Posts Tagged ‘3D firefighting’

The first post in this series, Gas Cooling, began the process of providing a conceptual explanation of the fire control technique of gas cooling. As previously discussed, gas cooling reduces the hazards presented by the upper layer in a compartment fire by cooling hot gases and reducing the potential that they will ignite. Water is an effective fire control agent for this purpose because a tremendous amount of energy is required to raise its temperature and vaporize it at its boiling point.

Gas Cooling: Part 2 identified the amount of water that is theoretically necessary to cool the upper layer of a compartment containing 40 m3 (4 m wide  x 5 m long x 2 m deep) from 500^o C (932^o F) to 100^o C (212^o F). In addition, this post identified practical limitations with the efficiency of typical combination nozzles used and determined the duration of application necessary to cool the upper layer to 100^o C (212^o F) at different flow rates.

This raises the question, what would happen if you didn’t apply sufficient water to cool the upper layer to 100^o C (212^o F)?

What If?

Steam continues to absorb energy if its temperature is increased above 100^o C (212^o F). Some firefighters are under the impression that you cannot have steam at a temperature above 100^o C (212^o F) at normal atmospheric pressure. This is incorrect. Water (in liquid form) will not increase above 100^o C (212^o F) as this is it’s boiling point at normal atmospheric pressure, but steam acts as any other substance in the gaseous form and can increase in temperature beyond that which it changed phase from liquid to gas.

Figure 1. Properties of Water, Steam, & Smoke

1 100 kg/M³ =1 kg/l

2 Not applicable as smoke and steam are in the gas phase

3 TCC is based on heating water from 20^o C to 100^o C and conversion to steam

4 Steam will continue to absorb energy until reaching temperature equilibrium

As illustrated in Figure 1, a kilogram of steam (slightly under 1.69 m³ at 100^o C) will absorb 2.0 kJ of energy for each ^oC that the temperature of the steam is increased. The temperature of steam will continue to increase as long as the surrounding gases and/or surfaces that it is in contact with are of higher temperature. This process will continue until the steam, gases, and surfaces that the steam is in contact with reach equilibrium (i.e., the same temperature).

So even if insufficient water is applied to lower the temperature of the upper layer to 100^o C (as described in Gas Cooling: Part 2 [LINK]), the combined effects of heating and vaporizing the water (the major cooling mechanism) and heating the steam produced to a temperature higher than 100^o C (212^o F), can have a significant cooling effect. This effect is often sufficient to extinguish flames in the upper layer and slow or reduce pyrolysis caused by heating of fuel packages due to radiative and conductive heat transfer from the flames and hot gases in the upper layer.

Gas Laws

When water as a liquid is vaporized to form steam, it expands and becomes less dense. Fire service texts such as the 5^th Edition of the Essentials of Firefighting (IFSTA, 2008) commonly state that the volume of water expands 1700 times when it is converted to steam at 100^o C (212^o F). These texts state this as a fact to be memorized, but do not explain why this is the case or that if temperature is increased further, that the volume of steam will continue to expand. While having a number of different characteristics as illustrated in Figure 1, steam and smoke are both in the gas phase, they behave somewhat similarly. In chemistry and physics, the behavior of gases is described by a number of physical laws collectively described as the gas laws. Understanding the gas laws provides an explanation of why smoke and the steam produced during firefighting operations behave the way in which they do.

While gases have different characteristics and properties, behavior of gases can be described in general terms using the ideal gas law. This physical law describes the relationship between absolute temperature, volume, and pressure of a given amount of an ideal gas.

Figure 2. Temperature, Volume, Pressure & Amount

The concept of an ideal gas is based on the following assumptions:

• Gases consist of molecules in random motion
• The volume of the molecules is negligible in comparison to the total volume occupied by the gas
• Intermolecular forces (i.e., attractive forces between molecules) are negligible
• Pressure is the result of gas molecules colliding with the walls of its container

The ideal gas law is actually a synthesis of several other physical laws that each describes a single characteristic of the behavior of gases in a closed system (enclosed in some type of container). Of these gas laws, Charles’s Law provides the simplest explanation of the phenomena that occur during gas cooling.

Charles’s Law: In the 1780s, French scientist Jacques Charles studied the effect of temperature on a sample of gas at a constant pressure. Charles found that as the gas was heated, the volume increased. As the gas was cooled, the volume decreased. This finding gave rise to Charles’s Law which states that at a constant pressure the volume of a given amount (mass or number of molecules) of an ideal gas increases or decreases in direct proportion with its absolute (thermodynamic) temperature. The symbol  is used to express a proportional relationship (much the same as = is used to express equality), so this relationship can be expressed as:

Where:

V=Volume

T=Temperature

When two values (such as volume and temperature in Charles’s Law) are proportional, one is a consistent multiple of the other. For example If one value was consistently eight times the other, the values would also be proportional. In the case of Charles’s Law when the absolute temperature of a gas doubles, the pressure doubles. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between absolute temperature in Kelvins (K) and volume in cubic millimeters (mm³).

Figure 3. Charles’s Law

This relationship can also be stated using the following equation:

Where

V=Volume

T=Temperature

Subscript of 1 refers to initial conditions

Subscript of 2 refers to final conditions

It is important to remember that absolute temperature is measured in Kelvins (K), not degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit, because the Kelvin scale places the zero point at absolute zero, so that doubling the temperature in K, is actually doubling the temperature. As illustrated in Figure 4, the same does not hold true when using the Celsius scale (the Fahrenheit scale presents the same problem).

Figure 4. Absolute Temperature

Application of Charles’s Law provides a simple approach to examining the question of why application of water into the upper layer does not necessarily result in an increase to upper layer volume (by adding steam) and increasing its thickness (with the bottom of the layer moving closer to the floor). This requires the assumption that while the higher temperature inside the fire compartment results in increased pressure, this increase is fairly small and does not have an appreciable outcome on volume changes during gas cooling.

As a first step in answering the question, consider what is known at this point (as illustrated in Figure 5):

• The initial volume of the upper layer (V_u1) is 40 m³.
• The initial temperature of the upper layer (Tu1) is 500^o C (932^o F)
• The ending temperature of the upper layer (T_u2) is 100^o C (212^o F)

The answer we are in search of is the ending volume of the upper layer (V_u2), the volume of fire gases (V_fg) plus the volume of steam produced (V_st) during application of water for gas cooling.

Figure 5. Compartment Temperature and Volume

Expanding Steam

As discussed in Gas Cooling: Part 2 [LINK], 4.35 kg (4.35 l) of water must be vaporized in the upper layer in order to lower the temperature to 100^o C (212^o F). The volume of water in liters must be converted to cubic meters (the same units of measure used for the volume of the compartment and upper layer). A liter is 0.001 m³, so 4.35 l equals 0.00435 m³. For now, we will accept that conversion of water to steam results in a 1700:1 expansion ratio (a later post in this series will explain why). With an expansion ratio of 1700:1, 0.00435 m³ of water expands to 7.395 m³ of steam at 100^o C (212^o F) (see Figure 6)

Figure 6. Expansion of Steam at 100^o F

Figure 7 illustrates the volume of steam produced when 4.35 l of water is vaporized in the upper layer of the example compartment relative to the initial volume of the upper layer.

Figure 7. Steam Expansion in a Compartment

Contracting Upper Layer

Why doesn’t the 7.397 m3 of steam that results from vaporization of the 4.35 liters of water applied for gas cooling simply increase the volume of the upper layer by 7.397 m³? Charles’s law provides the key. Charles’s Law indicates that as a gas is heated its volume will increase in direct proportion to the increase in its absolute temperature. However, the reverse is also true. The volume of a gas will decrease in direct proportion to the decrease in its absolute temperature.

Cooling the upper layer from 500^o C (932^o F) to 100^o C (212^o F) results in a 52% decrease in absolute temperature from 773 K to 373 K. The volume of the upper layer which was initially 40 m³ is reduced in direct proportion to the reduction in absolute temperature.

The volume of the upper layer (fire gases) after cooling from 500^o C (932^o F) to 100^o C (212^o F) can be calculated by solving for Vu₂:

Reduction in temperature from 500^o C (932^o F) to 100^o C (212^o F) results in reduction of the volume of fire gases from 40m³ to 19.3 m³ as illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Contraction of the Upper Layer

Putting it All Together

If the water applied to cool the upper layer expands to form 7.395 m³ of steam and the final volume of the cooled upper layer is 19.3 m³, the total upper layer volume is 26.95 m³.

Figure 8. Total Upper Layer Volume

<

Dividing the Total Upper Layer Volume (Vu2) of 26.95 m³ by the area of the compartment (20 m²) determines the depth of the upper layer as being 1.347 m. Therefore, cooling the upper layer from 500^o C (932^o F) to 100o (212^o F) C will cause the bottom of the upper layer to rise 0.6525 m (2.1’).

The Short Answer

The following points summarize the last three posts dealing with gas cooling as a fire control technique:

• The volume of water required to cool the upper layer is quite small due to its specific heat and latent heat of vaporization in its liquid form and the specific heat of steam.
• The expansion ratio of steam at 100o C (212o F) is 1700:1, but as the volume of water used to cool the upper layer is small, the expanded volume is still relatively small (in comparison to the contraction of the upper layer).
• In the process of reaching equilibrium, the temperature of the upper layer is reduced to a greater extent than the temperature of the water increases due to the cooling capacity of the water and the relatively low specific heat of fire gases and air.
• The large temperature drop in the upper layer results in a proportional reduction in volume (which works out be greater than the increase in volume resulting from the expansion of steam from water vaporized in the hot gas layer for cooling).

Based on each of these factors, a small amount of water can cool the upper layer and reduce its volume, resulting in the lower boundary of the upper layer rising as its depth decreases.

A Few Little Wrinkles!

The preceding example may conflict with your personal experience. Many of us have been in a hot, smoke filled compartment and had steam and smoke bank down on top of us after application of water. Why might this be the case?

The outcome of the preceding example depends on all of the water being vaporized while traveling through the upper layer. In this case, energy to vaporize the water is transferred from the hot gases in the upper layer, cooling the layer and causing it to contract. If the water passes through the upper layer without vaporizing, the temperature of the upper layer is not reduced and it does not contract. Water vaporizing on contact with hot compartment linings results in the steam produced being added to the volume of the upper layer. This steam cools the upper layer to some degree, but far less than using the energy of the hot gases to vaporize the water as it passes through the upper layer (compare the specific heat of steam to the specific heat and latent heat of vaporization of water in Figure 1).

When applying water fog into the upper layer, some of the water vaporizes as it travels through the hot gases and some reaches the compartment linings. Determining changes in the volume of the upper layer under these conditions is a bit more complex and requires a deeper examination of the gas laws.

Continuing the Discussion

The next post in this series will examine the other gas laws that lead to the development to the Ideal Gas Law and how this law can be used to answer questions about changes in upper layer volume as a result of gas cooling under a variety of different conditions.

Spanish Translation of Effective and Efficient Fire Streams

Thanks to Firefighters Tomá Ricci and Martín Comesaña from San Martín de Los Andes, Argentina for translating the series of posts on Fire Stream Effectiveness and Efficiency into Spanish. They can be downloaded in PDF format:

• Efectividad y eficiencia de los chorros de ataque: Parte 1
• Efectividad y eficiencia de los chorros de ataque: Parte 2
• Efectividad y eficiencia de los chorros de ataque: Parte 3

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA). (2008). Essentials of firefighting (5^th ed). Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications.

In a compartment fire, the upper layer can present significant hazards to firefighters, including potential for ignition and energy transfer). My last post, Gas Cooling, began an examination of the science behind gas cooling, application of water fog into the upper layer to reduce the potential for ignition and thermal hazards presented by the hot gases.

Figure 1. Energy Transfer Required for Cooling

With a specific heat of 4.2 kJ/kg and latent heat of vaporization of 2260 kJ/kg, it takes considerable energy to raise the temperature of water to its boiling point of 100^o C and change it from liquid to gas phase steam. Smoke on the other hand has a specific heat of 1.0 kJ/kg, indicating that in comparison with water; much less energy is required to change its temperature. As explained in Gas Cooling, 11.3 MJ must be transferred from the upper layer of this compartment to water applied for cooling in order to lower the temperature of the upper layer in a compartment from 500^o C to 100^o C (see Figure 1). It is important to remember that the energy required to cool the upper layer is dependent on the mass of hot smoke and air in the upper layer. This value will vary with the size of the compartment and the temperature of the hot gases.

When starting out on this examination of gas cooling, we posed two questions:

• How much water is required to cool the upper layer from 500^o C to 100^o C?
• Why doesn’t the volume of the upper layer increase when water applied to cool the hot gases is turned to steam?

The answers to these questions are interrelated. First, let’s look at the amount of water required.

Water Required for Cooling

When water is applied for fire control and extinguishment, energy is transferred from materials that have a temperature higher than that of the water to raise the temperature of the water and to change it from liquid phase to gas phase.

The theoretical cooling capacity (TCC) of water is 2.6 MJ/kg. This value is based on heating a kilogram of water from 20^o C to 100^o C (0.3 MJ/kg) and vaporizing it completely into steam (2.3 MJ/kg).

Dividing the energy that must be transferred from the upper layer by the TCC calculates the amount of water that would theoretically be required to cool the upper layer from 500^o C to 100^o C if the energy transfer and conversion of water to steam was 100% efficient. If this was the case, the upper layer could be cooled to 100^o C by applying 4.35 kg of water. Given the density of water at 20^o C of approximately 1.0 kg/l, this would be a volume of approximately 4.35 liters. However, this assumes instantaneous heat transfer and 100% efficiency in conversion of water to the gas phase. Neither of which is possible in the real world!

Experimental data (Hadjisophocleous & Richardson, 2005; Särdqvist, S., 1996) has shown that the cooling efficiency of water in both laboratory experiments and actual firefighting operations ranges from 0.2 to 0.6. Särdqvist (1996) suggests that an efficiency factor of 0.2 be used for interior fog nozzles. Barnett (as cited in Grimwood, 2005) suggests that an efficiency factor of 0.5 be used for solid or straight stream application and 0.75 for fog application. In actuality, the efficiency of water application varies considerably with the design of the nozzle, skill of the nozzle operator, and a range of other factors. For our examination of gas cooling, we will use an efficiency factor of 0.6 (60%).

Multiplying the TCC of water by 0.6 adjusts the cooling capacity to account for the fact that some of the water applied into the hot gas layer will not turn to steam while passing through the hot gas layer. Some of the droplets will pass through the gas layer and vaporize on contact with hot surfaces (more on this later) and others will fall to the floor, with increased temperature, but remaining in liquid form.

Figure 2. Adjusted Cooling Capacity of Water

Dividing the 11.3 MJ of energy that must be transferred from the upper layer of the compartment by an Adjusted Cooling Capacity (ACC) of 1.56 MJ/kg determines that 7.2 kg (7.2 liters) of water are required to lower its temperature from 500^o C to 100^o C.

Figure 3 illustrates common flow rates from combination nozzles, Adjusted Cooling Capacity (ACC) and time required to apply the 7.2 kg of water necessary to cool the upper layer of the compartment from 500^o C to 100^o C.

Figure 3. Flow Rate, Adjusted Cooling Capacity, and Application Duration

As illustrated in Figure 3, if water is applied at 115 l/min (30 gal/min), several short pulses will provide sufficient water application. If the flow rate is increased to 230 l/min, a single pulse is likely to be sufficient. However, if the flow rate is increased further, it is likely that excessive water will be applied. In addition, droplet size increases with flow rate, reducing efficiency.

All Models are Wrong!

This examination of gas cooling provided a simple example of how much water is required to cool the upper layer in a given compartment. While this explanation provides a good way to understand how gas cooling works, it is incomplete. Box and Draper (1987, p. 424)observe that “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. The following factors add quite a bit of complexity to examination of gas cooling:

• The energy that must be transferred from the upper layer is dependent on the mass of the hot gases and their temperature.
• Not all of the water applied vaporizes in the upper layer (some droplets travel through the hot gases and vaporize on contact with hot surfaces and others drop to the floor without completely vaporizing).
• Temperature of the hot gases in the upper layer is not uniform (as assumed in two layer models).
• Ongoing combustion and energy transfer from hot compartment linings add energy to the hot gas layer.
• Convection and gravity current influence the movement of hot and cool gases, making conditions dynamic rather than static.

While our model of gas cooling is wrong, I believe that it is useful. Firefighters do not calculate the volume of water required to cool the hot gas layer on the fireground. However, it is important to understand how flow rate and duration impact on effectiveness and efficiency.

Important!

Remember that this example involved gas cooling in a single compartment with static conditions. The flow rate and/or duration of application for fires in larger compartments or direct attack on burning fuel may be quite different.

What’s Next?

One question remains in our examination of gas cooling. Why doesn’t the volume of the upper layer increase when water applied for gas cooling turns to steam? This will be the focus of the third post in this series.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Box, G. & Draper, R (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. New York: Wiley.

Hadjisophocleous, G.V. & Richardson, J.K. (2005). Water flow demands for firefighting. Fire Technology 41, p. 173-191.

Särdqvist, S. (1996) An Engineering Approach To Fire-Fighting Tactics Sweden, Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering

Svennson, S. (2002). The operational problem of fire control (Report LUTVDG/TVBB-1025-SE). Sweden, Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering.

Grimwood, P. (2005). Firefighting Flow Rate: Barnett (NZ) – Grimwood (UK) Formulae. Retrieved January 26, 2008 from http://www.fire-flows.com/FLOW-RATE%20202004.pdf

In a compartment fire, the upper layer presents a number of hazards to firefighters including the fact that 1) Smoke is fuel, and 2) the upper layer can be extremely hot. Application of an appropriate amount of water fog into the upper layer reduces the potential for ignition and lowers the temperature of the gases (reducing thermal load on the firefighters working below). While this sounds simple, and fairly intuitive, this basic technique to control upper layer hazards is frequently misunderstood. This is the first in a series of posts that will attempt to provide a simple explanation of the science behind gas cooling as a fire control technique.

How Does it Work

When a pulse (brief application) of water fog is applied into a layer of hot smoke and gases with a temperature of 500^o C (932^o F) what happens? As the small droplets of water pass through the hot gas layer, energy is transferred from the hot smoke and gases to the water. If done skillfully, the upper layer will not only be cooler and lest likely to ignite, but it will contract (or at least stay the same volume) providing a safer working environment below.

As demonstrated by Superintendent Rama Krisana Subramaniam, Bomba dan Penelamat (Fire & Rescue Malaysia) a short pulse can place a large number of small water droplets in the upper layer that develops during a compartment fire (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Short Pulse

When presenting this concept, firefighters often present me with two questions:

• Since water expands approximately 1700 times when turned to steam at 100^o C, why doesn’t the upper layer drop down on top of the firefighters?
• How can such a small amount of water have such a dramatic effect on the fire environment?

Math or No Math?

Using a bit of math, there is a really good explanation as to how gas cooling really works. The best answer is a bit complex, but a good conceptual explanation can be accomplished with a minimal amount of math.

Heating the water to 100^o C (212^o F) and production of steam transfers a tremendous amount of energy from the hot smoke and gases to the water, reducing the temperature of the hot gases. As the temperature of the hot gases is reduced so is their volume. However, don’t forget about the steam.

When water is turned to steam, it expands. At its boiling point, water vaporized into steam will expand 1700 times. A single liter of water will produce 1700 liters (1.7 m³) of steam. The expansion ratio when water is vaporized is significant. However, due to the tremendous amount of energy required to vaporize the water (and resulting reduction in gas temperature), the final volume of the mixture of hot gases and steam is less than the original volume of hot gases within the compartment.

The Key

The temperature of the gases is lowered much more than the temperature of the water is increased. Why might this be the case? The key to this question lies in the concepts of specific heat and latent heat of vaporization. As illustrated in Figure 2, the specific heat of smoke is approximately 1.0 kJ/kg (Särdqvist, 2002; Yuen & Cheung, 1999) while the specific heat of water is 4.2 kJ/kg and even more importantly the latent heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg. What this means is that it requires over four times the energy to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by 1^o C than it does to lower the temperature of smoke by the same amount. In addition, it requires 2260 times the energy to turn 1 kg of water to steam at 100^o C than it does to lower the temperature of 1 kg of smoke by 1^o C.

Figure 2. Heating and Cooling Curves of Smoke & Water

While water expand as it turns to steam, the hot gas layer will contract as it’s temperature drops. At the same pressure, change in the volume of a gas is directly proportional to the change in absolute temperature. If the initial temperature of the hot gas layer is 500^o C (773 Kelvin) and its temperature is lowered to 100^o C (373 Kelvin) the absolute temperature is reduced by slightly more than half (773 K-373 K=400 K). Correspondingly the volume of the hot gases will also be reduced by half.

An Example

Once the underlying concept of gas cooling has been explained, the question of how a small amount of water can have such a dramatic effect may still remain. After all, the preceding explanation compared a kilogram of water to a kilogram of air. Firefighters normally do not usually think of either of these substances in terms of mass. Water is measured in liters or gallons. If measurement of smoke and air is thought of, it would likely be in cubic meters (m³) or cubic feet (ft³). Sticking with SI units, consider the properties of water and smoke as illustrated in Figure 3:

Figure 3. Properties of Water and Smoke

While over simplified, the compartment fire environment can be considered as being comprised of two zones; a hot upper layer and a cooler lower layer, each with reasonably uniform conditions (this is the approach used by computer models such as the Consolidated Model of Fire and Smoke Transport, CFAST).

As illustrated in figure 4, our examination of gas cooling will consider a single compartment 4 meters (13’ 1”) wide and 5 meters (16’ 5”) long with a ceiling height of 3 meters (9’ 10”). The upper layer comprised of hot smoke and air is two meters deep and has an average temperature of 500^o C (932^o F).

Figure 4. Compartment with Two Thermal Zones

What volume of water must be applied into the upper layer to reduce its temperature from 500^o C to 100^o C?

Just as input of energy is required to increase temperature, energy must be transferred from a substance in order to lower its temperature. The first step in determining the water required for cooling is to calculate the energy that must be transferred from the upper layer to achieve the desired temperature reduction.

The specific heat of smoke is approximately 1.0 kJ/kg. This means that 1.0 kJ of energy must be transferred from a kilogram of smoke in order to reduce its temperature by 1^o C. This requires that we determine the mass of the upper layer.

Calculation of mass involves multiplying the volume of the upper layer (40 m³) by the (physical) density of smoke (0.71 kg/m³) at the average temperature of the upper layer (500^o C) as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Mass of the Upper Layer

Specific heat is the energy required to raise the temperature of a given unit mass of a substance 1^o. The same energy must be also be transferred to lower the temperature of a unit mass of a substance by 1^o. As illustrated in Figure 3, the specific heat of smoke is 1.0 kJ/kJ. Therefore, to lower the temperature of a single kilogram of smoke by 1^o C, 1.0 kJ must be transferred from that kilogram of smoke. With an upper layer mass (Mu) of 28.24 kg, 28.24 kJ must be transferred from the upper layer to water applied for gas cooling in order to reduce its temperature by 1^o C.

Reduction of upper layer temperature from 500^o C to 100^o C is a change of 400^o. Multiplying 28.24 kJ by 400 determines the total amount of energy that must be transferred to water applied for gas cooling in order to reduce the temperature to 100^o C. As illustrated in Figure 6, 11,296 kJ (11.3 MJ) must be transferred from the upper layer to the water to effect a 400^o C reduction in temperature.

Figure 6. Energy Transfer Required

Now that we have determined the energy that must be transferred from the upper layer in order to lower the temperature from 500^o C to 100^o C, it is possible to identify how much water must be applied to accomplish this task. However, that will be the topic of my next post. In addition, I will provide an explanation as to why the volume of the upper layer does not (necessarily) increase when water applied to cool the gases turns to steam.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Särdqvist, S. (2002). Water and other extinguishing agents. Karlstad, Sweden: Räddnings Verket.

Yuen, K. & Cheung, T. (1999). Calculation of smoke filling time in a fire room – a simplified approach. Journal of Building Surveying, 1(1), p. 33-37

As with many other questions, it is likely that the answer to the question of which nozzle is best is it depends. As discussed in Effective and Efficient Fire Streams, Safe, effective and efficient fire control requires:

• Water application to control the fire environment as well as direct attack on the fire
• Appropriate flow rate for the tactical application (cooling hot, but unignited gases may be accomplished at a lower flow rate than direct attack on the fire)
• Direct attack to exceed the critical flow rate based on the fire�s heat release rate
• Sufficient reserve (flow rate) be available to control potential increases in heat release rate that may result from changes in ventilation
• Water application in a form appropriate to cool its intended target (i.e., small droplets to cool hot gases or to cover hot surfaces with a thin film of water)
• Water to reach its intended target (fog stream to place water into the hot gas layer and a straight or solid stream to pass through hot gases and flames and reach hot surfaces)
• Control of the fire without excessive use of water

Accomplishing this requires different stream characteristics at different times. The characteristics that are optimal for gas cooling are likely quite different than for cooling hot surfaces, particularly when dealing with fully developed fire conditions in a large compartment. It is likely that direct attack on a fire with a high heat release rate in a large compartment may best be accomplished with a high flow stream having a high degree of stream cohesion and extremely large droplets. On the other hand, cooling the hot gas layer while accessing a shielded fire is most effectively and efficiently accomplished using a fog stream with a variable pattern angle, small droplet size, and a lower flow rate. No nozzle and hose system will be equally effective and efficient in all situations.

At present, there is no standardized method for testing and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of firefighting nozzles. However, there are a number of parameters that may be useful in the process of evaluating, selection, and specification of combination nozzles.

Application

Nozzle selection must be considered within the context of the nozzle, hose, and pump system that it will be used. If starting from scratch, it may be useful to consider each of these components. For example, high and ultra high pressure systems can provide considerably higher efficiency than low pressure systems, but they are limited to low flow rates. Low pressure systems on the other hand have larger droplet sizes and as such cannot achieve as high efficiency as higher pressure systems, but are scalable to deliver higher flow rates. If we have an existing system in place, the question may be what nozzle will provide the greatest effectiveness, efficiency, and range of capabilities.

It is also important to consider the type of buildings and occupancies in which firefighting operations will likely take place. Important factors include building and interior compartment size and occupancy. Another factor that must be considered is pressure limitations imposed by fixed fire suppression systems such as standpipes (in some cases outlet pressure is limited to 65 psi (448 kPa).

While there is no standard test methodology for determining the effectiveness and efficiency, there are a number of characteristics that can be assessed and evaluated when considering selection and specification of the handline nozzles.

Starting Point

Central Whidbey Island Fire & Rescue (CWIFR), where I serve as Fire Chief is about to start the process of evaluating nozzles for use on existing 1-3/4� (45 mm) handlines. CWIFR is a small fire district with a mix of residential and commercial occupancies located approximately 60 miles (97 km) north of Seattle, Washington. Structural fire risks are predominantly wood frame, single family dwellings with a small number of apartments, commercial buildings and institutional occupancies. The district protects an area of 50 square miles and a population of approximately 9000. Four Type I Engines and three Type I Tactical Water Tenders are staffed with a mix of full-time, part-time, and volunteer personnel operating out of four fire stations.

CWIFR currently uses Elkhart Chief 150 g/min (568 l/min) single flow rate nozzles that are designed to operate at a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (517 kPa) as the standard nozzle on 1-3/4� (45 mm) hoselines (similar to the nozzle shown in Figure 1, but CWIFR uses break apart nozzles with a separate tip and shutoff).

Figure 1. Elkhart Chief Nozzle

Given the same flow rate, a nozzle pressure of 75 psi provides a slight reduction in nozzle reaction in comparison with a nozzle pressure of 100 psi (about 13% when operating a straight stream). However, all things being equal, lower nozzle pressure generally results in larger droplets. Larger droplet size is not necessarily a disadvantage in direct or indirect attack, but can significantly reduce effectiveness of gas cooling. Using the current CWIFR nozzles, flow rate can be increased to approximately 180 gpm by increasing nozzle pressure to 100 psi. However, it is not possible to develop effective streams at flow rates significantly below 150 gpm as a nozzle pressure below 75 psi causes significant deterioration in stream quality, reach, and penetration.

CWIFR�s nozzle tests will serve several purposes: First will be to increase members� familiarity with the nozzles currently in use, their capabilities, and limitations. The second will be to evaluate other types of nozzles that may provide a broader range of capabilities and increase operational effectiveness.

Three variable flow nozzles and two automatic nozzles will be included in the initial round of testing and evaluation. All of the nozzles selected allow for development of a range of flows at a standard nozzle pressure of 100 psi.

Variable Flow Nozzles

• Akron Turbojet
  30-60-95-125 g/min (115-230-360-475 l/min)
• Akron Wide Range Turbojet
  Flow Range 30-95-125-150-200 g/min (115-360-475-550-750 l/min)
• Elkhart Wide Range Phantom
  Flow Range 30-95-125-150-200 g/min (115-360-475-550-750 l/min)

Automatic Nozzles

• Ultimatic 10-125 g/min (38-475 l/min)
• Midmatic 70-200 g/min (265-750 l/min)

Three of these nozzles, the Wide Range Turbojet, Wide Range Phantom, and Midmatic have a higher designed flow capability than the nozzles currently used by CWIFR as well as the capability to develop effective streams at lower flow rates. Two of these nozzles, the Turbojet and Ultimatic have a lower flow capability than the nozzles currently used by CWIFR, but have been found to provide excellent gas cooling capability based on laboratory tests (Handell, 2000) and anecdotal evidence during live fire training and operational firefighting.

Basic Design

The starting point for nozzle evaluation is identification of basic characteristics:

• Designed Nozzle Pressure
• Flow Control: Fixed Flow, Variable Flow, Automatic
• Flow Rates/Range

Physical & Operational Characteristics

Physical and operational characteristics can be as important as stream performance as nozzles must be used under a wide range of operational conditions.

• Weight
• Size
• Size of Bail
• Flow Control Method
• Simplicity/Complexity of Operation

Performance Characteristics

Nozzle performance can be evaluated in a variety of different ways ranging from baseline data such as actual flow rates, range of patterns developed, and ease of operation. Other characteristics are a bit more complex such as pattern density and hang time.

• Actual flow rate vs. specified flow rate
• Maximum fog pattern angle
• Reach at designed pressure and flow
• Ease of Operation within designed pressure and flow range
• Pattern density during continuous operation
• Pattern density after pulsed application (2 second delay)
• Hang time for droplets in pulsed application
• Performance (as outlined above) outside designed pressure and flow

As identified above, performance will also be evaluated outside the designed pressure and flow range of the nozzles. For example, use of variable flow nozzles at the lowest flow setting at pressures above the designed nozzle pressure can produce extremely small droplets (more on this in a later post).

Finance and Logistical Considerations

While nozzle performance is the most important factor, it is also essential to assess the logistical and financial considerations.

• Initial purchase price
• Life-cycle cost
• Maintenance requirements

Next Steps

The next post in this series will examine the nozzles currently in use by CWIFR and provide additional detail on the evaluation process.

Reference

Handell, A. (2000) Utv�rdering av dimstr�lr�rs effektivitet vid brandgaskylning [Evaluation of the efficiency of fire fighting spray nozzles in a smoke gas cooling situation], Report� 5065. Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Sweden

A Quick Review

As discussed in the previous posts in this series, military battle drills are an immediate response to enemy contact that requires fire and maneuver in order to succeed. Battle drills are initiated with minimal commands from the unit leader. Soldiers or marines execute preplanned, sequential actions in response to enemy contact (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Battle Drill

Battle Drill Part 2 addressed the appropriate reaction of a team of firefighters on a primary hoseline when confronted with rapidly worsening fire conditions that are not readily controllable once they occur (e.g., flashover, wind driven fire conditions). As when a military unit is ambushed, the fire and maneuver of battle drill involves more than one weapon. This post will address the role and reaction of backup lines in the extreme fire behavior battle drill.

Backup Lines

Once a hoseline has been deployed for fire attack it is good practice to stretch a backup line. Klaene and Sanders (2008) observe that �backup lines are needed to protect the crew on the initial attack line and to provide additional flow if needed� (p. 216). Unfortunately, many firefighters see the backup line as simply another attack line and miss the first and primary function of this hoseline to protect crews on primary hoselines.

The first priority in fire attack operations is to get a hoseline in position to apply water effectively to the fire. To this end, hoselines are deployed in series (attack line first, then backup line) not in parallel, where both lines are attempting to advance and maneuver in the same space. The crew of the backup line can often assist in pulling up additional hose for the attack line (particularly when crews are lightly staffed). As illustrated in Figure 2, the backup line is positioned to protect the means of egress and if necessary support fire attack.

Figure 2. Attack and Backup Line Placement

Extreme Fire Behavior Battle Drill

As discussed in Battle Drill Part 2, the thermal insult experienced in an extreme fire behavior event is dependent on temperature (of gases and compartment linings) and flow of hot gases. The higher the temperature and faster the speed of gas flow, the higher the heat flux. Survival requires that crews on hoselines extinguish or block the flames, cool hot gases, and maneuver out of the flow path to a point of egress or area of safer refuge.

Crews engaged in fire attack or search are often first to encounter rapidly deteriorating fire conditions. Hose Handling and Nozzle Technique Drill 8 outlined the immediate actions that should be taken to support a tactical withdrawal under severe fire conditions. In these circumstances, the crew staffing the backup line has a critical role in supporting withdrawing crews.

Fire conditions that are beyond the capability of a single hoseline may be controlled by the higher flow rate from multiple lines. As noted by Klaene and Sanders (2008) one of the functions of backup lines is to �provide additional flow if needed� (p. 216). The attack line and backup line operating in a coordinated manner may be able to control fire conditions and allow continuation of fire attack. If this is the case, these lines should be reinforced by deployment of one or more additional backup lines.

If fire conditions cannot be controlled, and the attack line must be withdrawn while maintaining water application to protect the crew, the crew on the backup line can aid in withdrawal of attack and/or search hoselines. If the hoseline is not withdrawn as the firefighter on the nozzle retreats, the hose may kink or become exposed to flames (either of which may result in loss of water supply to the nozzle).

While the attack or search crew is likely to be first to encounter worsening fire conditions, this is not always the case. Depending on fire location and building configuration, fire spread may cut off the attack or search line from behind. In this situation, the backup line becomes the primary means of defense for operating crews.

Regardless of how deteriorating conditions develop, safe and effective tactical withdrawal requires a coordinated effort between interior crews and as soon as possible, report of conditions to Command and if necessary transmit a Mayday message.

Drill 9-Extreme Fire Behavior Battle Drill-The Backup Line: Key hose handling and nozzle techniques when faced with extreme fire behavior are the ability to apply long pulses of water fog or maintaining a continuous flow rate while maneuvering backwards. However, the backup line may initially need to advance to support fire attack, and then if necessary cover and support other crews as they withdraw.

Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 9 Instructional Plan

Skill in operation and maneuver of a single hoseline is a foundational firefighting skill. However, in the extreme fire behavior battle drill, coordinated operation of the attack and backup line is essential, making Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 9 an important step in skill development.

References

Klaene, B. & Sanders, R. (2008) Structural Firefighting Strategy and Tactics (2^nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

At a formal dinner on 23 January 2010, Chief Ed Hartin was recognized as an honorary member of Company 1 �Germania� of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department. In addition, he was awarded a commendation for supporting the ongoing professional development of the members of Company 1 �Germania� of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department and encouraging them in their efforts to share their knowledge with Chile�s fire service.

Commendation for Support of Company 1 �Germania�

Left to Right: Teniente Juan Esteban Kunstmann, Chief Ed Hartin, Capit�n Francisco Silva V.

On 24-27 January 2007, the Company 1 �Germania� of the Valdivia, Chile Fire Department hosted the first international fire service congress to be held in South America. Participants included over 150 firefighters and officers from Chile, Peru, Argentina, and the United States. The congress provided an opportunity to participate in both classroom and hands-on workshops on a wide range of fire service topics including fire behavior, ventilation, search, rapid intervention, technical rescue, and extrication. While topical areas were diverse, the congress had a substantive emphasis on compartment fire behavior with lectures presented by CFBT-US Chief Instructor Ed Hartin and Geraldo Crespo of Contraincendio in Buenos Aires, Argentina and practical training sessions conducted by Ed Hartin and Juan Esteban Kunstmann of the Valdivia Company 1 �Germania�.

Lecture Presentation

Lecture presentations by CFBT-US Chief Instructor Ed Hartin included (click on the links for a copies of the presentations):

• Fire Development and Flashover: Foundational Knowledge
• Extreme Fire Behavior: Understanding the Hazard
• 3D Firefighting: Controlling the Fire Environment
• Reading the Fire: B-SAHF
• Modern Buildings: Fires in the Built Environment
• Large Area Fires: Tactical Implications
• Fire and Smoke in Void Spaces: Hidden Hazards
• Live Fire Training as Simulation: The Role of Fidelity

CFBT practical skills sessions were held at the Valdivia Fire Department�s training center and focused on developing basic skill in nozzle technique and understanding fire development in a compartment.

This is My Nozzle! There are many like it, but this one is mine�

Center: Ed Hartin

Practicing Nozzle Techniques

Right: Teniente Juan Esteban Kunstmann

International Collaboration

Left to Right: Battalion Chief Danny Sheridan, FDNY and Capit�n Giancarlo Passalacqua Cognoro, Lima, Pe?u Cuerpo General de Bomberos Voluntarios

Congratulations to the members of Company 1 �Germania� for their success with the first Congreso Internacional Fuego y Rescate! I look forward to working with these outstanding fire service professionals in their ongoing efforts to learn and share knowledge with the fire service throughout Chile, Latin America, and the World.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

The previous posts in this series, examined the importance of proficiency in use of the firefighters� primary weapon in offensive firefighting operations, and outlined several drills that can be used to develop proficiency in basic nozzle operation and hose handling.

• My Nozzle
• Basic Nozzle Techniques & Hose Handling
• Nozzle Techniques & Hose Handling: Part 2
• Nozzle Techniques & Hose Handling: Part 3

This post extends this examination of how to develop proficiency in nozzle operation and hose handling, presenting method or developing skill in working under conditions with poor visibility and application of indirect attack as an offensive firefighting tactic.

This is my nozzle, there are many like it but this one is mine. My nozzle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. Without me it is useless, without my nozzle I am useless.

I will use my nozzle effectively and efficiently to put water where it is needed. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, and its care. I will guard it against damage, keep it clean and ready. This I swear [adapted from the Rifleman�s Creed, United States Marine Corps].

Operating Without Visual Reference

Drills to this point have been under conditions of good visibility where firefighters can observe nozzle pattern and fire stream effects. However, on the fireground it is critical that these skills can be used effectively under conditions of low or no visibility.

Sometimes it is necessary to go backward in order to move forward. One way to begin the process of developing the ability to work effectively with limited visibility is to go back to Nozzle Technique and Hose Handling Drills 1 & 2 and repeat these exercises with the firefighter�s breathing apparatus facepieces covered (unlike working in the dark, this makes it much easier for the instructors to observe and provide feedback). While this seems like an extremely slow and incremental process, it is likely to build a higher level of skill and require less time to develop proficiency than simply fumbling about in the dark!

Door Entry and Gas Cooling

In Nozzle Technique and Hose Handling: Part 3, door entry was illustrated at an exterior door. However, this method should be used anytime that firefighters encounter a closed door that may have hot gases or fire behind it. This becomes even more important when operating in a smoke (fuel) filled environment.

Smoke is fuel! The upper (hot gas) layer may contain a substantial mass of fuel that is ready to ignite. Flames exiting from a compartment door can ignite this fuel, resulting in rapid fire progression through the upper layer and into adjacent compartments. This phenomenon is demonstrated by CFBT-US Senior Instructor Trainer Matt Leech (LT Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue) in Figures 1 through 3. While this demonstration involves use of a single compartment doll�s house and �porch roof�, the same phenomena can occur on a larger scale in any type of structure.

Figure 1. Accumulation of Fuel Overhead

Figure 2. Extension of Flames and Ignition of Fuel Overhead

Figure 3. Transition to Flaming Combustion Overhead

This simple demonstration illustrates the hazards presented by smoke overhead, the importance of gas cooling, and good door entry technique. While often overlooked, recognition of this hazard is not new. �Smoke contains unburned fuel and when mixed with air in the proper proportion becomes a flammable mixture� (Layman, 1955).

When working under conditions of limited visibility, other sensory feedback becomes even more important to the nozzle operator. It is essential that firefighters become familiar with audible indicators of stream performance. Think about the sound of a straight stream hitting the ceiling or a wall versus the sound of a fog pattern applied into the hot gas layer (without significant contact with compartment linings). Would you be attuned to the difference in sound? This is important when you can�t see the pattern being discharged. Changes in temperature can also be an important indicator. However, it is important to remember that perceived temperature is also influenced by moisture. Excess steam production (from water hitting hot compartment linings) may make it seem like the temperature is rising, when this is due to increased moisture content in the smoke and air. If it seems like it is getting hotter, it is important to recognize if this is due to worsening fire conditions, or inappropriate water application.

Drill 6-Operating Without Visual Reference: This drill integrates door entry, hose handling, and nozzle techniques (pulsing and painting) under conditions with limited visibility. The drill can be conducted with the facepiece covered, in darkness, or using cold smoke (e.g., from a smoke machine). Learners should begin by using good door entry technique on an exterior door and then move through several compartments (preferably of different sizes), encountering several doors (some of which should be closed) along the way to the seat of the �fire�. Alternately, this drill can be used to practice hose handling and nozzle technique in the context of primary search with a hoseline (or in support of crews performing search).

Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 6 Instructional Plan

Indirect Attack

Indirect attack is a commonly misunderstood firefighting tactic. Common misconceptions include:

• Indirect attack is only performed from the exterior of the building.
• Indirect attack will push fire throughout the building.
• Indirect attack involves banking water off the ceiling to reach burning fuel that is inaccessible to direct application of water (see Figure 4).
• Indirect attack and gas cooling is the same thing.

These statements are absolutely incorrect!

Figure 4. What Indirect Attack is NOT.

Several years ago I had a company officer that I worked with tell me that he had learned about a �new� fire control technique called the indirect attack at strategies and tactics class. I loaned him a small blue book titled Attacking and Extinguishing Interior Fires (Layman, 1955) and observed that this was not exactly a �new� idea.

The concept of the indirect attack was an outgrowth of extensive study of fuel oil fires within confined spaces conducted by the instructor staff of the US Coast Guard Firefighting School at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland during World War II (Layman, 1955). The term indirect, referred to application of water into a hot compartment, but not directly onto the burning fuel. Conversion of water to steam absorbed a tremendous amount of energy and the expansion of steam filled the compartment (and potentially adjacent compartments which may also have been involved in fire).

In 1947, Lloyd Layman completed his service with the US Coast Guard and returned to duty as Fire Chief with the Parkersburg West Virginia Fire Department. Over the next two years, Layman and the members of his department worked to implement the concept of indirect attack for structural firefighting. In 1950 Chief Layman delivered a presentation titled Little Drops of Water (Layman, 1950) which outlined the adaptation of indirect attack for structural firefighting. In 1952 he completed Attacking and Extinguishing Interior Fires (Layman, 1955), a textbook that provided a more comprehensive look at indirect attack including several case studies based on incidents in Parkersburg where this approach had been used successfully in dealing with both residential and commercial fires.

As presented by Layman, the indirect attack was generally performed from the exterior of the building. However, it is important to recognize historical context. In the late 1940�s respiratory protection (when it was used) was often limited to All Service Masks, which used a filter mechanism to remove toxic products of combustion (to some extent), but could not be used in significantly oxygen deficient atmospheres.

Layman�s Error: Chief Layman made a number of extremely important and astute observations, particularly with regards to the tremendous cooling capacity of water when it is not only heated to its boiling point, but also converted to steam. However, one of the major assumptions related to indirect attack was in error. Layman states: �The injection of water into a highly heated atmosphere results in rapid generation of steam�[increasing] the atmospheric pressure within the space (p. 36-37). This points to the Chief�s assumption that steam produced as water was evaporated in the hot gas layer added to the total volume of gas and vapor within the space (i.e., the volume of steam was added to the volume of smoke and hot gases in the compartment). As discussed in Estimating Required Fire Flow: The Iowa Formula [LINK]; this is incorrect, water vaporized as it passes through the hot gas layer actually reduces total volume (due to cooling of the hot gases). On the other hand, water that is vaporized in contact with hot surfaces (that did not significantly cool the gases as it passed through the hot gas layer) adds to total volume as expanding steam is added to the volume of hot gases within the compartment. The difference between indirect attack and gas cooling will be explored in detail in my next post on Fire Stream Effectiveness and Efficiency.

Figure 5. Indirect Attack

Drill 7-Indirect Attack from the Door: When faced with a fully developed fire in an enclosed area or a severely ventilation controlled fire (decay phase) that presents potential for a ventilation induced flashover or backdraft. Indirect attack may be an effective option for fire control. However, this tactic is not limited to exterior operations. Indirect attack can be initiated as part of the door entry procedure (exterior or interior doorway). If dynamic risk assessment indicates that entry is not viable due to fire conditions, the nozzle operator can use long pulses from the doorway (while the other member of the hose team controls the door) to apply water to hot surfaces, producing steam to gain control of conditions within the compartment prior to entry. This fire control method should be integrated with effective tactical ventilation (think planned, systematic, and coordinated).

Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 7 Instructional Plan

This approach can be extremely useful when the door to the fire compartment can be controlled and the hose team is presented with multiple priorities (persons reported and the need to control the fire to maintain the safety of interior operations). Figure 6 illustrates an example of how an indirect attack may be used when operating from the interior. In this scenario, the first arriving engine observes a fully developed fire in the bedroom on the A/D corner of a single family dwelling and receives information that an occupant is in the bedroom on the C/D corner. Rapidly developing fire conditions require immediate fire control. The crew makes entry from Side A, cools the hot gases overhead as they proceed to the fire compartment. As it is necessary to control the fire before proceeding past the involved compartment, they control the door, implement an indirect attack, and then extend an oriented search to locate the occupant while the nozzle operator protects the means of egress and maintains orientation for the firefighter performing the search in the adjacent compartments.

Figure 6. Application of Interior Indirect Attack.

While there are other tactical approaches that could be taken in this situation, use of an indirect attack allows the hose team to address both life safety (firefighters and occupants) and fire control tactical priorities.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFIreE, CFO

References

Layman, L. (1955). Attacking and extinguishing interior fires. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association.

Layman, L. (1950). Little drops of water. Unpublished paper, presented at the Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC), Memphis, TN.

It is often stated and commonly believed that it takes gpm to overcome Btu. While I suspect that firefighters understand the underlying intent of this statement, it is actually incorrect as it is comparing apples and oranges. Flow rate is expressed in terms of volume and time (gal/m or l/m). However, Btu (or Joules) is a measure of quantity (more like volume than flow rate).

You can say that it takes gallons (or liters) to overcome Btu (or Joules), But the rate at which energy is absorbed by a fire stream must overcome heat release rate (energy released/unit of time). This concept points to the need for a higher flow rate when the heat release rate from a fire is larger. This leads to another common fire service saying: �Big Fire, Big Water�. While this is not completely incorrect, it is a bit misleading as it does not account for the efficiency of the fire stream in absorbing energy. Not all of the water that leaves the nozzle absorbs the same amount of energy.

Theoretical Cooling Capacity

Water is an excellent extinguishing agent because it has a high specific heat (energy required to raise its temperature) and high latent heat of vaporization (energy required to change it from water to steam). As illustrated in Figure 1, conversion of water to steam is most significant as it absorbs 7.5 times more energy than heating water from 20^o C (68^o F) to its boiling point.

Figure 1. Theoretical Cooling Capacity

However, this only tells us the theoretical cooling capacity of a single kilogram of water at 20^o C (68^o F) if it is raised to 100^o C (212^o F) and completely vaporized. Examining theoretical cooling capacity in terms of flow rate requires a bit more work.

Flow is defined in terms of gallons per minute (gal/m) or liters per minute (l/m) and theoretical cooling capacity of water was defined in terms of energy absorbed per second per unit mass (MJ/kg) we need to work through conversion to common units of measure.

While SI units are simpler to work with, I have worked cooling capacity out in both liters per minute (LPM) and gallons per minute (GPM). However, in that specific heat and latent heat of vaporization are applied to mass rather than volume and Watts are joules per second, it is first necessary to covert flow rate into kg/s

Figure 2. Flow Rate and Theoretical Cooling Capacity

This example assumes instantaneous heat transfer and 100% efficiency in conversion of water to the gas phase. Neither of which is possible in the real world!

Factors influencing effectiveness and efficiency of heat transfer (Svennson, 2002) include:

• Diameter (in the gas layer and on surfaces)
• Temperature (in the gas layer and on surfaces)
• Velocity (in the gas layer)
• Film formation (on surfaces)
• Temperature of the gas layer
• Surface temperature

Fire Stream Efficiency

The firefighter�s power is not simply related to flow rate, but flow rate effectively applied to transfer heat from hot gases and surfaces by changing its phase from liquid (water) to gas (steam). Extinguishing a compartment fire generally involves converting a sufficient flow (gal/m or l/m) of water to steam. So while the �steam� itself does not generally extinguish the fire, the energy absorbed in turning the water to steam has the greatest impact on fire extinguishment.

Experimental data (Hadjisophocleous & Richardson, 2005; S�rdqvist, S., 1996) has shown that the cooling efficiency of water in both laboratory experiments and actual firefighting operations ranges from 0.2 to 0.6. S�rdqvist (1996) suggests that an efficiency factor of 0.2 be used for interior fog nozzles. Based on my personal observations (but no experimental data), I think that S�rdqvist�s efficiency factor of 0.2 might be just a bit on the low side. Barnett (as cited in Grimwood,2005) suggests that an efficiency factor of 0.5 be used for solid or straight stream application and 0.75 for fog application. The following table takes a slightly more conservative approach, using 0.6 as an average efficiency factor.

Figure 3. Flow Rate and Adjusted Cooling Capacity

Figure 3 is provided to illustrate the impact of efficiency (or lack thereof) on fire stream cooling capability. The key point is that actual cooling capability is considerably less than the theoretical cooling capacity. Another complication is that in addition to nozzle performance characteristics, nozzle efficiency is also dependent on the skill of the nozzle operator, the manner in which water is applied (straight stream, narrow fog pattern, wide fog pattern), the configuration of the space, and fire conditions. Unfortunately, there is no standardized test with specified conditions that permits comparison of different nozzles and/or methods.

However, the concept of efficiency gives rise to an interesting question. Does a nozzle flowing 100 gpm with an efficiency factor of 0.6 have the same extinguishing capability as 200 gpm nozzle with an efficiency factor of 0.3. This is simple math! The cooling capacity would be identical. While the practical application is more complex (as we do not really know the efficiency factors for the two nozzles and manner in which they are being used), this is worth thinking about.

Flow Rate or Heat Absorption Capacity

CFBT-US Senior Instructor Trainer Matt Leech (LT Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue) proposed (half in jest) that nozzles should be labeled with their potential cooling capacity rather than flow rate. While this idea did not get significant traction, it is important for firefighters to recognize that flow rate and fire stream characteristics have a significant impact on potential cooling capacity.

Fire Stream Effectiveness

Safe, effective and efficient fire control requires:

• Water application to control the fire environment as well as direct attack on the fire
• Appropriate flow rate for the tactical application (cooling hot, but unignited gases may be accomplished at a lower flow rate than direct attack on the fire)
• Direct attack to exceed the critical flow rate based on the fire’s heat release rate
• Sufficient reserve (flow rate) be available to control potential increases in heat release rate that may result from changes in ventilation
• Water application in a form appropriate to cool its intended target (i.e., small droplets to cool hot gases or to cover hot surfaces with a thin film of water)
• Water to reach its intended target (fog stream to place water into the hot gas layer and a straight or solid stream to pass through hot gases and flames and reach hot surfaces)
• Control of the fire without excessive use of water

Accomplishing this requires different stream characteristics at different times. The characteristics that are optimal for gas cooling are likely quite different than for cooling hot surfaces, particularly when dealing with fully developed fire conditions in a large compartment.

Priorities

As regular readers have likely noted my posting schedule has been a bit off of late. My responsibilities as the new Fire Chief with Central Whidbey Island Fire & Rescue preclude the necessary research and writing necessary to constantly post twice weekly. I will be scaling back to a single post on Thursday for the next few months while I get a handle on my new job and get my family moved to Whidbey Island.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFIreE, CFO

References

Grimwood, P. (2005) Firefighting Flow Rate: Barnett (NZ) � Grimwood (UK) Formulae. Retrieved January 26, 2008 from http://www.fire-flows.com/FLOW-RATE%20202004.pdf

Hadjisophocleous, G.V. & Richardson, J.K. (2005). Water flow demands for firefighting. Fire Technology 41, p. 173-191.

S�rdqvist, S. (1996) An Engineering Approach To Fire-Fighting Tactics Sweden, Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering

Svennson, S. (2002). The operational problem of fire control (Report LUTVDG/TVBB-1025-SE). Sweden, Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering.

The previous posts in this series, examined the importance of proficiency in use of the firefighters� primary weapon in offensive firefighting operations, and outlined several drills that can be used to develop proficiency in basic nozzle operation and hose handling.

• My Nozzle
• Basic Nozzle Techniques & Hose Handling
• Nozzle Techniques & Hose Handling: Part 2

Developing proficiency in nozzle use is somewhat like building skill with a rifle. Understanding what end of the rifle the bullet comes out of and that the rifle is fired by pulling the trigger is the easy part, learning to consistently hit what you are aiming at over varied distances requires considerably more effort.

This is my nozzle, there are many like it but this one is mine. My nozzle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. Without me it is useless, without my nozzle I am useless.

I will use my nozzle effectively and efficiently to put water where it is needed. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, and its care. I will guard it against damage, keep it clean and ready. This I swear [adapted from the Rifleman�s Creed, United States Marine Corps].

In the first three nozzle drills learners develop basic proficiency in basic nozzle use (fixed position), integrating nozzle use while moving a hoseline forward and back, and use of the nozzle while moving the hoseline through varied size compartments. This post will provide an overview of door entry procedures.

Door Entry Concepts

For many firefighters, door entry is simply a process of remembering to �try before you pry� and then figuring out how to force the door if it is locked. For others it is simply kicking the door in! Often overlooked is the fact that the entry point is a ventilation opening; sometimes an inlet, sometimes an outlet, and often both. When the fire is ventilation controlled, opening the door and increasing air flow to the fire will result in increased heat release rate. Depending on the stage of fire development and conditions within the compartment or structure, this may result in extreme fire behavior such as a ventilation induced flashover or backdraft (see Fuel & Ventilation).

As illustrated in Figure 1, firefighters often encounter rapidly changing conditions after making entry. In this incident, flashover occurred less than 60 seconds after firefighters opened the door and made entry (see Situational Awareness is Critical for additional information on this incident)

Figure 1. Rapidly Changing Conditions

Note: Photos by Probationary Firefighter Tony George, Prince Georges County Fire Department.

Safe and effective firefighting operations depend on effectively reading the fire and recognizing potential stages of fire development and burning regime (see previous posts on Reading the Fire) and effective tactical operations to take control of the fire environment. Door entry is an important element in this process.

Door Entry Procedure

As you review this door entry procedure, you may find that it makes sense to you exactly as presented. On the other hand, you may find that some elements (e.g., size-up and dynamic risk assessment) make sense, but other components (e.g., cooling overhead prior to opening the door) require a bit more of a leap. The elements of the door entry process reinforce one another, adopt the elements that make sense to you, but consider the value of the procedure as an integrated process. The process outlined is not followed in a lock-step manner, it is important for the hose team to take action based on observed conditions.

Size-Up: Door entry begins with a focused size-up as you approach the building. Assessment of conditions is not only the incident commander or officer�s job. Each member entering the building should perform a personal size-up and predict likely conditions. When making entry, size-up becomes more closely focused on conditions observed at or near the door and includes an assessment of potential forcible entry requirements as well as B-SAHF (Building-Smoke, Air Track, Heat, and Flame) indicators. If available, a thermal imaging camera (TIC) can be useful, but remember that temperature conditions may be masked by the thermal characteristics of the building. If a thermal imaging camera is not available, application of a small amount of water to the door may indicate temperature and the level of the hot gas layer (water will vaporize on contact with a hot door).

Size-up begins as you exit the apparatus and approach the building, but continues at the door and after you make entry!

At the door, pay close attention to air track and heat (door temperature) indicators as these can provide important clues to conditions immediately inside the building!

Control the Door: If the door is open, close it. If it is closed, don�t open it until you are ready. Heat release requires oxygen, controlling the air supply to the fire controls heat release rate. If you force the door in preparation for making entry, make sure you maintain control of it.

Gas Cool Above the Door and Assess, and Control Interior Conditions: When you open the door to assess conditions inside, hot smoke will likely exit at the top of the door. If it is hot enough it may auto-ignite. The hazard presented by the exiting smoke can be reduced by applying two short pulses above the door just as it is opened (the firefighter controlling the door should crack the door as the first pulse is applied).

The door should be opened sufficiently to allow the nozzle operator to visualize interior conditions, but not so much that a large amount of air is introduced (no magic number on how far to open, �it depends�). If hot smoke is present, the nozzle operator should cool the gases inside the compartment from the doorway. This may involve a short pulse or two or it may involve a longer pulse, depending on the size of the compartment and conditions (again, this requires the nozzle operator to think!).

Close the Door: While there is often a sense of urgency to make entry (due to developing fire conditions, persons reported, etc.), this step is important as it provides an opportunity for a focused risk assessment.

Risk Assessment: Is it safe to make entry (or to make entry through this opening)? Fully developed fire conditions inside the door or a pulsing air track (indicating potential for vent induced flashover or backdraft) may indicate a need to consider alternative tactics).

Entry: If it is safe to make entry, the process of cooling above the door as it is opened is repeated and hot gases inside the compartment are cooled as the hose team makes entry.

Figure 2. Door Entry Procedure

Note: Adapted from video clip 00000010 on the 3D Firefighting: Training, Techniques and Tactics Resource DVD.

Remember: The purpose of door entry procedures is to reduce risk of extreme fire behavior during and immediately after entry! Door entry procedures should be used any time that hot smoke or flames may be on the other side of the door. These procedures are used at exterior doors when making entry and on closed doors encountered inside the building.

Drill 4-Door Entry-Inward Opening Doors: Many doors (particularly interior and exterior residential) open inward (away from the nozzle team), door entry requires that the hose team integrate forcible entry, door control, and nozzle operation. Practicing door entry procedures with a variety of inward opening door configurations (location of the door in relation to walls and with varied size compartments) is critical in developing proficiency.

Drill 5-Door Entry-Outward Opening Doors: Commercial doors (and some interior doors) will open outward (towards the hose team). Outward opening doors require a somewhat different position when performing door entry. Firefighters must develop skill in performing door entry with both inward and outward opening doors.

Hose Handling & Nozzle Technique Drill 4 & 5 Instructional Plan

These two drills can be conducted using any door where water can be applied. However, a free-standing door entry prop (see Figure 3) provides a simple and effective aid to developing door entry proficiency.

Figure 3. Door Entry Prop

Note: Photo by Inspector John McDonough, ASFM, New South Wales Fire Brigades.

Alternately, a forcible entry prop could be used to integrate the forcible entry component of the door entry process.

Drills

As discussed in Nozzle Techniques and Hose Handling: Part 2 [LINK], it is essential for firefighters to have the ability to react immediately to deteriorating conditions. While battle drills will be discussed in depth in a subsequent post, consider how this concept might apply during door entry. What action should the hose team take if they encounter strong indicators of backdraft conditions at the doorway (e.g. pulsing air track, thick (optically dense) smoke)? How should the hose team react if, despite following good practice, conditions worsen immediately after entry?

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

Grimwood, P., Hartin, E. McDonough, J. & Raffel, S. (2005). 3D firefighting: Training, techniques, and tactics. Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications.

Understanding how to develop fire streams has been critical since firefighters began to use hose and nozzles (Figure 1) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of firefighting operations.

Figure 1. In the Beginning!

When selecting handline nozzles, firefighters and fire officers generally consider four nozzle characteristics: 1) type of nozzle (combination or solid stream/smoothbore), 2) fixed or variable flow, 3) flow rate, and 4) designed operating pressure. Saving the big debate regarding combination and solid stream/smoothbore nozzles for another post, this post will focus primarily on nozzle pressure and flow rate.

Nozzle Function

A little over 20 years ago I was asked an interesting question by a newly hired recruit firefighter. She had no prior fire service experience and was puzzled by the hose evolutions being taught during her academy. As I attempted to help her make sense of these alien concepts, she finally asked �What�s the pump for? Why don�t we just put the nozzle on the end of the hose from the hydrant?� Her instructors may have assumed that hydraulics was a topic for apparatus operators or that everyone understood the basic concepts involved in developing an effective fire stream.

The primary function of a nozzle is to increase the velocity of water flowing from the hoseline. A fire stream must have sufficient velocity for water to reach from the nozzle to the intended target. The simple equation illustrated in Figure 2 is essential to understanding nozzle design and performance. Flow rate (the quantity of water) from a nozzle is dependent on the area of the opening and the velocity of the water being discharged (for a given size opening, the greater the velocity the higher the flow rate).

Figure 2. Important Equation

As indicated in the equation Q=AV, flow rate is related to velocity and the size (area) of the nozzle orifice. This relationship is simple to understand when looking at solid stream/smoothbore nozzles. Nozzle pressure translates to velocity at the tip. For a given size tip, increasing nozzle pressure increases velocity and thus the flow rate from the tip. For example, a 1-1/4� (32 mm) tip will flow 317 gpm (1200 lpm) at 50 psi (345 kPa). Increasing the nozzle pressure to 80 psi (552 kPa) increases the flow rate to 401 gpm (1518 lpm). Flow rate can be varied by changing the size of the tip, the nozzle pressure, or both.

Visualizing nozzle orifice size is a bit more difficult with combination nozzles. Most combination nozzles use a deflection stem (see Figure 3) to form the fog pattern. The nozzle orifice is an annular (ring shaped) space between the deflector and the body of the nozzle tip.

Figure 3. Combination Nozzle Orifice

The change in direction at the deflection plate results in formation of small droplets of water. Nozzles may also have fixed teeth or a spinning, toothed turbine to aid in the production of appropriate sized droplets as water leaves the nozzle.

Nozzle Pressure and Droplet Size

Water is an excellent extinguishing agent because it has a high specific heat (energy required to raise its temperature) and high latent heat of vaporization (energy required to change it from water to steam). Of these two factors, conversion of water to steam is most significant as it absorbs 7.5 times more energy than heating water from 20^o C (68^o) to its boiling point. The firefighters� power is not simply related to flow rate, but flow rate effectively applied to transfer heat from hot gases and surfaces by changing its phase from liquid (water) to gas (steam). Extinguishing a compartment fire generally involves converting a sufficient flow (gpm or lpm) of water to steam. So while the �steam� itself does not generally extinguish the fire, the energy absorbed in turning the water to steam has the greatest impact on fire extinguishment

Where the water is vaporized into steam depends on the method of fire control being used (direct attack, indirect attack, or 3D gas cooling). In direct attack water is vaporized on burning and pyrolyzing fuel surfaces to slow and stop the process of pyrolysis. Water is also vaporized on contact with hot surfaces in an indirect attack, but in this case the purpose is to produce a sufficient volume of steam to fill the compartment, achieving fire control or mitigating potential for extreme fire behavior such as a backdraft. Gas cooling on the other hand requires that the majority of the water be vaporized in the hot gas layer. This cools the hot gases (fuel) overhead, providing buffer zone and safer work environment for firefighters. It is important to remember that gas cooling is not an extinguishing technique, but merely one tool in controlling the fire environment.

Heat moves from objects of higher temperature to objects of lower temperature until temperature equalizes. Key factors in the speed of heat transfer are the difference in temperature and surface area of the materials. In the fire environment, burning fuel, nearby surfaces, and hot gases are considerably higher temperature than the water used for fire control and extinguishment. Surface area of the water in contact with the material being cooled is extremely significant in determining the speed of heat transfer. A larger surface area in relation to the amount of water will result in faster heat transfer and more rapid cooling.

If the volume of water remains the same, reducing droplet size increases surface area substantially. For example if droplet size is reduced by half, surface area increases by a factor of four (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Droplet Diameter and Surface Area

Note. Adapted from Water and Other Extinguishing Agents (p. 194) by Stefan S�rdqvist, 2002, Karlstad, Sweden: Raddningsverket. Copyright 2002 by Stefan S�rdqvist and the Swedish Rescue Services Agency

Increased surface area increases heat transfer as droplets travel through the hot gas layer, rapidly reducing temperature. However, the down side of smaller droplets is that they do not travel as far and may not be able to penetrate a large distance in an extremely hot environment, making a fog pattern with small droplets potentially less effective in direct attack or when working in an extremely large compartment. Fortunately, when a fog pattern is adjusted to a straight stream much (but not necessarily all) of this problem is overcome.

What does nozzle pressure have to do with droplet size? Nozzles do not produce uniform droplet sizes. The fog pattern developed by a typical combination nozzle produces a mix of small and larger droplets. However, average droplet size and the percentage of droplets that are 0.3 mm (0.012�) in diameter is dependent on both nozzle design and pressure. However, for any nozzle design, increased nozzle pressure will result in smaller droplets.

Gresham Fire & Emergency Services conducted a series of qualitative tests on droplet size produced by the Task Force Tips Dual-Pressure Mid-Force Nozzle operating at 50 psi (345 kPa) and 100 psi (689 kPa). Droplet size was assessed by examining hang time, the time which droplets remained suspended in the air after a short pulse of water fog (smaller droplets remain suspended for a longer time while large droplets fall to the ground more quickly). Results of this test were captured on video and synched to ensure that the visual comparison was at the same time after the nozzle was closed. As illustrated in Figure 5, with the same flow rate, the nozzle pressure of 50 psi (345 kPa) resulted in larger droplets than a nozzle pressure of 100 psi (689 kPa).

Figure 5.

Nozzles operating at a lower pressure will have larger droplet size. This does not impact substantially on direct attack, but can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of these nozzles when used for gas cooling. This does not mean that they cannot be used! It simply means that they will be less effective and are likely to result in less efficient vaporization of water (more water will end up on the floor).

Impact on Operations

While it is important to understand the underlying principles related to nozzle design and performance, it is even more important to understand the impact of these concepts on firefighting operations. The next post in this series will examine the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness in greater depth and why effective cooling capacity may be more important than simply looking at flow rate.

Ed Hartin, MS, EFO, MIFireE, CFO

References

S�rdqvist, S. (2002). Water and other extinguishing agents. Karlstad, Sweden: Raddningsverket (Swedish Rescue Services Agency).