CRITICAL FLOW RATES FOR COMPARTMENT FIRE ATTACK

Shan Raffel EngTech MIFireE

The influence of Swedish Water-fog techniques (more recently termed 3D Firefighting Techniques) and CFBT (Compartment Fire Behaviour Training) has led to safer and more efficient firefighting. While the author is a strong advocate of these techniques, there is a belief by some firefighters that less water always means safer and more effective firefighting. In some cases, this is indeed true. These techniques can generally be successfully applied to small intact compartment fires in the early stages of development. As a rough guide, the authors of 3D Fire Fighting suggest that an area up to approximately 70 m2 (for normal modern fire loading) as the practical safe limit for the application of 3D techniques involving pulsing (1). In some circumstances this area can be extended by increasing the water flow and staging of hose-lines to provide a line of retreat. Beyond this threshold, more traditional high flow hose-line capabilities may be required. Balanced CFBT programs are designed to emphasise the advantages as well as the limitations of 3D techniques and to teach firefighters the need to exercise caution in the marginal areas. This paper will discuss the various fireground formulas that have been traditionally used to calculate the amount of water required to extinguish a structural fire, and their limitations. The final flow rates calculated from these formulas can vary greatly. Each formula is based on certain assumptions regarding a number of variables. In particular, the type of firefighting attack and the level of crew training will have a significant influence on the amount of water required. The author will emphasise the need for fire officers to exercise caution and ensure that the selected hose-line layout allows for a safety margin when predicting anticipated fire development. This must be balanced against the disadvantages of trying to handle excessively large hose-lines. The traditional approach to firefighting has been based on a number of tactical truths including good firefighters dont hose smoke and that the only effective way to attack the fire was to apply a jet of water on the base (burning surface) of the fire. This approach failed to recognise the amount of unburnt fuel in smoke and the fact that it can accumulate in spaces adjacent to the compartment of fire origin.

Gradual Worldwide Changes

3D techniques are most effective when applied to developing fires in small to medium sized intact compartments. When these techniques are utilised at the correct time, in the correct manner the result is a very dramatic reduction in

water use and extinguishing time. Improved visibility and maintenance of the thermal balance also significantly increase firefighter safety. While slow to gain acceptance in some countries there is enough hard scientific evidence to convince even the cynics. There is however a trend for some converts to underestimate the required flow. Even in situations where the size-up has indicated that internal 3D tactics are applicable, I have always advocated taking a hose-line with sufficient flow to handle the situation in case the extent of development is greater than anticipated. As a precaution additional support lines should be laid out in case the conditions change to a situation requiring more conventional attack methods. Very simply hope for the best, plan for the worst. Internal 3D attack is not suitable for every fire we go to and if internal crews are only equipped with low flow rate lines, they could find themselves in situation where they are outgunned. There is a need to be aware that the right situation cannot be accurately assessed on every occasion. A sound practical understanding of fire behaviour is essential for accurate size-up. In 2002, a report published by the National Research Council Canada (2) used the following description of the 3D approach. The 3D water fog technique is not designed to replace the direct fire attack but rather to complement existing forms of fire attack in an effort to increase the safety and effectiveness of fire fighting teams. Compared to the traditional straight-stream attack, the 3D water fog technique has advantages in controlling steadily growing fires where the space can still be entered, but where the seat of the fire cannot be attacked directly. It has also been used for offensive attack to control flashover. REVIEW OF THREE DIMENSIONAL WATER FOG TECHNIQUES FOR FIREFIGHTING

How Much Water Do We Really Need?

So how do estimate the flow rate that will give us that margin for error? A great deal of international research has gone into developing formulas that can be used to calculate the required flow rates. Some are designed to calculate the required firefighting flow for a building or complex in the planning stage. They are also often used as part of the pre-fire plan. In order to obtain an accurate and realistic outcome it is necessary to take into account the many variables that will influence the fire development. The complexity of some of these calculations makes them unsuitable for the rapid decision making required on the fireground. The common basis for the various calculations is matching the theoretical cooling properties of water against known rates of heat release (MW) of the fuels in the compartment. In the real world it is almost impossible to deliver that water perfectly over the fuel surface. Therefore it is necessary to use an efficiency factor to take this into account. Many researchers have looked at data from real fire incidents and compared it with the results of research using a wide range of techniques and equipment. Variables such as the fuel (type,

loading, spacing), construction type, available ventilation, stage of fire development, occupancy etc, also need to be considered. Where the calculations are conducted as part of a pre-fire plan, we also need to consider response time, crew sizes, equipment available etc. Even the type of attack (offensive or defensive), type of nozzles, size of the hose-line, and nozzle pressure can have significant effects on the actual flow rate required. One comprehensive formula used to calculate Needed Fire Flow (the amount of water necessary for providing fire protection at selected locations) is promoted by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) who examined actual data from large fire loss incidents. The key factors in the calculations include construction type, occupancy type, area of the building, and exposures. (3)
NFFi = (Ci)(Oi)(1+(X+P)i) where NFFi = the needed fire flow in gallons per minute (gpm) Ci = a factor related to the type of construction OI = a factor related to the type of occupancy X = a factor related to the exposure buildings P = a factor related to the communication between buildings

Detailed formulas are applied in the calculation of each of the individual factors themselves. Firefighters faced with a structure fire need to be able to use simplified calculations to give them a guide to determining the type and number of hoselines that will be required to safely and efficiently suppress the given situation. These decisions need to be made very shortly after arrival, and that at this stage we usually have limited information available. This makes the task daunting and the best that can be achieved is a rough estimate. In the USA there are 2 main formulas used in these situations. The National Fire Academy (NFA) formula and the Iowa State formula (4). The final figures obtained from these formulas can differ greatly and on the surface appear in conflict. Lets examine the results of these formula as applied to a building with an area of 100 m2 (1076 ft2). The NFA Formula is NFF = A 3 Where NFF is the Needed Fire Flow in GPM A is the area in ft2 1076 3 = approx 358 GPM (1355 lpm) The Iowa State Formula uses the volume of the compartment as the basis for the calculation. NFF = V/100 Where V= the volume of the room in cubic feet Assuming a ceiling height of 8 feet

NFF = (1076 x 8) 100 = approx 86 GPM (325 lpm) So the NFA calculation results in an estimated NFF over 4 times that of the Iowa State Formula. Both formulas have been developed by highly credible people, so how can the difference be explained? The NFA formula is based on the amount of water required to cool the burning fuel surface area (a 2 dimensional view) to below the temperature at which it can continue to supply the pyroylised fuel. The figure also takes into account the traditional North American approach which is to vent early and often (Brunacini). The Iowa State formula works on the basis that when water is applied into an intact compartment, the oxygen level is dramatically reduced and when combined with the surface cooling effect, suppression can be achieved with much lower flow rates. The application of the Iowa State formula is limited to small to medium sized intact compartments. When we encounter large well developed and ventilated compartments the NFA formula becomes more applicable. Applying the NFA formula to a 100 m2 intact compartment would require using two 64 mm handlines capable of delivering approximately 650 lpm each. This would certainly extinguish the fire but the potential for excessive water damage and disruption to the thermal balance is high and the hose-lines would be very difficult to manoeuvre. If the Iowa State formula was applied then the hose-line layout could consist of a 51 mm (or 38 mm) low pressure delivery (set to 325 lpm) or two high pressure deliveries (2 x 226 lpm). These hose-line systems are much lighter, easier to manoeuvre and less likely to cause excessive water damage and disruption to the thermal balance.

International Research
At this stage it is worth examining recent research and the concepts of Critical Flow Rate (CFR), Optimal Flow Rate and Tactical Flow Rate (TFR). The Critical Flow Rate (CFR) has been defined as the: minimum amount of water-flow needed to fully suppress a fire at a given level of involvement (ie; during growth or decay stages of development). The actual CFR for compartment fires of a given size (m2), existing in different stages of fire development, may be widely variable (Grimwood). When we use the term CFR we are talking about calculations in controlled environments. These sorts of figures give a theoretical basis for establishing the smallest quantities of water required to suppress a given fire situation. As a result of practical research and experiments, Srdqvist et.al. (5), suggested that the CFR does not give the most efficient extinguishing effect. He reported that by increasing the flow rate above the critical value actually resulted in a decrease in the total volume of water required to extinguish the

fire. By increasing the flow rate above critical, an optimal rate can be achieved that results in extinguishing the fire with the lowest total volume of water. Increasing the flow above this optimal rate will result in water wastage. When discussing the real world flow rate required for an actual fire attack, Grimwood uses the term Tactical Flow Rate. After more that 2 decades of research and practical experience, Grimwood advocates a TFR that provides the optimal flow and a margin for safety. If you have more flow than you need you can always shut the nozzle off, gate the flow or in some cases select a lower flow rate. If you find yourself inside a compartment fire and start to realise that you are unable to deliver even the critical flow rate, then you could be placed in a great deal of danger. Grimwoods 1989 research of data (6) from 100 serious working fires in London resulted in an estimated flow rate between 200-400 lpm was generally successful in extinguishing developing compartment fires up to 100m2 in area. As a result detailed analysis of empirical data, combined with his own research, Grimwood arrived at the following fireground TFR calculation: A x 4 = lpm Where A = area of fire involvement in m2 Grimwood proposed that this formula was based on average office fire loads and further proposed that when dealing with higher fuel loads or situations where the structural elements had become involved in fire that the rate should be increased by 50%. A x 6=lpm

Recent Swedish Research

Svensson and Sardvquist (7) conducted large scale extinguishing tests in a structure with a floor area of approximately 108 m2 (14.0 m x 7.7 m) and a ceiling height of 6.3 m. Six test burns were conducted with similar fire loads. The attacks commenced after the temperature peaked. Each attack was conducted by the same two highly trained professional firefighters. Comparisons were made between 25 mm high-pressure (25 bar nozzle pressure) attack lines and 51 mm low-pressure (7 bar nozzle pressure) lines at flow rates of 115, 226 and 340 lpm. At 115 lpm neither the high-pressure or low-pressure attack lines were able to gain control of the test fires in the specified time frames. Flow rates or 226 and 340 were able to control the fire successfully. The data showed that the 25 mm high-pressure hose systems (at 226 and 340 lpm) reduced the compartment gas temperature faster and to a lower level than the low-pressure lines. The data also showed that the fuel surface cooling effect of the 25 mm high-pressure hose-line at a flow of 226 lpm was as effective as the low-pressure hose-line at a flow of 340 lpm.

These tests were conducted under controlled conditions so it would not be reasonable to expect to safely achieve suppression consistently in the real world with such flow rates. The tests are more indicative of the possible critical flow rate and this gives a foundation for establishing a reasonable tactical flow rate. The tests also show the significant effect of different hoseline systems. The techniques used were typical of the Swedish style and involved alternating between gas cooling (45 upward spray pattern) and the controlled application of water to the fuel surface. This contrasts with the traditional US approach which involves early ventilation and solid stream jets. Grimwoods TFR formula is based on normal fire load. As the structure has a high ceiling and could be expected to carry a high fire load it will be adjusted up by 50%. TFT = A x 6 = 650 lpm. It should be noted that this formula is used as a guide for the initial attack line. The time taken to layout secondary lines can vary enormously and thus is not considered as forming part of the TFR formula. It is recommended that the initial attack lines be supported by secondary support lines of equal or greater flow. Strategic placement of these lines will allow for greater total flow if required. The Grimwood and Iowa State formula provide a rough guide for initial attack lines in situations where the structure is still intact and the floor area is less than 600 m2. When the structure is well ventilated or relatively large, flow rates approaching the NFA formula may be required from multiple lines.

Simple Solutions for Complex Problems?

When choosing the initial size and type of hose-lines required for a given task it is essential to allow a margin for the unexpected. It must also be remembered that even when dealing with a relatively small fire that large quantities of un-burnt fuel could have accumulated in uninvolved parts of the structure. Ignition of these accumulated gases can lead to rapid and often unexpected fire spread. It can be seen that the theoretical calculation of the flow rates required to extinguish a compartment fire is complex and many variables need to be considered. Fireground formulas need to be simple and easy to calculate. It must be remembered that their simplicity also limits their accuracy and thus they can only be a rough guide at best. The corner stone of accurate size-up is a sound practical understanding of fire behaviour. The safest and most effective method of developing this underpinning knowledge is through balanced realistic live fire training.

References 1 P Grimwood, E Hartin, J McDonough, S Raffel, 3D Firefighting FPP/IFSTA University Oklahoma State 2005 2. Z. Liu, A. Kashef, G.D. Lougheed and N. Benichou - Review Of Three Dimensional Water Fog Techniques For Firefighting - National Research Council Canada 2002 3 C Barnett Comparison of 11 Methods for Determining Water Used for Fire Fighting - SFPE (NZ) TECHNICAL PUBLICATION - TP 2007/1 4 P Grimwood Firefighting Flow-rates Firetactics.com 2005 5 S Srdqvist - Fire Brigade Use of Water, Interflam '99, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Vol. 1, Interscience Communications Ltd. 1999 6 P Grimwood Fog Attack DMG/FMJ International Publications Redhill, Surrey 1992 7 Svensson & Sardqvist - Fire tests in a large Hall Report LUTVDG/TVBB1025-SE Lund University Sweden 2002.