketch of the test arrangement. The nozzle position was horizontal in all gentle application tests, but the height above the fuel surface varied. In most tests the height was | m but was reduced to 0.8 m and 0.6 m (the last heptane test series). The final nozzle height in the acetone tests was 0.8 m. The 1 m height was originally chosen to achieve the necessary throw length for the most unfavourable conditions, non-circular trays in combina- tion with the lowest foam flow from the twin tip nozzle. As the throw length was long enough for the tray and flowrate combination, the nozzle height was reduced to provide an impact angle towards the backboard plate more similar to the condi- tions in the standard scale test. This also provided a more "concentrated” foam stream at the point of impact making the positioning of the nozzle more easy to control during the test. The point of application on the backboard plate was 0.3 m above the fuel surface in all tests. In the forceful application tests, the nozzle was positioned 0.5 m above the fuel surface. The nozzle body was horizontal but the twin tip body was slightly rotated aiming the tip outlet 20° downwards. This position was based on an investigation made by T.R.L. (14] aiming to achieve a similar impact force from the split UNI 86R foam stream as in the standard scale fire tests.34 Measurements and evaluation In addition to the visual observations made during the tests, heat radiation from the fire was also measured. Two water-cooled radiometers ( Medtherm 64-0.5-19, 0-5 kW/m?) were used, placed diametrically on each side of the tray. The rad meters were connected to a data logging system, recording about every 1.5 second. The radiometers were placed 1.5 m from the center of the fire tray, 0.75 m above. the fuel surface and aimed 20° downwards. The choice of measuring range and location is not fully complying with the recommendations given in ISO 7203-1 and prEN 1568-3. The shorter distance to the fire tray was chosen to achieve a compact test arrangement which will be important in future use of the small scale test method. At this distance, the heat radiation generated by the heptane test fire exceed the nominal measuring range for the radiometers used by a factor 2.5. However, the radiometer construction is very robust and according to Medtherm, the radio- meters may be overloaded 4 times. By using "too small” radiometers, better sensi- tivity is also achieved when the fire is getting controlled. The evaluation and presentation of the radiation measurements was made according to the recommendations in prEN 1568-3. The relative radiation was calculated and has been plotted in two diagrams, one for the extinguishing phase and one for the entire fire test, respectively (see Annex 2). Heat release rate (HRR) measurements were performed in the test series using the tray with transparent bottom, The Furniture Calorimeter measuring system was used, which uses the oxygen depletion principle for the HRR. measurements (15). HRR measurements was not used in all tests as the time constant is longer than for the radiometers and the radiation measurements is therefore more accurate to deter~ mine 90% control, ete. Graphs showing the HRR as a function of time is presented in Annex 3. A\ll tests have been recorded on video (S-VHS) in addition to the visual observations. ‘A comprehensive protocol was used as a base for the visual observations. After the tesis, the recordings were feed into a database (FileMaker Pro) making the analysis of all test resuits more efficient. 3.5 Test conditions and procedures ‘The premix solution was prepared in a specially designed mixing equipment and pumped into the pressure vessel. If several tests were planned with the same foam solution, premix solution was prepared for all the tests. ‘After mixing and prior to the fire tests, the expansion and drainage were measured, The measurements were made according to the prEN 1568 using a 1623 ml vessel provided with a tap which was manually regulated. The nozzle was positioned horizontal in front of the foam slider at the same height as used in the fire tests. In the FAIRFIRE project, work has also been made to improve the drainage equip- ment [16]. However, this work was made in parallel to the fire tests and as the improved drainage method was not available when the fire testing commenced, the PrEN 1568 procedure was used,13 The actual foam flow was also measured before each fire test, in most cases in connection with the drainage measurements. The foam stream was sampled in a container during a specified time and the collected foam was then weighed and the flowrate calculated. In most tests, the sampling time was 15 seconds but in some tests the sampling time was 30 and 60 seconds, respectively to achieve a better accuracy. The infiuence of the sampling time has been investigated further and these results are reported separately [11]. The general test sequence was as follows + When the foam solution was mixed, expansion and drainage tests conducted, the ventilation system connected to the Furniture Calorimeter was started and adjusted to 3.0-3.5 m?s. The water and fuel were then added to the fire tray just prior to the fire test. All temperatures were controlled carefully to be within the range specified in prEN 1568-3. In most tests, the premix, fuel and water layer temperature were in the middle of the specified range 17.542.5 °C, while the air temperature was in the upper part of the specified range 155 °C. + Two minutes before ignition, the official timing device was started together with the radiation measurements to achieve background data and to assure a proper function, During this period, the hose to the foam nozzle was carefully filled and the premix vessel pressurized. The foam flow was then started beside the fire tray in order to achieve a stabilised premix flow and to adjust the operating nozzle pressure to the correct value. When ail conditions were correct the foam flow was interrupted. + Just prior to ignition, the video recording was started and when the fire was ignited the video timer was started. About 30 seconds before start of foam application, the foam flow was started again allowing time for pressure stal sation and adjustment if necessary. After the 60 seconds preburn time, the foam stream was quickly directed towards the backboard (gentle) or the center (forceful) of the fire tray. Time to 90% and 99% control and other observations of interest were recorded in the protocol. + About two minutes prior to start of the bumback test, the burnback tray was filled with water and fuel. The backboard plate was removed (gentle applica- tion) and the bumback tray applied on the rim of the fire tray. Tendencies to flare up and time to 25% and 100% burning surface were recorded.14 4 Test results and comments ‘The results from the small scale tests have been summarized in tabulated form. Each table also presents the corresponding standard scale data to enable a direct comparison bx yetween small and standard scale. Below each table, specific comments or observations are given as a complement to the figures reported. In table 2 below, comments and explanations are given to the figures presented in each table of results. Table 2 Explanations to the figures tabulated for each test Data file The designation of each test and corresponding data file for the radiation measurements. Includes the type of foam concentrate used and test number in consecutive order, ¢.g.S1-1. (The stan- dard scale tests also includes the tray size, ¢.g. S-1-144-01.) Date The date when the test was performed. [Application | Specifies gentle or forceful application. Proport Concentration of foam Tiquid in the premix solution (% Water [Fresh fesh water, taken vom the municipal Wal Tae yaenaTSP| aSP Sea; simulated sea water prepared according to PrEN 1568. | Tray EN-3 designation is sed Tithe tray is not circular, the EN-3 designation corresponding to the area is given in combination with the length of the tray (meters). Fuel Heptane (or acetone) Contr 90% | Time from start of foam application until the fire is visually judged vis to be controlled to 90%. During forceful application, the judge- ment is also including any remaining fire in the area of impact (not in standard scale tests). Contr 90% | Time from start of foam application until the heat radiation from rad the fire have been reduced with 90% (according to Annex L in PrEN1568-3). Contr 99% | Time from start of foam application until the fire is visually judged vis to be controlled to 99%. During forceful application, the judge- iment is including also any remaining fire in the area of impact ( not in standard scale tests). Extinction 1] Time from start of foam application andl the fire 1s completely extinguished. Extimpact | Time from start of foam application until the fire in the area of impact is extinguished (only relevant for forceful application). BB 25% Time from start of burnback test until the tray surface is visually judged to be covered by more than 25 % of sustained flames. (Any faint, barely visible or transient flames are ignored.) BB 25% rad] Time from siart of burnback test until the heat radiation from the fire is exceeding 25% (according to Annex L in PrEN1568-3). BE 100% | Time from start of burnback test until the tray surface is visually judged to be completely covered by sustained flames. jansion | Expansion ratio measured according to PrEN 156 Drainage 25% | 25% drainage measured according to PrEN 1568-3 Drainage 50% | 50% drainage measured according to PrN T568- Foam nozzle | Foam nozzle and tip combination used during the test. Position Height above the fuel surface. Flow rate | Foam solution flow rate measured by sampling prior to the test.15 Further, the following abbreviations are used in the tables: Not ext Not extinguished NM Not measured (e.g. flow rate from the foam nozzle) NR Not recorded (e.g. extinction in point of impact) NA Not achieved (e.g.90% control) Not appl. Not applicable (e.g. extinction in point of impact) As shown in the table 2, two extinguishing times are given for most of the forceful tests. The first extinction time indicates the time when all flames were extinguished. ‘The second time (impact) specifies the time when the flames in the area of impact were extinguished. In the standard scale tests, reported tines are slightly different [3]. The first of the two reported extinction times (Extinguished tray / impact) indicates when the fire in the tray (excluding area of impact) were considered to be extinguished. The longest time of these two (tray / impact) is the time to complete extinction. The time to 99 % control is a visual estimation when the fire in the tray is reduced to avery limited size, e.g. a small remaining rim fire. Because of the different size of the tray, the same judgements were not possible to make in the small scale tests as in the standard seale tests. During forceful application in standard scale, the 99% judgement has not included the area of impact. This means that 99 % control in standard scale might have been recorded although there is still a considerable flame in the impact area. In the small scale tests, it was very difficult to separate the judgement for fires in the tray and area of impact, respectively and the 99% judge ‘ment is therefore considering the entire remaining fire. In order to judge the total degree of control, the radiation measurements should therefore be used. The reported times to 90 % control as well as time to 25 % burnback is based on both visual observations and on radiation measurements, Especially during the burmback test, the figures might differ slightly. When the fire has increased and is. covering 25 % of the tray area, the fire intensity from these flames is normally still below 25 % of free burning conditions. In most tests, the difference is less than 10 seconds but in some slow developing burnback tests (or slowly controlled fires), the difference might be more. This is also the fact when there is a flare-up where a lange portion of the surface (>25%) very well can be burning without exceeding the 25% radiation level. In the tables, both bumback times reported are related to the “final burnback” with open fuel surface. In the forceful application tests where a flare-up occurred, this is mentioned in the comments below each table of results. In the following chapters, each table presents all comparable test results for one specific condition (type of foam, type of water and proportioning). Chapter 3.1 presents all results on the circular 0.66 m? (21B) fire tray using heptane which could be considered as "verification" of the final method. The selection of this tray size and procedure is based on the "scaling tests", summarised in chapter 3.2. Chapter 3.3 presents all acetone results on the circular 0.41 m? (13B) fire tay which could be considered as "verification" of the final method and the "scaling tests", are summarised in chapter 3.4. A full listing in test order of all small scale fire tests is given in Annex 1, Annex 2 presents all radiation graphs and Annex 3 the HRR graphs for the relevant tests. A full presentation of the standard scale tests is given in SP Report 1996:26 [3].16 41 Heptane-verification test results with the circular 21B tray Based on the scaling tests (chapter 4.2), the best general correlation against the standard scale tests was achieved using a circular tray with an area of 0.66 m? (21B) and the UNI86R nozzle with equal split foam streams (@ 6.5/6.5) giving a nominal flowrate of 1.25 /min (actual flowrate using premix was about 1.27-1.31), A large number of tests, both gentle and forceful application, have been conducted using this combination which could be considered as verification of the test method and procedure, Some parameters have been changed, e.g. the height of the nozzle during the gentle application, which is identified in the table as "nozzle position’ In the tables below, 3-24, each table presents all comparable test results for one specific condition (type of foam, type of water and proportioning),T'able 3-11 summarises the results using gentle application and 12-24 the tests using forceful application. Each table presents the tests in order starting with the relevant standard scale results followed by the small scale results. Any comments related to each test, e.g, regarding specific test conditions, results or flare-up during the burnback test is given below each table. Finally, general comments are also given regarding the correlation with the standard scale tests 4.1.1 Gentle application test results Most gentle application tests have been conducted with the $1 foam but there are also tests with FP2, PFFP/AR1, AFFF/AR1 and two protein foams, P1 and P2. However, there is unfortunately no standard scale test available for the P1 foam.4.1.1.1 Gentle appl 7 ation-Synthetic Table 3 Summarised test results for synthetic (SI) foam, gentle application and fresh water at 3% [are He rad penton Tray Come 0 vs Ton BSR Fann Fea noe Ds PRirorton — Fuel Conte 90% rad Bb 2s ced Drnnage 25% Panton Water ante 9% vi ior” Drainage 80% Flow rate SETA Gentle Tea ar ars 1 a NT 95.0725, ae Heplan Obed 33, 0355 im Fresh oi Ne, 1335 Psa nie Tae —— ars way Te 7 TNT 55.078 ie Hepin 0040 133 03:10 a Fresh 138 Ne 41550, Sra ene Tae toa Ts 1 15 ONT 36-08-06 Fa Heptan 0036 Wile Gass in res 6130 i 1540 : wr nie Sw Ta Es UNTER 952s am Hepran 00:50, Nobis 49 Fresh 0133 1940 sre aT 731.08 ona aa v 95.12.19 a Hepian 00:57 1502 toss Fresh 5130 155 18335 [sia ate 3 Tat iv 96-01-31 a8 Hopton 0:59 1426 1050 ten Fresh iss 14350, 180 a -Caate 100 ors Ta TSTEE 6563 96.0131 3 Hepian 0058 reas seo tea ic resh 5139 1308 ed ri Gente 1B or or BATHE] Se-04-o1 as ewan 004? Nobbren Obs im Fresh 138 Nit ey [scar “Cea 215 $0100 ors 5 UTE 96.04.09 2% Heptan 0038 Nobex 1000 Sin Fresh 5129 NM 1st THT ‘Gente sor oF TRIE 65165 56.08.09 2% Heptsn 0051 Nobbus 1060 tm Fresh 128 Ni iB bse iat 1B —0050 Way ao Tar 96.05.14 i Heptan 055 134 109 Sm eon 0138 is:i0 650, 135 The last standard scale test (#09) was conducted in the second standard scale test series to study/confirm the reproducibility. ‘The final design of bural test, only 0.3 heptane wi From test #44, new, deeper burnback in stainless steel was used which was heptane. Test #45 was a repeat test of test #44. back tray was not used in test #34. However, from this as used in the tray to reduce fuel leakage. tray (200 mm deep instead of 150 mm) filled with 0.2 | of water and 0.3 1 of + Most 2B tests are conducted having the nozzle at 1 m height but test #80 and #81 shows that the results at 0.6 m are similar. General comments: Visual control times about the same. 90% control (rad) slightly longer and extinction slightly shorter (20-30 s) in small scale. Burnback times (25% rad) in average about 3-4 minutes shorter in small scale. Repeat- and reproducibility in small scale very good. In standard scale, there is a small difference in burnback time between the two test series,18 Table 4 Summarised test results for synthetic (S1) foam, gentle application and sea water at 3% Data Te rd appication Tray Cont 90% Eapanaton Foam noi Date Proportion Fuel Contr 90% rad Drainage 286% Poston. Water: ‘Conte 999 vis Drainage 80% low rite psrmr Geatle Ta tra NTRS 95.078 3a Heptan 00:38 00 im Sea 62:10 1520 n Gentle Ta toa Too ONTES 55.0728 3m Hepien 0037 geo Im Sea 0228 1450 Ta Gente Te 0030 | 954218 ae lepian 049 Nobbist NM Sea 0135 ro [sas me 7 oro Ost $85 a 95.12.20 3% Hepian 90:80 oes 11.00 Sea ore ren 135 Te ene Tr OST oF Ti 39 96-05-14 an Heptan 00:51 p37 0830 Sea ors 86, Ts + The final design of burnback tray was not used in test #35. + Test #115 with nozzle at 0.6 m. General comments: Control times about the same. Extinction slightly shorter (30- 40 s) in smal! scale, Burnback times (25% rad) in average about 2-3 minutes shorter in small scale. Repeat- and reproducibility in small scale very good. Table 5 Summarised test results for synthetic ($1) foam, gentle application and fresh water at 1% [Data tie rat ray intr 90% vis ‘Exilnetion BB “Expansion, Foam nozzle i _Eers =. fe Spe Bev corm es LL Centle Ta “Ort CHIT TETO ONT 86 = a ee eee 7 Ee eles tei General comments: Control and extinction times slightly longer (20-30 s) in small scale. Burnback test was not conducted in small scale.19 Table6 Summarised test results for synthetic (S1) foam, gentle application and fresh water at 2% mena ——Applientoa— Tay Tome ve ExteTon apart Foam nate Proportion Fue (Contr 90% rad Deninage 28% Postion Water ‘Contr 99% vis Drainage 50% Flow rate Ta Gentle Teas as OE ONT 95.07.25 29% Hepten 0038 (ors) 0655, In Fresh O10 Ni 130 Pre ‘Gentle TE ——— nots Tat“ Ts “5 TRIES 36.0505 2 Hopton 0043 07.00 in Fresh bis. 128) Ta Tene ar ons OnE 3 ONE 63165 95-1221 2% Hepan O10 oss te Breck ous Lets 10 Tt Gentle 050 Wa ORTEEE 6365 96.05.18 2% Hoptan 9958 psa Oem Frosh 0120 1810 1393 +The last standard scale test (#10) was conducted in the second standard scale test series to study/confirm the reproducibility. + The time to "practical extinction" in the first standard scale test ( #06) was about 1:45, Then, only a very small flame remained, ©The final design of bumback tray was not used in test #42. The fuel in the BB- tray was consumed after 09:25 minutes but the delay of the final burmback was probably marginal. General comments: Considering the time to practical extinction in the first standard scale tes, the correlation can be regarded good. The differences in control and extinction times is in the same order as in previous test conditions. Also burnback times (25% rad) are in the same order but a strict comparison is complicated by the difference in burnback time in standard scale between the two test series, Table 7 — Summarised test results for synthetic (S1) foam, gentle application and fresh water at 6% jain Me rad Applicaton Tray Conte 90% vis ‘Extinction — BU75" Expansion, Foam nome Date Proportion Fuel sos rad Weae% rad Drainage 25% Postion Mater ‘Gonte 95 BBioo% Drainage s0% Flow exe T-144-05 jentle THE Toss via 1420, THT UNT 55.0028 oe Tepes OMS Be Bis 4 fresn Si Ne 230 ca Se as 12 TIT 7 UNTER s565 os-i2.s Heian OL 18 Nobbiet 1308 tm res 0225 2) General comments: Control and extinction times longer than in standard scale. The expansion was higher in the standard scale test, Burnback test was not condueted in small scale.20 4.1.1.2 Gentle application-Fluoroprotein Table 8 Summarised test results for fluoroprotein (FP2) foam, gentle appli cation and fresh water at 3% [Data nie rat ——Spieation Tray Coal PORE Ts Eaton — pant Fo noaale Date Proportion Fuel Contr 0% rad BB 250 rad Drainage 25% —Fosiion Water Conte 99% is BBi00% Drainage $0% _Flow rate nea Genie Tae "or TER aa TF TNT 95.07.26 Fa Hepian 0051 238 oss in Fresh 2:0 Ne 03.00 [rrr Gentle E110 was % 9serzd 3% Hepian 0109 Nobbtest 05:40 Fresh 82:08 5.35 [Press sail 16 ‘Onn TE — TF 1 95.1219 38 Hepten 0037 2500 06.00 Fresh OAs 258 toss [aT ne TT Ory oT 73 96.0604 ES Hepten 0033 Nobbiet 05:30 res 01:30 Nit [reser Tent 1 or OF F 96.06.09 30 Heptan 9086 Nobbeest 9525 Fresh o1as Ni [rsa ent 7 ‘ors aT e TRIES 6.165 96.04.09 e Hoptan LG? Nobbiest 05:15, im Fre 2.00 NM 3h Pree Gentle Te oT ‘TEU NTR 65165 96.06.08 3% Hepun 908 Nobbeest 05:15 Fresh Las NM [Fras Gentle 6 Ore Tae 3 96.08.08 se Heptan LOS Nobbtet 0520 Eres Bs NM + First burnback test with the tray (130 x 130 mm) on the rim using 0.5 1 (30 mm) of heptane. After some minutes it was observed that the heptane started to leak from the tray due to the boiling and the tray had to be cooled with water. The final design of burnback tray was introduced in test #44. General comments: Good correlation regarding contro! and extinction. Also the only small scale burnback test correlates well with the standard scale 4.1.1.3 Gentle application-Film forming fluoroprotein Table9 — Summarised test results for FFFP (EFFP/ARL) foam, gentle application land fresh water at 3% Daten Tay Can 9 ve ‘xparton__——Foain noe Date Muet Conte 909% rad BB 25% rad Drainage 25% Poston Gonis 99% sis BB00s. Drainage 80% Flow rate FERPA aroT Ta Base oy 35: E 05.05 Heptan 0038 2307 os 138 2128, 1020 PaaS 5 ms Ora Tr 96-0808 Hepten 0045 Nobbtet 6.00 O13, Naw [ FRRFARTTM Te war ‘Ora TF TF 96.08.14 Hepisn D4 1938 0536 0130 Ni 338, + Test #116 with nozzle at 0.6 m n regarding control and extinction. The only General comments: Good correlat pared to the small scale burnback test gave slightly shorter burnback time cor standard scale21 4.1.1.4 Gentle application-AFFE/AR Table 10 Summarised test results for AFFF (AFFFIARI) foam, gentle appli- cation and fresh water ai 3% ee algae Tear bate SOR vis ExTncon — WEIS ———~spaiion Fra oe Date Proportion Conte 908 rad ‘BB25% rad Drainage 25% Postion, Water Conte 99% vie 100% Drainage 80% _ Flow rate 0 TB ao oss 5 “UNTTE Hepien 0037 0630 In 01:30 1050 oF Wa TH IF ORTH 65165 3% Heptan 00:41 26:03 720 In Fresh 1:30 3650 ites 19 Cente ar TOs Ta 30 BATT 3 Hepan ona Nobbiest 0550 i Bresh ol, Nw 12s AFFVARTT Gaaile iE oat TE 8 Uta oH 96.05.15 3% Heptn p48 2140 0656 Den Fresh 0120 bas 108 1.20 * The final design of bumback tray was not used in test #41. The burnback tray was from this test filled with 0.1 1 of water and 0.3 | of heptane to reduce the "boil over" tendency. The fuel in the BB-tray was consumed after 11:20 minutes which probably delayed the final burnback + Test #122 with nozzle at 0.6 m, General comments: Good correlation regarding control, slightly shorter extinction. ‘The small scale burnback ‘est (#122) correlates well with standard scale while the longer time in test #41 might depend on the consumed fuel in the burn back tray.2 4.1.1.5 Gentle application-Protein Table 1! Summarised test results for protein (P1 and P2) foam, gentle applica- tion and fresh water at 6 and 3%, resp ‘Data file tad ‘Application Tray” ‘Contr 90% Vis FExinction Bt “Fxpanston, “Foam nozzle Date Raperton Pa ‘ont 90% ea Drainage 25% Peaon Water onte995 vs Drainage 05 _ Flow rate Prarcor ats Tar o r Ot Bo0s.00 Ss Hieptan O10 hss tm Fen 35 1133 Pra ‘Gentle Te 1 aT 7 DRT ESR bas 96.05.15 1% Heplnn coo Nobbus 647 Sn rea eas ig it 7 a war r e568 96.05.15 1% Heptan 24s 2 e530 Sim Fresh e630 150), Bs rey fr eae 01 7 Soa —E oereer—| B58 ssn. $% Heptso 01s oss tin free a0 Seeconmen Tes ir 7 5 ——$or TE oe thre 96.0131 Heston 0039 asi8 oso tn frou 0, Eg ta pres tee TF TF i TRE 5568 96.02.00 oe Mepan ok ts suis a0 tin Sl wu x a0 ie ‘The standard scale (est was conducted in the sccond standard scale test series. ‘There was no radiation measurements during the burnback test in standard scale due to measurement problems ‘The final design of burnback tray was not used in test #43. The fuel in the burnback tray was consumed afier 10:15 minutes and as there were no sus- tained fire in the fire tray , no burnback was achieved. General comment ‘Test #120 and 121 with nozzle at 0.6 m. ‘A comparison between small and standard scale only possible for the P2 foam. Both time to control and extinction longer in the small scale tests. Test #120 was repeated due to a 15 seconds interruption in the foam flow after about 3 minutes of application. It was therefore decided to repeat the test and no burnback test was conducted, In the repeat test (#121) complete extinction was not achieved due to the formation of areas with “old” stiff foam which was not covered with fresh foam during the foam application. A fire of 8-10 cm? remained until the burnback test commenced. The bumback ime in small scale was therefore con- siderably shorter compared to the standard scale. ‘The res ts obtained with the P1 foam in small scale could be considered as “normal” although there is no comparative standard scale test.23 4.1.2 Forceful application test results ‘Most forceful application tests have been conducted with the AFFF/ARI and FP2 foam, respectively while FP1, FFFP1, FFFP/AR1, AFFF1 and the S1 were used in one or two tests each. 4.1.2.1 Forceful application-AFFF/AR Table 12 Summarised test results for AFFF (AFFF/AR1) foam, forceful applica- tion and fresh water at 3% [ Data tie rad application Tay Cant 9055 is Exacfon— BF Toa norale Date Proportion Fuel Contr 90% rad—Exts impact, Poston Water Contr 99% vis Flew rate ‘APFRARTT@E0TForeetat TH NTR 95.076 38 Hepten O02 3130 In Fresh 00.50 [RFRPARTTar or Foren —Tar a0 T TATE 55.0726 3% Heptn 0083 180 In Fresh Ne 7 [ RFFEIAR--Ta4 08 —Foreelol T= "00 Ora RTE 6.05.07 ae Hepton 0039 oat im iresh Ne ARFVRRT IE ——Fersetar 15 ‘OAT war 66 9sizaa 38 Hoptes O41 0134 Nabbtese Omir Fresh 0120 1 [ AFEVART-I7 ——Foreeral a —— UIST 7 ONT 66s 95.1248 3% Hepan 0038 NR Nobbten 0739 O'Smia0e Brest D085 1208 139 [AFFARTS Fovseta] 2 ‘Oa ‘Ose ——T65 73 AER 565 95:12:20 3% Hepen 0036 NR rs areas OSava Fresh 81:00 i735 1210 13 [RFFEARTSO Forest Te ‘037 wr T3350 iz TNR 63165 96.02.01 3% Hepien 0035 orso ar 0820 O'seia0e Fresh 0130 1.00 130, tan “AFFRRRTST——Foreefal 0 0 EH Te10———F UNTER 6365 96.02.01 3m Hepan 0035 NR ett os Oman iresh O36 1638 1390 Li) + In standard scale test #01 and #02, flare-ups exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 02:40 and 02:20, respectively. + The last standard scale test (#09) was conducted in the second standard scale test series to study/confirm the reproducibility. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 03:00 + The final design of burnback tray was not used in test #36 and the fuel was consumed after about 11:20 minutes. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 03:40, reaching 100% by surface at 03:50-04:30, + In test #50, a flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 02:40, reaching 100% by surface at 02:50, + Intest #51, a flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 02:40. General comments: Good correlation regarding 90 % control, slightly longer 99% control and extinction in small scale, Measured burback times differs in standard scale but small scale tests shows good repeat- and reproducibility and correlates with average standard scale results,Table 13 Summarised test results for AFFF (AFFF/AR1) foam, forcefil applica- tion and sea water at 3% Daa Wevad ppliaton — Tra ‘Contr SO vis ——Fatnaion — 00 ‘Fapandion Four nals] Date Proportion — Fue Conte 9056 rad Ext-impact BB 25% rad_—-Druinage 25% esti Water Conte 99% sie BB 1005" _Dralnage 50S _Flow rate ARTRRT THO Toreetsl 15 T T2355 Ta ONT 55.0726 ES Hepian 0039 0128 1s 8.08 tim Sen Na Ne beso CAEFFTARCT Tad Forest 1227 ore TE 73 TNT 95-07-26 se Heplan oot 0120 12:50 500 i Seu NR KR ire [ RFRWARTST Forester 1 toa Naat 1350 60 TEE 95-12-20 3% Heptan 00-40 0200 13:5 os25 OSnv20" Sea Bis, a0 os:ls 130 [ AERTARTS9——Forcetst 0 oo er TED 3 UNTER 65065. sz ae Heptan 00:50 oer 00 | oss0 Osmo" Sea ots 10 0830 130 AERVART AD Parco a 1038 WH URE 5.65 osnat ae Heptan 0.8 0148 = Nabbtet See 839 Osman Sen 055, - [ RERRIART TE Farestar 10 wo Te ER 96.05.14 38 Hoptn oti on 1ss8 ‘sco Osman Sea 0250 tet 800 132 + Instandard scale test #03 and #04, flare-ups exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 04:20 and 04:35, respectively. * Complete extinction was not achieved in test #37. A small rim fire, about SO cm long remained after stop of foam application, The fire decreased but did not self extinguish during the 5 minutes waiting period until the burnback test was started. The final design of burnback tray was not used in test #37. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 01:50, reaching 100% by surface at 02:00, + The final design of burnback tray was not used in test #39 and the fuel was consumed after about 06:25 minutes which probably delayed the final bum- back. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 03:30, reaching 100% by surface at 03:45. + In test #40, the foam nozzle and point of impact was moved 1/4 of the tray diameter towards the side of the tray to improve foam circulation and to study the effect on time to extinction, No burnback test was conducted, * In test #118, the fire self extinguished 40 seconds after stop of foam applica tion. A flare-up occurred about 1 minute after start of burnback test but did not exceed 25% by surface. General comments: The correlation regarding time to 90 % control is good but time to 99% control and especially complete extinction is far longer in the small scale tests, In all tests, there was a small remaining fire along the tim due to the build up of stiff foam and the time to complete extinction varied considerably in the small scale tests. Burnback time in test #118 slightly longer compared to standard scale,25 Table 14 Summarised test results for AFFF (AFFF/ARI) foam, forceful applica tion and fresh water at 1% [ Bata ie rad“ apeaton Tray Contr 09 eT Fagan — Foam naeie Date Proportion — Fuel Conte 90% rad Este impact BB 25% rad — Drninage2S% Palen Water: Contr 995% ve Bp i00% "Drainage $0% Flew rate [ AFFRART-Ta 07 —Porsetal ——taas-—ae TIT“ 2 UNTES 53.07-26 ie Heptn —0b43 red bos In 62.00 NR. O43 [ RFRTAI-TEETO—Porcetat ——Tza5 5s war Tes 42 TATE se0sa7 ee Hepun 03S 0805 ess 200 In red 93.05, 1720 620, [ AFPYART: Forceful RR area ar UNTER 6.565 952g 1s Hepun oxo 0330 Nobbtet' 0205 OSmva0" Fresh NR. D110, 130 “AFFFTART-TTS Forest 315 ay Naat TF 7 TREE 5.163) 96.05-16 1% Hepten bt 10 as onan Onva0° Fresh 03:10 35, ps0 Nit + The last standard scale test (#10) was conducted in the second standard scale test series to study/confirm the reproducibility. Several small flare-up occurred after start of burnback test but did not exceed 25% by surface. There were no tendency to flare-up in standard scale test #07. + In test #29, complete extinction was not achieved. No bumback test was conducted. + In test #119, complete extinction was not achieved. Burnback test was con- ducted although and the bumback time was reduced as the remaining fire created a stall open fuel surface during the waiting period. General comments: Both time to contro! and extinguishment are longer in small scale compared to the standard scale where final extinguishment was achieved shortly after stop of foam application. Time to burnback is not relevant for direct, comparison, There is also a difference in bumback times in the two standard scale tests Table 15 Summarised test results for AFFF (AFFF/ARI) foam, forceful applica- tion and fresh water at 2% ata Me rad app eation —T ‘Conte 9O% ve Eton Foun sore Proportion Fu ‘Contr 90% rad EXI. Impact HB 286 rad Position Water Conte 99% vis 10% How rate TPAD Foreetal Tat ar URE 2% Heptan 0st OBIS 1858 fm resk NR Ne TART-H Forse 1 $$ o a TNT EAE 53165 95.1249 2% Hopean 044 0232 Nobbtest O20" Freeh O10 139 + In standard scale test #06, a flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 02:10. General comments: Correlation between control and extinguishment is good. No burnback test conducted in small scale.26 4.1.2.2 Forceful application-FP Table 16 Sununarised test results for fluoroprotein (FP2) foam, forceful applica- tion and fresh water at 3% Dara eae Tray Cont 05 ve _——Taaon OSE Fagan Toa wae Date Biel Conte 80% rad‘ Extimpact BB25% rod Drainage 28% Pos Conte 99% vi BB 008 Drainage S0SE_ Flow rate PrPxiror Ta TEST TE 73 ONE 55.07.24 Heptan NK 00 0510 in Ne 9:10 [Reza T0050 7 rT TNT 95.07.24 Heptsn Ne 05:10 In 5:10, FOS Forsch 25 TT 7 TNE 6.3163 95-1248 am Hepton NR Nobbes O20" iesh 130) ferz Foveeta oa NTE 6.565 95.1218 30 Hepn 01:80 NR Nobotest O5n/a0" Brea Ne Lae EE Forsefal Te oo TST ONT 6565 95-1220 3% Hepon OL wR Sno" Fresh 2.00 130 reel 7 65165 96-02-01 2 Hepton 2 NR osni20" Frese O55 fe + No bumback test conducted in test #25 and #26. + The final design of burnback tray was not used in test #38 and the fuel was consumed after about 9 minutes which probably delayed the final burnback. General comments: Time to control slightly longer compared to standard scale. Complete extinction achieved about 1-2 minutes after stop of foam application com- pared to about 2-7 minutes the two standard scale tests Table 17 Swonmarised test results for fluoroprotein (FP2) foam, forceful applica- tion and fresh water at [% a He Fad pation Fray Ta WOE vie Kitna — BIS Tjanston—_—— Foam noes Proportion Wat impact BB25% rad Drainage 25% Position Water BB 100%" Drainage SOE Flow rate TaeoT Forcelet 15 — Rater OTF 7 ONT 95.07.38 i Hepion NE 0709 any im Fresh Ne 40, 7 Forcetad Te Nore a0 UNTER —| 6855 95.1249 1% Hepian NR Nobbres 0235 OSmia0" Fresh oes8 128 + As the fire was not extinguished in test #28, no bumnback test was conducted, However, as there was an open fuel surface of about 1 dm? when foam appli- cation stopped, a short burnback could be expected. General comments: Good correlation both regarding control and by the fact that complete extinguishment was not achieved in neither scale.a7 Table 18 Summarised test results for fluoroprotein (FP2) foam, forceful applica- tion and fresh water at 2% [ Data Mie rad appcaton Tray Car 9055 ve Eton — BE “Fapanion Foam re Date Proportion Fuel Contr 90% rad Extimpact BB 254 rad Drainage 25% Postion Water Conte 99% vis BB 00% Drainage 50% FEETES Foreelal 1501-00 Te 1 98.07.28 2% Heptin 0058 NR ea obs Fresh 0135, XR 07:20 Pere Foroetal 20 1s EE F 95.05.15 29% Hepn ous? NR 1602 oats ica 0301 1685 325, General comments: Time to contro! longer while time to complete extinction shorter compared to standard scale Table 19 Summarised test results for fluoroprotein (FP1) foam, forceful applica- tion and fresh water at 3% [Data Rie rad Application —Tra Cour FOR We Bunda — BOIS Eagan Toa wore Date Proportion Ful Gonir 90% rad Ext Impact BB25% ead Drainage 250% Psion Water’ Conte 99% ve BB ied Drainage 80% __ Flow rate P RPT Presta) 1 5 nr a a re 55.07.26 3 Hepian — OL10 20ST 05:35 Im Fesh oki Na 09:50 : prrrae Fores 1 ‘O15 TEE TT > oe 36.02.01 3% Heptan OLS NR 19:06 06:36 Osmia0r Fresh 230 20.0, 1a ira a Force 21 130 was rz PRI 6506: 96.05.15 3% Heptn 013s east os:06 ‘3ma0" Fresh 2:10 1335 Tosh 1290 * Test #125 conducted with foam from another batch (FP1b) compared to previous tests. General comments: Time to control slightly longer while time to complete extinction shorter compared to standard scale where no complete extinction was achieved. The extinction time in the last small scale test is unexpected short and the difference might be due to the use of two batches. The burnback times are longer in the small scale tests. 4.1.2.3 Forceful application-FFEP Table 20 Summarised test results for FFFP (FFFP1) foam, forceful application aand fresh water at 3% eaten Thay —— Con 0H ie Exncon — BR —— 1a — Tra oe Proportion Fuel Contr 90S rad Extmpect BB25S. rad Drainage'25¢% Position Water ‘Conte 99%¢ He BBioe%" _Dramage 0% How rae Fors] a5 tr 115 ES TNT * Hopi obat oar 34 oso im Fre e130 ist oss Fee Teens or 1 %0 ORT EAR es a8 Hepan gn ost 1138 oo smia0r eh oo 12s 550, 1305.28 ‘+ The standard scale test was conducted in the second standard scale test series. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 02:30 (Not shown on the radiation graph due to measurement problems.) + Intest #123, a flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 01:35. General comments: Good correlation regarding control and extinction while the burnback time is shorter in small scale. 4.1.2.4 Forceful application-FFFP/AR Table 21 tion and fresh water at 3% Summarised test results for FFFP (FFFP/AR1) foam, forceful applica Data We rad Reaion Tray Contr 90 ve Exton — Expaon Foam noe Date Peiportion Fuel Contr 90% rad“ Ext Impact BB28% rad Drainage 25% Position Water, Conte 9994 ie BB i008 Drainage 80% Plow rate [EREPAICT-Tar0Y—Foreetal 1x25 Sst Tae 2920 UNTHS 55.05.06 we Hepten 00.0 0128 NR SeeFRFDAR. Ie Fresh ous boo, ets01 FAVTART ForeeTat 01s aT TEI z TITER SI 96.02.01 ae Hepten 0s NR us 0628 Cano" Fresh 02.30, 1509, oss 129 [RRR —Foccetst a Ba oe —$~“TH UME sts 96-08-14 3% Heptan 0093 2 Ro SeeFREDIARI —O5mi20" Fresh DLs 1230, Ne 121 +The standard scale test was conducted in the second standard scale test series. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 03:40, (No radiation graph from the burnback test due to measurement problems.) + There was also a short flare-up in the small scale tests where the flames passed the entire foam surface during 5-10 seconds and then continued as a rime fire covering 50-75% of the tray circumference for some minutes. General comments: There is a considerably difference in visual 90 % contro! and 90% determined with radiometers due to difficulties in the visual estimation. Time t0 99% control and extinction is slightly Jonger in small scale while time to burn- back is shorter. 4.1.2.5 Forceful application-AFFF Table 22 Summarised test results for AFFF (AFFF1) foam, forceful application and fresh water at 3% Data We ra pcan Tray Cant 8 son — BS Bape am nocd Proportion Fuel Cant 90% Extimpact BB 25% rad Drainage 25% Position Water ‘Comte 99% vis 100% Drainage 80% Flow rate Lager as es ae to 56.05.07 a Heptan 0030 0630 onss Fresh 62.08, 08.02 05:00, 7 [ARETE Fores TF OSI TSF Ti TareR 96.05.15 5% Hepn 0049 orso oz os Omi20" Fresh O12 10.00 0540 139429 + The standard scale test was conducted in the second standard scale test series. A flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 00:48, reaching 100% by surface at 01:00, + In tost #126, a flare-up exceeding 25% by surface was achieved at 01:35, reaching 100% by surface at 01:40. General comments: The correlation is good in all aspects. 4.1.2.6 Forceful application-Synthetic Table 23 Summarised test results for synthetic (S1) foam, forceful application and fresh water at 3% ‘Applicaton — Tra Conn 50a Bayan Proportion Fue Conte 908 rad Deuinage 25% Water Conte 99% vi Drainage 50% Foreefol 1} NR Naat oe a Hepton G34 Notes’ Nobbtest 0:10, Fresh Na 15:55 Fores 2 ‘ory Tater a 95-1249 3a Hepian 0308 sco Nobbuest ods aes NA 1525 General comments: Good correlation both regarding control and by the fact that complete extinguishment was not achieved in neither scale, No burnback tests conducted. 4.1.2.7 Forceful application-Protein Table 24 Summarised test results for protein (P1) foam, forceful application and fresh water at 6% [Data Berea Tra Conte DOR vis Extinction ON 75 Espana Date Fue Cont 90% rad ExLimpact BR25% red Dealnage 25% Conte 99% vis. BB 100 Drainage 50% How rate 7 ar Oro were 6 UNITE 6565 95-1219 Hepa 0136 o216 —Nobbeest ——a700 Osa/aor 2:00 1210 13 General comments: Although no standard scale test is available, the result seem reasonable by the fact that complete extinction was not achieved30 42 Scaling fire tests on heptane ‘The primary purpose with these tests was to find the test conditions giving the results most close to the standard scale tests conducted. The influence of tray size and geometry, application rate, etc were investigated according to the scheme pre- sented in table 1. Most scaling tests were conducted using the S-1 foam. The test programme was started by evaluating the influence of tray size (1,07, 0,66 and 0,41 m?) and shape but keeping the application rate constant, 2,34 I/m?min, Some tests with reduced application rate at the 0,66 m? tray were then conducted, Further tests were then conducted with the FP-2 and AFFF/AR-1 foams. Based on this first series of small scale tests (test #01-08) it was found that the 0,66 m2 tray with an application rate of 1,89 /m2min and a tray shape of 0,68x 1,12 m gave the best correlation using the S-1 foam at nominal concentra- tions. Hlowever, when changing the proportioning rate and type of foam, the dif- ferences increase in small scale compared to standard scale giving longer control and extinguishing times. The decision was therefore taken to run some further test using the same application rate but using the circular tray. As this was found to give a better general correlation, this became the final test condition used throughout the project and all these results were presented in the tables in previous chapter 4.1 Screening tests regarding bun back procedure were also conducted in some of the initial tests, The best correlation was achieved with a small burnback tray, 15cm, placed outside the rim of the fire tray. Based on this, a square burnback tray with approx. the same area (13 cm by 13 cm) was designed. After some redesign, this became the bumback tray used throughout the project, ‘All initial scaling tests are summarized in table 25-32 together with some comments ‘and conclusions made at that stage of the project. Later in the FAIRFIRE project, further scaling tests were conducted to verify the scaling work made by TRI {7} and these tests are also presented in the following tables.31 Table 25 Summarised test results for "scaling tests" using synthetic (S1) foam, gentle application and fresh water at 3% [ Bara Bie rad —— appara —Tray Conte RV — ESTA — BO Tapansbr Foam ore Date 2 Fuel Conte 909% raat W284 rod Drainage 25% ostion Conte 99% vs Bh iow Drainage 50% Fw rate STHETT eile THE O18 a URI BS 95.0725, se Heplan Ona 3 ss in rest O10 Ni 1525 5 [sree fenle 1151550 Tear oi oT 98.07.25 ae Hepin —osa0 ta38 iw res 138 Nie Ther reat Tar Tay as “1637 NTE 96-0546 38 Reptsn 0036, m2 in Fresh 130 6 - TT ene a Boas Tr UNTER a se Heptan O08 robbuest in rest ous 2% pr eae 15 TOS rE TATRA 65085 os 3% Hepian 0039 robbs NM tn Fresh 00:35 he [srr “Gente TTT TIT 17 UNTRE Gans estat 28 Hepran 00:81 robbiet NM ti reas ois 56 TH Gen TH wo Or 5, NTRS 5518.5) ost 38 Hepes 0046 Nobbist NM iin Fresh 110 os [sr ene TIRT=TD— Orr Tr 7 ONTRET 68183) 9st-at 36 epi 0054 Nobbest NM ii Fresh 0130 Te ante TESTI TRIS TST ae estan a8 Hepun one Nobbrest NM Fresh 8435, srr ene TOT TIT 95.1122 a Heptun——o1sia Nobbist NM Fresh [sr Gane TTT Seer i 95.1128 36 Heptan Nobbes 1120 ream a0 oF nie TBT=T ora —<3T 95-1128 38 Heptan Nobbiex 1125 ean 61 1.40 [Sheeler 0s] 95.1129 3 Hopi oto 9581 See #8 Fresh aL S30 [srr Gene TET Oa TS OF ¥ 95.1129 a6 Hepran 0828, oo se40 Fresh 02:0 5500 TT Tete RSTO aT T 96-02-29 36 Heplas hte 1429 Fresh oie 15.06, srs ae TBST OT 13 96.0228 3% Heptan Nobbies Brosh ie [Sra Gente 8 TEE ONT RE 6.00.0) 96-02-29 3m eptan Nobbeest Fresh His, T Gea TENET W230 TST ONTRE 600.0) 96-02-29 a Heptan 0246 Nobbeet 1095 tm Fresh 6350 1935 io. ToT eae TOUR —oro7 TT ce Ea ieay 55165) 9602.29 3% Hepan atta Nobbiest hus i Fresh uso 1600 Oi32 Table 25 cont. [ Dara ie rad ——apateaton —T Tomo ve FTN APS Expat Foam nae Date Proportion Fu Gonte 99% rad BB25% rad Drainage 25% Position Water: Gants 99% vis BB 400%" Drainage 80% Flow r [sr ale TBA SOTT OT var ELI 3.56.5) 96.02.29 3% Hepn 0:23 Nobbiest iin Fresh 2:08 Sa ne THE Ora 96.02.29 3% Hoptn 0128 Nobbiet Seow 6 Fresh 02.08, WaT Gealle Eo. Oe 7 360802 38 Hepun 0057 Nobbeest 1138 res D130 NM In the primary evaluation made along the tests, especially the time to complete extinction was compared with the corresponding standard scale results. In the stan- dard scale tests, the extinction time was 1:53 and 1:40, resp. Based on this first seties of small scale tests (test #01-08) it was found that the 0,66 m? tray with a application rate of 1,89 Vm2min and a tray shape of 0,68x1,12 m gave the best correlation. Selecting this combination, the tests series was continued by running three repeat tests (#09-11) to get a figure of the repeatability. This was considered reasonable ‘good conceming time to extinction except for the last test but there was some varia- tion in the control time. The screening tests regarding the burn back procedure in test #10-11 gave a too short bumback time. In test #10 a burnback pot, @ 30 and 15 cm in height was placed in the middle of the tray. In test # 11, a square burnback tray 25 em by 25 cm and 5 cm high, was placed outside the straight side ofthe tray. Based on these results, the same test conditions were also used to run further tests with the other combinations used in the standard scale tests (sea water, various mixing rate) followed by two tests using FP-2 and AFFF/AR-1, se table 26-32. Test #57-63 and #67 refers to later scaling tests. Table 26 Summarised test results for "scaling tests" using synthetic (S1) foam, ‘gentle application and sea water at 3% ‘Application “Tra Ton SOE ve EN potion Fu Contr 90% rad Water Conte 996 vis Gentle THB DO eT ie Heptan 0035, Sea onto Tene aa wa 3a Hepien 9037 Sea 0228 Gentle TEL —Orar ae Heplan LID Sea 220 The correlation seems good regarding time to extinction but the control time is longer. A circular bumnback tray with a diameter of 15 cm was placed outside the straight side of the tray giving a good correlation in burnback time.