Exterior Water Application:

Influence of Nozzle Postioning and Pressure

By Pablo J. Boj García

Published in Fire Engineering, 5, vol 173. May 2020

External water application (EWA) is a suppression technique performed from the

outside of a structure fire. Its objective is to improve the conditions inside a fire compartment
by taking away some of the energy the fire is developing, thus “resetting” it to a previous,
less-intense condition.
Water has a cooling effect when projected into the burning enclosure even if it does
not reach the seat of the fire. Water, however, is most effective in reducing the heat-release
rate of the fire if it reaches the fuels that are burning insteal of just cooling noncombustible
walls and ceilings. The most significant factors influencing the dispersion of fire streams
within a compartment is the position of the nozzle firefighter in relation to a window and the
nozzle pressure.1 Considering these factors, a fire stream with adequate flow and relatively
low velocity applied at a steep angle will be more effective than a high-velocity stream
directed at a lower angle for comparments with a volume not exceeding 1,760 cubic feet.

Preliminary Considerations
The fundamentals of EWA have been examined in various articles2 and emphasize
two objectives: to avoid the perception/effect of “pushing” fire3 and improving conditions
inside the structure, for which we are about to identify the three basic elements that we find
in an active fire and on which external projection of water may have an influence with
different results.

Flames and smoke. Located in the upper thermal layer, flames and smoke are the
origin of phenomena such as flashover, fire gas ignition, and other hostile fire events.
Cooling fire gases with an exterior stream will be more effective when the diameter of the
water droplets is small; increasing their surface área and lengthening the duration of water
application. When water absorbs heat energy, it generates steam that expands in volume.

1
The effect of expanding steam is, however, not as significant as the condensation of fire
gases filling the fire compartment as they are cooled. If the water doesn´t knock out the fire,
it will keep on generating gases that will quickly replace those that have been cooled,
returning to the previous conditions.
Walls and ceilings. They confine the fire and increase in temperature as the fire
develops. Cooling these elements with water absorbs energy from the fire, but it will not
decrease the heat-release rate of the burning fuels (contents). Should the application of
water be interrrupted, the surface temperatures of walls and ceilings will again begin to rise.
Fuels. They are usually solid fuels which act as a driving force of the fire. Cooling
these fuels interrupts the pyrolysis process. As cooling occurs, the water vapor generated
absorbs the heat energy in the fire gases and reduces the rate at which they are produced.
We can see from that that the proper application of exterior streams will improve conditions
within a fire compartment, and that the potential for conditions to worsen can be controlled
only by applying water directly to the burning fuel. Only direct application of water to fuels
will reduce or eliminate the production of heat and fire gases.
When performing an offensive exterior attack, the nozzle firefighter is limited
because he has only a general idea of the layout based on the occupancy of the fire building-
-for example, an average size bedroom in a private dwelling; he does not know the
dimensions and layout of the fire compartment and how the contents are arranged. Exterior
attack will also limit the assessment of interior conditions only to what can be seen from
exterior openings and the behavior of the products of combustion as they vent from the
structure.
It is very important for firefighters to understand that the intent of an exterior attack
is to take some of the energy out of the fire (“resetting”) to buy time for trapped occupants
and must be rapidly followed with an attack from the interior. Every year, firefighters
advancing the intial attack hoseline inside the fire building encounter unconscious occupants
along the major pathways of egress: doorways, stairways, and hallways.
Since water in a EWA may not reach the seat of the fire, it is important to research
fire stream application methods that would be most effective in reducing the effects of fire
on exposed interior surfaces and producing the best chance of getting water on at least
some of the fuels. To accomplish this, we must understand how water is distributed during
fire stream applications. Nozzle teams must understand the variables influencing an exterior

2
attack so they use application techniques that most effectively disperse water for the
conditions it encounters.
This article examines two factors that are critical for an effective offensive exterior
attack: the position of the nozzle and nozzle pressure.

(1-2) We need criteria that allow the operator to apply the water in the most efficient
way. (Photos by author.)
UL FSRI studies
The effects of water projection have been detailed by the Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) Fire Safety Research Institute in its Water Mapping research. UL compared various

3
types of nozzles and projection locations--through the door, at the same level as the fire, or
through a window at a higher level--movements during the projection of streams--Z, O, T
patterns or fixed--and pressure in an enclosure of approximately 200 square feet.
One of the findings of the UL Water Mapping research is that when water is projected
against a ceiling, it does not “bounce,” but it travels a considerable distance across the
underside surface of the ceiling before falling to the floor because of gravity. The direction
and distance traveled by the water under the ceiling depend on the angle at which the stream
is directed and its velocity, which gives it momentum after striking a surface. When a fire
compartment is relatively small, such as a bedroom, a nozzle stream of sufficient velocity
applied at a steep angle (nearly vertical) to the ceiling disburses horizontally in all directions
under the ceiling until it strikes the walls.
We can deduce from this research that a low angle of application is likely to
concentrate the stream on the wall opposite the window from where the stream is directed
and, consequently, most of the water will end up on the floor as runoff. The alternative would
be to apply the stream at a steep angle to allow the stream to impact the ceiling and disperse
in a more radial pattern. This method was found to cool a greater surface area and that
although it will limit the stream’s ability to reach deep into a large fire compartment, it is more
likely that the water will fall on burning contents.
Among the multiple tests detailed in the Water Mapping study, those that most closely
resemble the deployment techniques proposed for EWA are those in which a 1¾-inch
hoseline and a combination nozzle flowing 150 gallons per minute (gpm) at 100 pounds per
square inch (psi) were deployed. The tests found that water was collected in large quantities
in containers below the wall opposite the projection window.

Trials Performed
From the perspective of implementing the EWA technique, variations addressed by
the UL FSRI study are based on a change of the projection angle from a fixed position, but
it does not address repositioning the operator or variations in the projection pressure.
Another aspect limited by the design of the UL studies is water behavior when the
distance between the window and the opposite wall exceeds 11.4 feet; the depth of the
compartment where their tests were conducted.
To attain an overview of these aspects, we designed a series of tests in which we

4
applied water streams with combination nozzles on 1¾-inch hoselines to a compartment on
a first floor measuring 23 feet wide by 22 feet deep and a ceiling height of 8 feet, 6 inches.
Inside, we arranged a grid of 81 water-collection cells starting at approximately two feet from
the projection window. We conducted 18 trials by modifying the operator’s position and
nozzle pressure:
• Operator’s position: the first position was 6.56 feet from the façade, with an approximate
projection angle of 65°; the other position was 13.12 feet away from the façade, with an
approximate angle of 45°.
• Nozzle pressure: the three pressures for projection were approximately 58 psi, 72 psi,
and 87 psi.

5
(3-4) Dimensioned 3D model of experimental compartment and training facilities of the
Málaga Fire Department (RCBM) where the experiments were carried out.

Three trials were conducted for each configuration. We obtained an average of the
value of water discharge density (gpm/sq.ft) for each cell in a number of containers covering
the compartment geometrically from the perimeter to the interior. For the rest of cells [what
does “rest” refer to?] calculating the discharge density[what does “its” refer to?] value on the
basis of measurements in the adjacent cells. As comparison values, National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and
Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, and NFPA 13R, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Low-Rise Residential Occupancies establish a minimum
discharge density of 0.05 gpm/sq.ft. for sprinkler systems in residential use. The EN 12845
Standard establishes a discharge density of 0.055 gpm/sq.ft. for low risks (such as housing)
and 0.12 gpm/sq.ft. for ordinary risks (shopping centers, hospitals, offices, and small stores).
It is verified by direct observation that most of the projected water that does not fall within
the collection area, but goes beyond it.

6
Table 1. Discharge density in gpm/sq.ft. in each cell

2 meter distance (6.56 ft.) 4 meter distance (13.12 ft.)

4 bar 5 bar 6 bar

4 bar 5 bar 6 bar
Pressure (58.02 (72.52 (87.02
(58.02 psi) (72.52 psi) (87.02 psi)
psi) psi) psi)

520 560 470 520

Water 470 560
(137 (148 (124 (137
projected (L) (124 gal) (148 gal)
gal) gal) gal) gal)

Water in the
422 455 390 162 159 146
collection area
(111 gal) (120 gal) (103 gal) (35.6 gal) (42 gal) 39 gal)
(L)

Efficiency* 89,8 % 87,5 % 69,7 % 34,5 % 30,5 % 26,0 %

4,8 4,7 4,3

Average 12,4 13,4 11,5
(.117 (.115 (.10
density (.30 (.32 (.28
gpm/sq gpm/sq gpm/
(lpm/m2) gpm/sq ft) gpm/sq ft) gpm/sqft)
ft) ft) sq ft)

Statistical
7,5 10,1 8,4 6,2 5,8 5,4
deviation
* Relationship between volume of projected water and estimated water in the collection area.

Table 2. Results obtained

7
Results
The results obtained, shown in Tables 1 and 2, can be summarized in the following
statements:
• When applying a stream from 6.56 feet away from the façade, water has a shorter
reach inside the enclosure than when applying from 13.12 feet., which has a significantly
higher percentage dropped on the collection area.
• Data shows a greater dispersion of water in the whole collection area in the 6.56
feet-away position; in the 13.12 feet-away position, it tends to be concentrated in the most
distant area from the window in the projection axis. This statement echoes the conclusions
of the UL studies in which “the steeper the angle of water applied through the doorway or
window, the more water is distributed along the walls of the room.” 4
• A greater nozzle pressure naturally provides a greater gpm flow. However, data
indicates that excessive nozzle pressure may cause a considerable part of the water to end
up on the opposite wall and its efficiency may be limited in terms of cooling and suppression
of the fire.

(5) Changes in the dispersion pattern can be easily checked by inverting the experiment. For
example, projecting from a similar height on a training tower to the ground.

8
Test Conclusions
When applying the EWA, the nozzle firefighter’s position and nozzle pressure have
a significant influence on the dispersion pattern inside the room. The results of the EWA
tests are consistent with those of the UL studies and prove the effectiveness of exterior
offensive attack.
The results of the UL FRSI study and the complementary tests we have carried out
both validate the effectiveness and procedures detailed in the article “Offensive fire attack.
Variables that interfere with the fire gases outlet.” To achieve a higher degree of efficiency
by using this technique, follow these guidelines:
• Adapt the water flow to the magnitude of the fire, preferably by using high-volume,
low-velocity nozzle streams rather low-volume, high-velocity nozzles.
• Position the nozzle firefighter as close to the façade as is safely possible,
projecting water against a fixed point of the ceiling of the burning room, and at the steepest
angle possible.
• Apply water at a nozzle pressure to reach ceiling levels; however, avoid excessive
pressures because they may reduce the efficiency of the stream.
• Fire stream applications should be done in a progressive manner that will allow
the nozzle team to evaluate their effectiveness. Ventilation must be continually evaluated to
ensure that steam and fire gases can vent from the top of the opening.
• The nozzle firefighter should occasionally vary his position to apply the stream at
different angles and for the stream to reach deeper into the structure without contacting the
walls.

Note: Thank you to all the colleagues who have collaborated in this work.

PABLO J. BOJ GARCÍA has been a professional firefighter in Málaga Fire Department
(Málaga, Spain) since 2002 and team leader since 2008. He has a university degree in
criminology and master's degree in occupational risk prevention. His work has been focused
on fire investigation and, in recent years, on fireground tactics, in which he trains and
lectures. He has written numerous articles. He is the co-author of Fundamentos Teóricos
para Bomberos.

9
Endnotes
1. Even if the wall is combustible, it might not be the best option for applying a projection concentrating water
massively in a limited area.
2. In reference to the opening through which water is projected regardless of whether it is a window or another
type of opening, as in “Offensive fire attack: Variables that interfere with the fire gas outlet,” Pablo Boj,
International Firefighter, issues 50 and 51, 2016.
3. “Understanding Exterior Attack,” Arturo Arnalich, China Fire Bulletin, 2015. Where should this be referenced
in the copy? [Inclued in text]
4. UL FSRI course Impact of Water Mapping Tactics in a Room.

10