Performance of Special Extinguishment Agents for ... - UL.com

Issued: September 30, 2008
Two different hose streams were used for this portion of the investigation. A straight stream attack at
22 gallons per minute and a wide spray attack at 15 gallons per minute. Similar hose stream
application methods were incorporated while attacking with each type of stream
With the use of the measurable heat release rate reduction from the attack, we were able to determine
differences between a water only attack and six (6) different agents.
The time to reduce the heat release rate for residential room fires using a 1 percent concentration of
different water additives was measured to be marginally quicker while employing a 15 gpm wide spray
pattern and using the test methods used on the noted fuel package.
No significant differences were seen in the 22 gpm straight stream attack.
Fixed Nozzle Wood Crib Fire Testing on Agent Solutions
Wood crib fires were utilized as an accepted repeatable fuel package for the evaluation of the
suppression performance of the applied agents.
UL 711, 6A wood crib was chosen as a challenging, repeatable fuel package. A single nozzle
positioned above the crib was used for applying the water. Water application occurred when the mass
loss of the wood crib was 45 percent of the initial mass.
A series of water only tests yielded a control point at which suppression of the crib would be
terminated. This value was 17 percent of the heat release rate value at the time of the initial
suppression.
Once the suppression attack was terminated, regrowth of the wood crib’s deep seated fire was
monitored until the point of the crib’s collapse. This allowed a slow, steady rise of the crib’s heat
release rate to be characterized.
All six agents from the previous section were evaluated at 1.0 and 0.5 percent concentrations when
mixed with water.
Using the test methods employed, it was determined that no significant difference in performance
exists for the 0.5 and 1.0 percent concentrations of the agents tested. Neither the time to reduce the
heat release rate to 17 percent of the initial heat release rate, nor the regrowth heat release rate after
suppression termination were considered to be significantly different when comparing water only to
the agents and concentrations tested.
ii