Report No. CG-D-10-92 AD-A249 702

Localized Fire Extinguishing System (LFES): Low Pressure Carbon Dioxide Agent

Tests (Horn and Projection Nozzles) with Large and Small Machinery Mockups

C.D. Wolverton, Jr.John D. RynaskoWilliam H. McLain

U.S. Coast Guard- Research and Development Center

1082 Shennecossett RoadGroton, CT 06340-6096

DTI jFINAL REPORT ILICTS-"/ 40~a DECEMBER 191APR301. "-J

This document is available to the U.S. public through theNational Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

Prepared for:

U. S. Department of TransportationUnited States Coast GuardOffice of Engineering, Logistics, and DevelopmentWashington, DC 20593-0001 92-1,1692

V 4 0 ; o /il(lliiUtllii(I/i

I

I

NOTICE II

This document Is disseminated under the sponsorship of theDepartment of Transportation In the Interest of Informationexchange. The United States Government assumes noliability for Its contents or use thereof. IThe United States Government does not endorse products ormanufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear hereinsolely because they are considered essential to the object ofthis report.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the CoastGuard Research and Development Center, which isresponsible for the facts and accuracy of data presented.This report does not constitute a standard, specification, orregulation.

SAMUEL F. POWEL, IIITechnical DirectorU.S. Coast Guard Research and Development CenterAvery Point, Groton, Connecticut 06340-6096

I

I*iAn v,

d A-! 4,f cob

Technical Report Documentation Paa,

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.CG-D-10-92

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Localized Fire Extinguishing System (LFES): Low Pressure Carbon December 1991

Dioxide Agent Tests (Horn and Projection Nozzles) With Large and 6. Performing Organization Code

Small Machinery Mockups 3308.0108. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Author(s)C.D. Wolverton, Jr., John Rynasko, William H. McLain CG RjD 21/91

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)U.S. Coast Guard MF&SRB Report 46Research and Development Center 11. Contract or Grant No.1082 Shennecossett RoadGroton, CT 06340-6096

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

United States Coast Guard United States Coast Guard Final ReportU.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of TransportationOffice of Marine Safety, Security, Office of Engineering, Logistics and 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Environmental Protection DevelopmentWashington, DC 20593-0001 Washington, DC 20593-0001 G-MTH

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

Two trends in merchant vessel design have generated interest in the localized fire extinguishing system (LFES)concept: the increasing volumes of machinery spaces aboard the larger vessels, and the greater amounts ofautomation being incorporated intc- essels of all sizes. This report describes fire tests with two mockups ofmachinery space equipment: a small semi-enclosed machinery with an internal fire and a main propulsionunit with an external fire. In both mockups, the fuel was Number 2 fuel oil. The extinguishing system was alow pressure carbon dioxide LFES.

In the small semi-enclosed machinery with an internal fire mockup, tests were conducted with projectionnozzles and conventional horn nozzles. The fire was extinghished in seven out of thirteen tests. In one ofthe unsuccessful tests, the carbon dioxide discharge rate dropped due to either clogging or freeze-up insidethe piping.

In the main propulsion unit with an external fire mockup, only projection nozzles were used. The firewas extinguished in four out of nine tests.

LFES using horn nozzles and projection nozzles are a feasible fire protection system. Projection nozzlespermit the nozzles to be placed further from the machinery being protected. This facilitates maintenanceand inspection of the machinery.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Carbon dioxide; extinguishment; fire protection; fire Document is available to the U.S. public throughtests; hydrocarbon fires; localized extinguishing the National Technical Information Service,systems; machinery space fires; merchant vessels; Springfield, Virginia 22161nozzles; projection nozzles; U.S. Coast Guard

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8/72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorizediii

L) .0' - N 0Eu 0

0 00a) 0) t0 2.

4- Q) -- OW

0

0 -% -

Y . n C4 Ci A~~ 0-Oi0- W 0C- N0~ -0 x 2 I

o ~z ccwLU 0

0 1- 0

0 09 0Vx~ m00

E EU0 4E E~C E---EE

Cl)~ 2 N (

'E E U.4 lpE1 EE E

L- 75

CL E Eu E~ m qo q )0~

a ) .z / LI L v o 6 9 -

U)0

0 75 eq4 N

- E.- E E mLE&& E ~ E - - - --- EM C(

ClU.

E2 C-r 07c )EEEL

iv I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1

2.0 OBJECTIVE ................................................. 1

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................ 1

3.1 Overall Technical Approach ........................... 1

3.2 Tests on Small Equipment Mockup ..................... 2

3.2.1 Technical Approach ............................ 23.2.2 Description of Mockup ........................ 23.2.3 Instrumentation ............................... 23.2.4 Test Procedures .............................. 33.2.5 Results ....................................... 4

3.3 Tests on Large Equipment Mockup ..................... 7

3.3.1 Technical Approach...........................73.3.2 Description of Mockup ........................ 73.3.3 Instrumentation ............................... 73.3.4 Test Procedures ............................... 83.3.5 Results ....................................... 8

4.0 DISCUSSION ............................................... 10

4.1 Small Equipment Mockup Tests ........................ 104.2 Large Equipment Mockup Tests ........................ 10

5.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 11

REFERENCES ..................................................... 13

APPENDIX A Instrumentation List .............................. A-I

APPENDIX B Representative Data Plots ......................... B-I

AcOession For

NTIS GRA&IDTIC TABUvauneouncpd 3

31st if icat:on

By.e_ _ _

Dist -ibutt allablllty 04a s vaizabtwity

lsv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

A-I Motor Mockup Arrangement ................................. A-5 IA-2 Motor Mockup Instrumentation (Side Elevation) ............ A-6 3A-3 Motor Mockup Instrumentation (End Elevation) ............. A-7

A-4 Motor Mockup Instrumentation (Plan View) ................. A-8

A-5 Motor Mockup Thermocouple Locations Near Cylinders ....... A-9

A-6 Diesel Mockup Temperature Instrumentation (End View) .... A-10 IA-7 Diesel Mockup Temperature Instrumentation (Side View)...A-1l 3B-I Fires Extinguished in Both Cylinders of Small Equipment

Mockup...................................................B-2

B-2 Fires Temporarily Suppressed in Small Equipment Mockup... B-3 IB-3 Fires Unsuppressed in Small Equipment Mockup ............. B-4

B-4 Fire Extinguished on Large Equipment Mockup .............. B-5

B-5 Fire Extinguished on Top of Large Equipment Mockup, 3Reflash at Bottom ...................................... B-6

B-6 Fire Temporarily Suppressed on Large Mockup .............. B-7 i

ILIST OF TABLES

Table Page I3.2.5.1 TESTS ON.SMALL EQUIPMENT MOCKUP ....................... 5

3.3.5.1 TESTS ON LARGE EQUIPMENT MOCKUP ....................... 9

I

vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Coast Guard's interest in the localized fireextinguishing system (LFES) concept for machinery spaces arisesfrom two current trends in merchant ship design: increasingmachinery space volumes aboard the larger vessels, and thegreater amount of automation being incorporated into ships of allsizes.

Present regulations (Reference 1) require that machineryspaces be protected by a large-capacity total flooding systemcapable of producing an extinguishing concentration throughoutthe entire space. A small number of portable and semi-portableextinguishers are also required; these are intended for dealingwith very small fires.

With the LFES concept, areas or equipment identified asespecially fire-prone can be protected by localized extinguishingsystems specifically tailored to meet their individualrequirements. In the event of a fire involving the protecteditem, the LFES can then be activated instead of discharging theentire total flooding system. The LFES can produce anextinguishing concentration around the fire more quickly (while

* using less agent) than the total flooding system.

2.0 OBJECTIVE

* The objective of this project was to determine what data arenecessary to develop a reasonable performance test for localizedfire extinguishing systems in machinery spaces.

U 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK

3 3.1 Overall Technical Approach

The tests were conducted on the First Platform deck of thetest vessel MAYO LYKES, located at the U.S. Coast Guard Fire andSafety Test Detachment in Mobile, Alabama.

Two groups of tests were included in this series: "S" testsusing a mockup that simulated a relatively compact semi-enclosedpiece of equipment with an internal fire, and "L" tests whichused a larger mockup simulating part of a main propulsion diesel3 engine.

In this test series, low pressure carbon dioxide (CO2 ) wasused as the extinguishing agent for simulated machinery spacefires involving two different types of equipment. Two types ofdischarge nozzles were used: conventional "horn" nozzles andprojection nozzles, which are capable of directing a moreconcentrated stream of CO2 directly onto the protected equipmentfrom a significantly greater horizontal distance.

I 1

I

The carbon dioxide system included a large low pressurecarbon dioxide storage tank previously installed on the Boat Deckof the midship structure of the test vessel. A fireextinguishing system manufacturer provided engineering assistancein selecting the CO2 discharge nozzles and the design of thepiping system between the storage tank and the discharge nozzles.

The scope of the test series did not permit optimization of Ithe CO2 system design; instead the intent was to construct asystem that could be considered representative in terms of pipingarrangement and nozzle positions. I

3.2 Tests on Small Equipment Mockup

3.2.1 Technical Approach iTests were designed to investigate the use of a

localized extinguishing system for protection of small to mediumsize machinery space equipment. An equipment mockup was placedon an open support frame five feet above the deck of the testcompartment. The support frame was located in an area with nonearby enclosures or bulkheads which would tend to hold theextinguishing agent and thereby enhance its effectiveness. Thisarrangement was intended to simulate the worst case regardingretention of the extinguishing agent around the protectedequipment.

The CO2 system piping was arranged so that bothconventional horn nozzles and projection nozzles could be testedat distances ranging from five feet to twenty feet from themockup. 3

Number 2 fuel oil was used as the test fuel. Ameasured amount was placed in small pans inside the mockupcomponents.

3.2.2 Description of Mockup

The small equipment mockup consisted of two sheet metalcylinders, each two feet in diameter and three feet long. Thecylinders were mounted end-to-end, one foot apart. They wereopen at the bottom (over the lower 120 degrees of theircircumference) and had several large ventilation openings in theside, top and end areas. The cylinders were fitted with basebrackets which rested in a shallow catch pan placed on top of the Isupport frame. The arrangement of the mockup is shown in FiguresA-I through A-5 of Appendix A.

3.2.3 Instrumentation

Instrumentation for these tests included the followingtypes of sensors:

23

Thermocouples were installed inside and outside themockup cylinders, so that the intensity of the test fires couldbe compared. Thermocouples inside the cylinders were also usedto determine extinguishment times, since smoke and 2 streamsusually block the video cameras' view of any flames inside thecylinders.

Gas analyzers (for carbon dioxide and oxygen) were usedto measure gas concentrations at eight separate points in andaround the mockup cylinders. Carbon dioxide concentrations weremeasured inside and outside the cylinders to comparecharacteristics and effectiveness of the individual test CO2discharges. Gas concentrations at other points in the testcompartment were monitored after the tests to determine whenpersonnel could safely enter the test compartment.

Instrumentation related to the CO2 system includedpressure transducers at four locations inside the discharge linebetween the CO2 storage tank and the nozzles, a positionindicator for the CO2 discharge valve near the storage tank, anda load cell measuring total weight of the tank and its contents.Data from these sensors were used to determine the amount of CO2discharged in each test, as well as the discharge rate.

Several bidirectional air flow probes were installed inthe vicinity of the mockup. The primary purpose of these probeswas to indicate any unusual amount of circulation around themockup that could interfere with extinguishment by dissipatingthe carbon dioxide agent. The probes also prov.ded a means forassessing whether ambient wind strength or direction could have asignificant effect on test results by increasing air circulationinside the test compartment.

Wind speed and direction were measured outside the shipduring all tests.

A list of individual instrumentation data channels iscontained in Appendix A.

3.2.4 Test Procedures

For each test, a measured amount of Number 2 fuel oilwas poured into the fuel pans in each mockup cylinder. (For testSOlA, one gallon of fuel was used in each cylinder; for allsubsequent tests the amount was 0.5 gallons per cylinder.) Thefuel was ignited manually, using a propane torch. After thedesired preburn period, the carbon dioxide discharge valve wasopened and a predetermined amount of CO2 was allowed to flow fromthe storage tank. The readout from the CO2 storage tank loadcell (Channel 73) was used to time the closing of the dischargevalve. In those cases where the test fires persisted after theCO2 discharge, they were allowed to burn themselves out. Post-fire entry to the test compartment was delayed until the areacould be ventilated to remove smoke and CO2 and reintroducenormal levels of oxygen.

3

This series of 13 tests involved the followingcontrolled variables:

Agent discharge nozzle arrangement:

Two horn nozzles 10 feet from mockup: 1 testTwo horn nozzles 5 feet from mockup: 4 testsOne horn nozzle 5 feet from mockup: 1 testOne projection nozzle 20 feet from mockup: 2 testsOne projection nozzle 10 feet from mockup: 5 tests

Ventilation conditions:

Ventilated (hatch covers removed): 2 testsNon-ventilated: 11 tests

Preburn time:

From 67 to 118 seconds(67-81 seconds: 7 tests; 97-118 seconds: 6 tests)

Amount of CO2 discharged:

From 240 to 830 pounds(Under 300 lbs: 2 tests; 300-500 lbs: 6 tests; above500 lbs: 5 tests)

Average rate of CO2 discharge:

From 2 to 20 pounds per second(Under 2 lb/sec: 6 tests; from 5 to 10 lb/sec: 5tests over 10 lb/sec: 2 tests)

3.2.5 Results

Table 3.2.5.1 shows the conditions that apply to eachindividual test. In the table, the tests are grouped accordingto the results of the test; e.g., "Fires Extinguished - Bothcylinders."

Representative temperature data plots are contained inAppendix B.

III

I

b.U 4)a

440n n0 00 00

4. l '. u 0 04 4'. 4' u, 0 I I

0 N. .4 In 0 4n 0% 0 0 C

14. 0- In4 N N tN 0 LO 0 0 00N

0 f*0 V C Mr 0C

04 In 000000in0 0 00 0 0 0( . n 4 ..4 0. 10 4' in m1 IV .-4 Iv v~ ,. . In ) 1 - t 0

I- 00 a 0 '40 0 0 0 0 0'0t L

ba 0

'-4 04 0 00 00 0 00 0l (D rc

0 ) . , w t.- r, N0 N, 1. N. N, , , Nm -. I".A A AAA

0.0

0 10

0 0 000 0000 0 00 0 0 0 0 t

G. M

a

00

z 4' 44Q0 0 4)0 -

0. 4 .4 ,.9 m. 0 . 4 C64 0 . '4 6. '4 0. :rz 0.

N 414140 40 4 0 0 0 dc O) O2

z~~~~ 0 0w0 4)4 . ' 0 46NN ~ 4 4

0 00 0 L 0 0 0 0 0a am mH Z - - - -.

I

In the table, the following definitions apply: IVentilation conditions: "Vent" indicates that the

hatch cover sections (on the Main Deck, directlyabove the mockup area) were removed before thestart of the test. Removal of the hatch coversallowed smoke and fire gases to escape easily fromthe test area, and also encouraged the maximumamount of natural circulation in the vicinity ofthe fire. This amounts to a worst case in regardto the ability of a given amount of agent to Iextinguish the test fire, because the circulationnot only supplies fresh oxygen to support thefire, but also tends to disperse the agent at thesame time. "Non-vent" indicates that the hatchcovers were in place during the test.

Preburn time: the period between ignition of the fuel iinside the first mockup cylinder and opening ofthe CO discharge control valve (indicated by theChannei 87 plot).

Peak air/gas temperatures: the highest temperaturesindicated by the thermocouples located in themiddle of the volumes enclosed by each mockupcylinder. Channel 0 indicated temperature insidethe aft cylinder and Channel 1 indicated forwardcylinder temperature.

CO2 weight: weight of CO2 applied as determined by thedifference between mean weight of the CO2 storagetank before the CO2 discharge control valve isopened and the steady-state mean weight indicatedafter fluctuations resulting from valve closuredie out. The CO2 weight is determined from a plot Iof Channel 73 data.

Valve open: the period between opening and closing ofthe CO2 discharge control valve. The elapsed timeis determined as the period during which thevoltage indicated on the Channel 87 plot is otherthan zero.

Average discharge rate: the CO weight divided by thevalve open time (both of which are defined above).

For the purposes of Table 3.2.5.1, a fire is consideredextinguished if the air/gas temperature inside a cylinder (as Iindicated by the Channel 0 or Channel 1 data plot) drops to 100°0C

or less after the CO2 discharge valve is opened. If thetemperature drops sharply after the valve is opened, but laterrises again, the fire is considered temporarily suppressed. Ifthe CO2 discharge has little apparent effect, the fire isconsidered to be unsuppressed.

63

Table 3.2.5.1 shows that fires were successfullyextinguished in both cylindt~rs in seven of the thirteen tests.In four other tests, partial success was achieved: the fire inone of the two mockup cylinders was extinguished.

In one of the remaining tests (SO7A), the iires wereonly temporarily suppressed. Only 240 pounds of CO 2 wasdischarged; this was the smallest amount of agent used in anytest. In the other test (SO4A), although 425 pounds of agentwere used, the discharge period lasted nearly four minutes. Thisresulted in the lowest discharge rate observed in the tests.Apparently, the prolonged discharge resulted from partialclogging, or, more likely, freeze-up inside the CO2 piping.

3.3 Tests on Large Equipment Mockup

3.3.1 Technical Approach

Tests were conducted as a follow-up to a previous testseries, which also used low pressure carbon dioxide as theextinguishing agent, as well as the same mockup (Reference 2).In the previous tests, the agent was discharged from an array ofsix conventional nozzles located close to the mockup. In thetests described in this report, the agent was discharged from twoprojection nozzles located further away. Test procedures weresimilar to those used in the earlier test series.

3.3.2 Description of Mockup

The mockup used in these tests was designed to resemblea large piece of machinery space equipment, with extensivevertical surfaces, as well as numerous projections and recesses.Its basic outline resembles a portion of a main propulsion dieselengine. Overall dimensions were 16 feet long by 12 feet high.Arrangement of the mockup is shown in Figures A-6 and A-7 ofAppendix A. For the fire tests, two gallons of Number 2 fuel oilwere placed in a large fuel pan next to the base of the mockupand ignited manually.

3.3.3 Instrumentation

Instrumentation for tests involving the large mockupwas similar to that used for the small mockup (See Section3.2.3).

The most important of the instrumentation sensors werethose located on and around the mid-length portion of the mockup,since this was the area where the test fire flames were thestrongest. Temperature readings from thermocouples in this zonewere used to compare the intensities of the test fires, and todetermine extinguishment times.

An instrumentation list is contained in Appendix A.

7

I

3.3.4 Test Procedures

For the fire tests, Number 2 diesel fuel oil was placedin a large fuel pan next to the base of the mockup. A small Iamount of mineral spirits was added to promote rapid spread ofthe fire across the fuel pan. The test fires were ignitedmanually with a torch. Thirty seconds after ignition, the largemockup fuel system began pouring additional fuel oil onto thecenter section of the mockup through a transverse perforatedpipe. After a 2-minute burn time, the flow of fuel was shut off,the CO 2 system was activated, and a predetermined amount of CO2was allowed to flow from the storage tank. The readout from theCO 2 storage tank load cell (Channel 73) was used to time theclosing of the discharge valve. In those cases where the testfires persisted after the CO 2 discharge, they were allowed toburn themselves out. Post-fire entry to the test compartment wasdelayed until the area could be ventilated to remove smoke andCO 2 and reintroduce normal levels of oxygen.

As in the small mockup tests, ventilation conditionswere varied by removing hatch cover sections one deck level above ithe mockup for some of the tests.

Most of the fire tests were run with projection nozzlespositioned 20 feet away from the mockup. Two tests were run at anozzle distance of 10 feet.

3.3.5 Results 3Nine fire tests were completed, as shown in Table

3.3.5.1. 3In four cases the fire was completely extinguished,

with extinguishment times ranging from 50 seconds to almost sixminutes.

In three other cases the fire on the upper part of themockup was extinguished, but the fire in the fuel pan at the base iof the mockup was only temporarily affected, and continued to

burn for several minutes afterward.

In two cases, the fire on the upper part of the mockup Iand the fire at the base of the mockup were only temporarilysuppressed, and continued to burn until most of the fuel wasconsumed.

Representative temperature data plots are contained inAppendix B.

Peak temperatures ranged from 840 to 950°C near thelower part of the mockup and from 730 to 890 0 C near the upperpart. In all nine fire tests, the flames were at leasttemporarily suppressed, even when as little as 215 pounds of CO2was discharged.

83

V u n MU0

14 0 0

M) . 00 0 '. 00

4. n 0 0n I 0 0 0' 0n 0r

0 0.04I.4 0 t.oN -

4 4 -v Lo

44 " nc41

2 00 0 00 0

.4 a. 0 0 InC' 0 0 n

i4 14 N '9 I 4 In49

04 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00

0. 0 04- . 4I ..

r4 0. 0 n 0 0 N NN 0

N. A

0 0 000 0 in0 0 0 0 -00 0

v4 .4 0 000 0 000 000

ta N 0 0 a 0 n

0 o

o 0

0 w a an V4 ao WI .4 - 0

co4 000 aInco 0 0,0 00 41

s. 0 I 0 a 00 0 0 'NN.

00 M a000 N 0n 09 In .9 .i nIn4

06 o o G CW c f 0 0.

.

A0 0 LI 0 0 . 6

00

2 4 000 00 000

44 In 0 a2. 0. 00I 0 0

4-~~ 4)4 00m 000

.4 0

q. a

.0 M

ca A Q4 0 In In 0 0 In In 0 In 0 0 0 44

61m 0 9 I 0 In Nl In -0I IL 4

0- 4- 01

N 0

0 0 440 0

0. 0. 0. o 0

I

Seven of the tests were run with the nozzles located 20 ifeet from the mockup and two tests were run with the nozzles 10feet away. In one of the tests at 10 feet, approximately 1000pounds of CO2 was discharged onto the fire (resulting in iextinguishment). In the other test, 500 pounds was dischargedand the fire was only temporarily suppressed.

Average discharge rate varied considerably during these itests. The reason for the variation is not known. There was noevidence of freeze-up or clogging inside the CO2 piping, as wasobserved during tests with the small equipment mockup. i

4.0 DISCUSSION i

4.1 Small Equipment Mockup Tests 3The results of tests with the small equipment mockup

indicate:i For the combination of nozzle arrangements and

mockup configuration that was tested, 400 to 500pounds of CO2, applied at an average rate of 2.5pounds per second, appears adequate for Iextinguishment of test fires inside both cylinders.

With a given supply piping system configuration, asingle projection nozzle can provide a CO2application rate that is two to eight times greaterthan two horn-type nozzles. 3Projection nozzles can be located at least 20 feetfrom the protected equipment, and still providesatisfactory protection.

By design, the projection nozzle produces a moreintense stream of agent than the horn nozzle. This Istream could cause spattering and spread of an

exposed liquid pool fire.

Freeze-up or mechanical clogging of the discharge Inozzles can greatly reduce the agent discharge rate.

4.2 Large Equipment Mockup Tests iThe results of the tests with the large equipment

mockup indicate: I* The minimum amount of agent that can achieve

complete extinguishment is about 600 pounds,discharged at an average rate of 12 to 20 poundsper second using the projection nozzle arrangementdescribed previously. In a previous test series

10

with the large equipment mockup in whichconventional CO2 horn nozzles were used, it wasdetermined that the minimum amount of agentnecessary for consistent, rapid extinguishment was500 pounds, applied at a rate of about 10 poundsper second (Reference 2).

In comparing results of the two test series, itmust be noted that in the earlier tests, the sixhorn nozzles were placed relatively close to themockup and arranged so as to provide good coverageover the burning fuel at the midpoint of themockup, as well as the mockup areas on either sideof the fire. This sort of nozzle layout may notalways be possible in actual machinery spaces,because of interference with other equipment andpiping systems.

If projection nozzles are used instead, they canbe installed farther away from the protectedequipment. In these tests, 15 to 20 percent moreagent was required when two more distantprojection nozzles were used. This indicates thatone advantage of projection nozzles is thecapability of providing a comparable degree ofprotection in cases where installation of horn

* nozzles is impractical.

* It appears unlikely that locating the projectionnozzles closer than 20 feet from the protectedequipment would have a major effect on theirperformance.

* Ventilation conditions (main deck hatch coverseither in place or removed) appear to have littleeffect on peak flame temperatures in the center ofthe mockup. The ambient wind velocities averagedtwo miles per hour or less for six of the ninetests.

I5.0 CONCLUSIONS

* * Based on the results of these tests with both thesmall and large equipment mockups, it appears thatCO2 projection nozzles can be useful in machineryspace applications, especially where conventionalnozzles cannot be placed close to the protectedequipment.

* The results of these tests together with thosereported in Reference 2 indicate that aperformance test for a localized fire

11

extinguishing system using carbon dioxide shouldinclude measurement of the following testparameters during a live fire test of thespecified configuration:

(1) Weight loss of carbon dioxide as a functionof time. 3

(2) Air/gas temperature measurements using anarray of thermocouples located throughout thefire zone. I

(3) Open and closure times for the carbon dioxideactuation valves.

Additional information which would be useful ininterpreting the test results would be themeasurement of carbon dioxide and oxygenconcentrations in the fire zone.

iIIIIIIIIII

REFERENCES

1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 46 - Shipping, Chapter I(Subparts 34.15, 76.15 and 95.15): Coast Guard, Departmentof Transportation. General Services Administration, 1990.

2. Wolverton, C.D., Jr., Localized Fire Extinguishing System(LFES): Low Pressure Carbon Dioxide Agent Tests With LargeMachinery Mockup. U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Fire & SafetyResearch Division Technical Report No. 052, May 1986.

13

APPENDIX A

Instrumentation List

The complete list of test instrumentation for the large andsmall mockups is contained in this appendix. Sensor locationsare shown on the accompanying sketches.

A-1

'au -. 4 1..

. 1. 4 x. 4 'A 4 1. 4 ". U 0 0 s i

4.1 m 0 . 1 . 66A' . %404 0 . 0a 0 'a'a' a a, 0' a o ' ' 0 0 0 0m 0 4.-..

.4.4-4 .4 .4 .4 -4 4.4 - 4 . 4 %4 AN .44-4.4 4 .4 0 0 -4 a.4 a. -a4 4 4.' 4. 'a 0

4.4.~~ ~~ 00 04 00 4 4 0 0 0 0.

0. 00 00 0 0 -. C64 a .' 110'a a. 'a. m. 4 m. 'a 4 . 0 0 ..0 .

443~~~~ 04 44 3 06 4 4 6 46 4 0

o v 4 m~ 61 "4 v4 11 v 6 641 4 .V .6A V Uj 0. . 34 %4% %1 4W4 % 6 4.I 4 4 44 mau %4 . 46 4. 4444444 4

3 . .4 44 4 4 44 44 0 4 4 a 6 6 0 0 0 04 0. 0- 0 04 0. 0 fn m .m .

0IICI

4.4.41.4.1. 0 00 4 14v4.4v4v

0 ~ ' 'a 'a 'a 'a 00000 06 0 000 0 0 0. 0.00

0 0000 0...44 04 0..- 4 . 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 00.0

4. 1. r. 1. 1. c4 -4 c4 '4 c00 044 444 4.. 44 44 4 44 4 44 44 44 4 4 44 4 6 6 6 6 6 0 a 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 'a 'a

0 0 0 0 0 00000 00 00 0a0 0 00 a 0 0.00 0 v 0

.4 44 4444 4444 4444 4444 4444 44 a a a a aa a aa0.4 0. a. .4 4 .4 a4 -4 0. 0. .4 .4 0- .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 4. . 6 0

o v0 1 r.0 , 0 m 0 a .wm 0v 0 , 04IU4 - - - - - - -

A-

X .M 0600 0. 0.1. L. u 40 u 1-

o* 0.o 0 0

4 4 ' 00 0 0 .4 1.I 4 1 100 0 : : : 0 0. '4- 6 C C'4 4 0 Q C4 '0 r.U 0 C 4 0(j 1 ' 4 9 41 . C 0 0 C OD 47 0. 13 ElG

4 090 D.0 0 a '0 '0 0 0. 0 '0 v . '4 : n El El0. o0 A 4A . 0 El El C CC

A 0 1 El l 0 a 4 *. a '4 4

949 61 0 10 U 94 1 leC U 1 0 V- 0 -0 0 U, li 0 U00%04 I A &A.4 ' u a 000 0 4 ag a 11.a. a a0 4 '4 6 .1 0 00 ' C 00 0 0 LI

r V

a.~~4 C.1 0 6'0

'4 1

'00 01 'N0 41

011

0k %4 1'1

A 0 C 06 '4 c c

a0 C a4' 0 V' 0 0 0 .00 ' u 0 ' 0 0 uP. 41 . '4 0 S. V1 V 60 In 01 A 4A

0..9 C0V '0. 2 v0 0 C C U US C

0. .C0

in in In o i O O 0 000066 9:4 1 4 4 . nto: 4..4 0.0If0041414194WVwv 0 0 006 El

* 0

0* 0 N LN 0

04 '4 0'4.4-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0v - 04.4.4.w4ai461000 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04' 414 0'-4 0 0 0 0

0 00 0 0 0a 00 00 0 'oIn 0 0 0 In In0 0

0000 0 0 0 0000 0 00 000 0000 0 0 0 .40 04141 a,4 v1 01 v1 v 0 0

0000 00 0

0000~ 0 0 00 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00u0000 0 0 000 0 00 4 at4 4P 4000100nm~~c 000 0 000 0 0 013nn 0 0 nnI 0

we It' '4 u -v' '4 '4 ON N N -u 0 v u u u "- N N N 1 0 0 I

00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0

00 0 06 0000 0 000 0 0 u u

t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " '4'4 In !0

U. 0. I'. '4 10 4. a. I a 1 . 1 1 1C

0 o '4 04 '4 '4 04' '4 0 4' '4 0 4 0 I' 4 .4 0 In I0

0. 0 6 6 0 60 0 0 00 MM 0 4c.c

EU~ 0! C I 00 C '

10 0 0 C aC 0 M . U 000 b b 10

0 rq m V p l4a r CD C%0V % D r D O N e )1 W 0fn m In m m n m F v r w v v v 0 n U)I 00 I 00I n 1

'40A-41 . 4 ' u 1 4I 00. .0.4 0-0

0 0x4 A4 .. x x x x0 00 0 '0 ' 0 0 00

4 44 0 a U S6 .0 .0 x E 1: E

S a c .44 .0 .4J 446 - 4

09 0 66x4 0'. "4 "S c4 cIv6o6 0 0 6 6 in 0 aU

a a x 31 66C 6 '0 '0 4 4 (u. 14Z . 4 4 .4 % 4 6 P. '4 '4,$.

09a 0 U 000 0 C C -4 x' 0 0 00%. -0 6 %4 '06 6u 4 0.

2~q A L0 ' ' 6 C S 44~ . V. 0. 0. S 4. 4

3 ~~ 960 0- 6 40 4 . ~ I6 6

4 00 c- 0 0 C- 66

O ~ ~~~~ a6 0 0 .0 . . 6 6 6a 0 0 0 6

1.C 0

k 644 6

0 '0 '0 0 0 6 6 6 60

1. 4. 44 A4 A44 0 o C

0

44 j.w 0 0'4 6 W' W "4 %4% % A0

60. %'4w0 V 6j 6 6 0 0000V66 C 66 '0 N0 ' 'A .

9 6 .0 0 6 6 0 0 0 C

0 06 6 6 66 C 0444 "4 04 04 .4 0 o0'0. .06 6 0 0 9 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 666

-4.'a 0 0 .0 0.. 00. .C 00 .C 00 6 0.0 0C 0 0 00 0.4 44 6660600

a C CO0 0 0 4.4 0' 4. 44 44 0 44 046

a# at04 if at at '0a 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 E

0 0 0 44 4 C 04 C 0 6 6 6 660 1 0a a

o. 66 0000 000 C M4660 0 M 0.To 00 0

0 0 6 on 0n an 04 4 6- C C 0 2 0 2 02 In m m 44444444

II-C I

000 n n I Ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Io* 4 0 0 0 0 0 0000000

%. 1. 5Ua

m. CL IL0 0 0 0I

0 0 '4 -4 .0 1.. 6 6 6 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 c c

0 a 44 44 44 44 44aa. a. C C a. a'%' 1oo o 'a II D C6 U

a,~~~. 7n a n a n a n n a n N 4 n an i4 n an 4 an 4 an 4 a -ati a, 0a4 4444 N4 r- r4 r4 4 4 44 an N an * n * a n 0 0 . 4

0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 02 02 D0 02 02 4 0004 4

20 a u a w c

6A-4

O'wn

w Z,

I / z/0

U wUI c~) I >-J

o E0 L0

Ic <

0i w 1C- 0

U)

LLLL

-- w

I LUz

I A- 5

CLI

-j

I aL

IL 4-i <, 0

cr~'-

occ~Lz a

0 Z

Q a'nC)

cr m)

0 U0

II cL I00

-u

Io IA- 6 I

0.0

Mo a-c~

o 0.ncc nL -J

IL Q0. (LC

000

0. <-<i LL C

C) LLC

z 00

*

-

_

2Lc O(

C4 .- i0 cm -

A 24d 14 (

CXJ

cvv

0 IA-7-

I

SIDE OF HULL . 1

48"LEGEND* THERMOCOUPLE 0

FLOW PROB3E CLt§

4LGAS SAMPLE0PICKUP POINT + ___I_

I I II I

A 6 (INSIDE CYLINDER) 1, 7r2

20I 2

k - --I 36

31 25 76: 426 32

122 c 123

74 07529 30 3

78 79 II I

NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS OF THERMOCOUPLESON MOCKUP CYLINDERS, SEEFIGURE A-5

EDGE OF 2nd DECK OVERHANG IIFIGURE A-4 Motor Mockup Instrumentation (Plan View)

A-8 3

F4 LL~4= 2

M1z

4=1~ cc1-

4=1z

cr.)

040

0 0 U)

C.) 08K7 0

4='.,' Lid

OD o cc00 0w

LU - >-

4=1~U 0L - 1j00

C'4 om o'fl.a.

('0

A-0

SYMBOLS *0 THERMOCOUPLE ON I

MOCKUP SURFACETHERMOCOUPLE NEAR 26(25 -27) fMOCKUP SURFACE 3ft

~I

7 (5 -9)I

IdOt 34

12 (1o -14) 12 f

______ _____35I

CHANNEL NUMBERS:FIRST NUMBER IN-

DICATES SENSORLOCATED AT MIDDLEOF MOCKUP: NUMBERS 29(28 -30)UIN PARENTHESES IN-CLUDE ALL SENSORSIN GROUP. * I

1st PLATFORM DECK

FIGURE A-6 Diesel Mockup Temperature Instrumentation (End View)

AA- 1.0

I

1010 0

0

_____V____a)__a

00

cq Lo CoaC.

00

4ccJ 0o.V CE

~-~@ ~@ D

0 CL000

a::

100

A-11

APPENDIX B

Representative Data Plots

The following data plots illustrate the different effects

which the carbon dioxide discharges had on the test fires.

Tests on small mockup:

Figure B-i: Fires extinguished in both cylinders (TestSO2A)

Figure B-2: Fires temporarily suppressed (Test SO7A)

Figure B-3: Fires unsuppressed (Test SO4A)

Tests on large mockup:

Figure B-4: Fire extinguished (Test LO3B)

Figure B-5: Fire extinguished on top of mockup, reflash atbottom (Test LO3A)

Figure B-6: Fire temporarily suppressed (Test LO7A)

B-I

LLI

w ~I

0

I (0

Ii 0~ 00

II '003Nl83V3

LiB-2

I0

0

cr-4

2%

nwU)

Mi M r- C U)H- 0

I CE

0 0 00 0 000 aj O rl- 0 0 n N

I 0a3nV~V3

B-

0I

2d x

p4-)

7 )~

D 0' 00

0 0 0 01

0J )) in4--

B-4,-

0!0

LLI

1,1

I C C

00

w '0a3mnY

F- (:I~B-5

INII I 0

4-)

4-)

I! (

I (n

C-4 r'- C4

0 0 0

F- I / 4.

0' (D 0 -

/ *0C N .V ~ P3

a. -- -6

iI

-0

l i l l l:l II; I/1!t

I V

1 r 0

/

(0

(- I N -4

c c c c 0

0 / a 0)

r - z c 0W .....

eeo0000

E

I- 5.4

0 0 0 0000 02

'0 353-4H~ 3

0000

-J-J-j-

B-7~