LLarge arge AArea rea SStorage torage TTank ank FFires Require Strongires Require Strong ARAR--AFFF Agents as Defined by LASTFIREAFFF Agents as Defined by LASTFIRE
Dr. Kirtland P. ClarkVP of R&D
Chemguard, LTD
3rd Reebok Foam Seminar September 3&4 2007
LASTFIRE Test ProtocolLASTFIRE Test Protocol
• Protocol developed by Resource Protection International (RPI) underthe sponsorship of BP.
• Examine three methods of delivering foam to the tank fire.
• Designed to identify factors important in evaluating and choosing fireextinguishing foam concentrates acceptable for Large Storage TankFires (LASTFIRE).
• Evaluate storage and handling of foam concentrates to assureacceptable performance.
Starting foam application (using the semiStarting foam application (using the semi--aspiratedaspiratedmonitor nozzle in this case)monitor nozzle in this case)
Taken from LASTFIRE report; September 2002
System NozzleSystem Nozzle2.50 lpm/m2 Rate2.50 lpm/m2 Rate
Taken from LASTFIRE report; September 2002
Aspirating Aspirating Monitor Monitor ApplicationApplication3.63 lpm/m3.63 lpm/m2 2 RateRate
Taken from LASTFIRE report; September 2002
SemiSemi--Aspirating Aspirating Monitor ApplicationMonitor Application3.74 lpm/m2 Rate3.74 lpm/m2 Rate
Taken from LASTFIRE report; September 2002
3
ExtinguishmentExtinguishment
10
Vapour SealVapour Seal
23 - - Torch Pass 2
12 - Torch Pass 1
END- 30
BurnbackBurnback
25 - - Burnback Pot (removal @ 26)
PreburnPreburn
0Test SequenceTest Sequence
Schematic of LASTFIRE test sequenceSchematic of LASTFIRE test sequence
Taken from LASTFIRE report; September 2002
Taken from LASTFIRE report
65%
15%
Extinguishment
Fire Control 5%
BurnbackResistance
Relative Importance of LASTFIRE Test Fire Performance CriteriaRelative Importance of LASTFIRE Test Fire Performance Criteria(Developed from poll of end users)
25% 50% 80% 100%
Poor Fire / Level IVPerformance or FAIL
Reduced Fire / Level IIIPerformance
Acceptable Fire / Level IIPerformance
Good Fire / Level I Performance
0%
Vapor SuppressionTorch Test 2 – 7.5%
Vapor SuppressionTorch Test 1 – 7.5%
LASTFIRE Testing of CUG (3X3) ProductionLASTFIRE Testing of CUG (3X3) Production August 2006August 2006
What is meant by What is meant by ““Product PerfectProduct Perfect””??
• 11 Consecutive batches of CUG were produced and testedunder Resource Protection International (RPI) monitoringby Richard Coates.
• Tests were run indoors with and without the overhead dooropen.
• Tests were run in Texas in August while ambienttemperatures were as high as 110F.
• 30 of 33 tests were Good/Level I and 3 tests were highAcceptable/Level II.
LASTFIRE RESULTS LASTFIRE RESULTS ––
ASPIRATED NOZZLEASPIRATED NOZZLE11 Batches of CUG (3x3) Verified by Richard Coates of RPI
Tap Water and Time in Seconds from Foam On
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 AV.
ControlTime
Exting.Time
Extinguish Score = +65, all batches are extinguished before 180 sec.
Control Score = +5, all batches are controlled before 120 sec.
For For ExtingExting. and Control all 11 Batches = 70 points, the maximum. and Control all 11 Batches = 70 points, the maximumTotal Score: 10 = 100% and 1 = 97.5%, Average = 99.8%Total Score: 10 = 100% and 1 = 97.5%, Average = 99.8%
LASTFIRE RESULTS LASTFIRE RESULTS ––
SYSTEM NOZZLESYSTEM NOZZLE11 Batches of CUG (3x3) Verified by Richard Coates of RPI
Tap Water and Time in Seconds from Foam On
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 AV.
ControlTime
Exting.Time
Control Score = +5, all batches are controlled before 120 sec.
Extinguish Score = +65 below line, +55 above
ForFor ExtingExting. and Control 10 Batches = 70 and 1 Batch 65 points. and Control 10 Batches = 70 and 1 Batch 65 pointsTotal Score: 1 = 100%, Lowest 2 = 75%, Average = 85.6% Total Score: 1 = 100%, Lowest 2 = 75%, Average = 85.6%
LASTFIRE RESULTS LASTFIRE RESULTS ––
SEMISEMI--ASPIRATED NOZZLEASPIRATED NOZZLE11 Batches of CUG (3x3) Verified by Richard Coates of RPI
Tap Water and Time in Seconds from Foam On
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 AV.
ControlTime
Exting.Time
Extinguish Score = +65 below line, +55 above
Control Score = +5 below line, +2 above
For For ExtingExting. and Control Batches 6 = 70, 4=60 and 1 =57 points. and Control Batches 6 = 70, 4=60 and 1 =57 pointsTotal Score: 7 = 100%, Lowest 1 = 85%, Average = 95.8% Total Score: 7 = 100%, Lowest 1 = 85%, Average = 95.8%
LASTFIRE RESULTS LASTFIRE RESULTS ––
SEA WATERSEA WATERBatch 4 of CUG (3x3) Verified by Richard Coates of RPI
Time in Seconds from Foam On
Exting. Score = +65 points for all nozzles, less than 180 sec.
Control Score = +5 points for allLess than 120 sec.
For For ExtingExting. and Control Batch 4 = 70 points, the maximum. and Control Batch 4 = 70 points, the maximum
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Aspirated System Semi-Aspir.
ControlTime
Exting.Time
Total Score: Total Score: AspirAspir. = 100%, System = 100%, Semi. = 100%, System = 100%, Semi--AspirAspir. = 95% . = 95%
LASTFIRE Testing of CUG (3X3) ProductionLASTFIRE Testing of CUG (3X3) Production
Results of the 33 LASTFIRE Tests:Results of the 33 LASTFIRE Tests:
• Average: Semi-aspirated 85.6 Good/Level I
Aspirated 99.8 Good/Level I
System 95.8 Good/Level I
All 33 fires 93.7 Good/Level I
ChemguardChemguard Recommends Recommends UltraguardUltraguardFor Large Tank Fire ProtectionFor Large Tank Fire Protection
• Only 3 other multipurpose products performed as well.
• In Norway, Ultraguard rated GOOD with all threeLASTFIRE monitors with Tap Water.
• Only Ultraguard has performed GOOD in both Tap and Salt Water.
Performance in LASTFIREPerformance in LASTFIRE
• In Mansfield, TX, Ultraguard rated GOOD with all threeLASTFIRE monitors with Salt Water.
• In Norway, only one product passed LASTFIRE withSalt Water and then only with one monitor not all three.
Using Chemguard and Ciba Chemical technology:
• Chemguard has invented a new method of extinguishingClass B nonpolar and polar fires covered under USPatent 7,011,763.
• FluoroSurfactant Free Foams are claimed based onspecified high molecular weight fluoropolymers (HMWFP)which extinguish fires as effectively as AFFF/AR-AFFFs.
• Fires are extinguished due to HMWFP stabilization of foambubbles to heat and hot fuel, not by film formation
• When used with fluorosurfactants, HMWPs allow theformulation of fluorine efficient AR-AFFF agents.
ChemguardChemguard Chemical R&DChemical R&D
ChemguardChemguard Chemical R&DChemical R&D
Using technology from US Patent 7,011,763 and Chemguard FP-5100 series fluoropolymers:
• Ultraguard was developed having exceptional UL162and LASTFIRE performance, with 54% fluorine asHMWFP and total 0.5%F.
• Chemguard C-333 was developed having exceptionalUL162 performance, with 83% fluorine as HMWFP andtotal 0.2%F.
ChemguardChemguard Chemical R&DChemical R&D
Is there any environmental advantage to using HMWFP technology?
• Yes, because of the effectiveness of the HMWFPs instabilizing foam bubbles, much lower fluorinelevels provide exceptional fire performance.
• Yes, the US EPA considers high molecular weight polymersas a generic class as having less potential for negativeenvironmental impact.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
AR-AFFF
3M ATC-603
Chemguard CUG
Chemguard C-333
Grams of Fluorine Used on 1,000 ft2 Fire at 0.10 Rate for 5 min.Chemguard AR-AFFF Products, Based on Fluorine Assay
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
BOD COD
Chemguard C-303
Chemguard C-333
Ultraguard
3% Protein
Johnson's BabyShampoo
Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact Analysis by Lancaster Laboratories, Lancaster, PAAnalysis by Lancaster Laboratories, Lancaster, PA
BODBOD2020 , COD, COD2020 as gm/las gm/l
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
BOD/COD TOC
Chemguard C-303
Chemguard C-333
Ultraguard
3% Protein
Johnson's BabyShampoo
Environmental ImpactEnvironmental Impact Analysis by Lancaster Laboratories, Lancaster, PAAnalysis by Lancaster Laboratories, Lancaster, PA
BODBOD2020 /COD/COD2020 as Percent, TOC as gm/las Percent, TOC as gm/l
Top Related