Posts tagged: fire suppression

Stationary extinguishing systems: do they work as well as we think? By Dick van Roosmalen, advisor Kappetijn Safety Specialists

On June 13, 2022, a fire at a Dutch warehouse containing fire starters challenged the efficacy of fire protection systems after a high-expansion foam system failed to extinguish the blaze.

The incident at the Oisterwijk company, which had prior nuisance complaints and fire incidents, prompted an investigation shared with the municipal council.

Findings indicated that fire suppression systems have intrinsic limitations, underscoring the need for expert management and preparedness.

However, the fire persisted, leading to the question: do fire protection systems actually work as well as we think?

Investigation results

The investigation of the permit status and incident history found that the warehouse had a high-expansion foam system which should have extinguished any fire.

Despite this, fire did spread inside the warehouse.

Fortunately the fire brigade prevented the fire from spreading beyond the warehouse, which was a complete loss.

The investigation additionally revealed the building’s insurer’s prior concerns regarding safety due to the history of incidents, leading to the mandate for a sophisticated high-expansion foam system with roof-mounted foam generators and a sensitive aspiration system for early smoke detection.

In the event of an incipient fire, the system’s roof domes would open and draw in fresh outside air to make foam.

Foam would fill the space and extinguish the fire.

The operating principle is based on the displacing oxygen by foam bubbles and isolating the seat of the fire.

Ultimately, the modern installation was ineffective due to two main factors.

Initially, the system was not delivered completely ready for operation.

The system’s roof domes open pneumatically, but the required CO2 gas cylinders had not been installed.

The system as installed was therefore able to produce some foam, but not nearly as much high-expansion foam as it intended to fill the space completely and extinguish fires effectively.

It is noteworthy that all required tests were performed in accordance with national protocols and that required certificates were formally and correctly issued.

The manufacturer of the foam generators prescribes in its documentation that the roof domes must be tested monthly.

The installer failed to include this procedure in the weekly test protocol, which the building owner had diligently followed.

Given the experiences in this case, such tests are not a bad idea, although an annual test may be sufficient to identify shortcomings after installation.

The second reason that the installation proved to be ineffective was that no risk analysis or normative scenario was described in the Principles Document (UPD).

The assessed as most likely cause of the fire on June 13 was over-heating.

However, a smouldering fire can be interrupted only by physically pulling the materials apart, then extinguishing the fire and cooling the materials with water.

This type of smouldering fire could therefore not have been extinguished using the high-expansion foam installation, which only temporarily isolated the fire with foam bubbles.

Examples of extinguishing gas systems

Other extinguishing systems are not without their drawbacks.

One example is extinguishing gas.

A well-known major incident occurred in 2008 in a German paint factory equipped with an extinguishing gas system.

 The system was triggered by a fire and, due to a defect, continued operating for much longer than it was programmed to.

Due to the weather conditions, the released CO2 extinguishing gas lingered as a cloud in the valley where the factory was located.

As a result, more than 100 people became unwell, including factory staff, firefighters and local residents.

Of those, more than 10 required hospital treatment.

Some fifty houses in the area required ventilation and air quality tests before the homes were considered safe.

Studies and research indicate that the impact of extinguishing gas systems are much greater than even knowledgeable users think or estimate.

In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency researched risks of CO2 extinguishing systems.

They found that since 1975, there have been 51 incidents, with a total of 72 fatalities and 145 injuries.

Most casualties occurred during maintenance or testing of the installation, resulting in the unintentional release of extinguishing gas.

In two cases, fire extinguishing gas was deliberately tested and casualties still occurred because people were unaware of the test and safety procedures were not fully followed.

In one case, more CO2 was released than intended because a main valve was not closed properly.

The actual number of incidents and victims is probably even higher since reporting and analysis of these events are not mandatory.

Extinguishing systems in hangars

A report by Aviation International News in 2020 cited that from 2004 to 2020 there have been at least 137 incidents in which foam extinguishing systems in aircraft hangars were accidentally activated.

That is an average of one every six weeks.

The average direct damage per case is about a million dollars.

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) estimates that the costs of cleanup and damage to aircraft from these incidents totalled between $64 and up to $235 million.

Interestingly, the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) established the standard for hangar protection more than 70 years ago: a sprinkler system was required.

At that time, a hangar was more expensive than the aircraft it housed.

The situation is now reversed: if there are several business jets in a hangar, the aircraft are worth more than 10 times the building.

From 1984, the standards reflected the understanding that the defining scenario in a hangar was not the building on fire, but a pool of burning liquid under the aircraft.

Therefore, the updated standard no longer prescribed a sprinkler with water as the extinguishing agent, but a foam extinguishing system.

A foam extinguishing system should quickly extinguish a pool fire under an aircraft, thus limiting damage to the aircraft.

Research by the University of Maryland found that in 242 of 245 incidents in which foam was released (2004-2019), there had been no fire.

In three incidents with a fire, only one incident was confirmed to have involved a pool of burning liquid.

The activation of firefighting foam systems carries significant hazards.

For example, recently the foam extinguishing system in a hangar at an airport in Wilmington (Ohio, USA) was activated.

A mechanic who was working there was fatally injured.

Two others could be rescued because they were able to take shelter in a car in the hangar.

Eight firefighters were injured.

And there was no fire.

A Similar incident occurred in a Brisbane, Australia airport in 2017.

So much fluorine-containing foam was released that some reached a nearby river, leading to fish kills and other environmental damage.

Action perspective for the fire brigade

An important consideration for extinguishing systems is the operational strategy for the responding fire brigade.

After a space-filling fire-fighting foam system has been activated, people cannot enter the building.

Visual inspection inside the space often becomes impossible, especially with foam systems.

This makes it difficult, or impossible, to determine what happened and whether the extinguishing system functioned effectively.

The realistic perspective for action for the fire brigade is therefore very limited and requires specific knowledge.

Was this a justified or unjustified report?

It is also often impossible to locate or rescue any victim who may be left behind.

A comprehensive exploration and waiting interval to see whether a fire still breaks through is the remaining perspective in the absence of knowledge.

After activation, all the extinguishing agent in the stationary system will have been used.

If a fire has developed, large-scale action will still be necessary, and preventing fire spread becomes more difficult.

Selecting a system

When fire protection is mandatory for a building a permanent extinguishing system may seem a reliable solution.

However, selection of the appropriate system requires specialised knowledge.

A carefully chosen normative fire scenario and fitting extinguishing system must be properly documented as permitting conditions.

Just as important are correct installation, careful periodic inspections and intensive system tests.

It is important to note that extinguishing systems may have negative aspects, such as significant risks to employees, the surroundings, and the environment.

The system can also be activated accidentally, without being triggered by a relevant incident.

Therefore, ensure that expertise is available to record considerations and agreements in a realistic and coordinated emergency plan, so that there is as much certainty as possible that effective and safe action can be taken.

This article was originally published in the December2023 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Ziamatic’s new vehicle cooling units tackle the growing challenge of vehicle fires

For fire departments worldwide, vehicle fires are an ever-evolving challenge.

According to a report by the National Fire Protection Association, an estimated 212,500 vehicle fires caused 560 civilian deaths, 1,500 civilian injuries, and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US alone in 2018.

In the US, vehicle fires accounted for nearly one in every eight reported fires.

Now, an increasing number of vehicle fires around the world involve electrical vehicles.

It is estimated that there are over 20 million electric vehicles on the road today, far more than the 1 million electric vehicles on the road in 2016.

According to a report from Bloomberg last year, China accounted for 46 percent of the total electric vehicle sales, followed by Europe at 34 percent, and North America at a distant third at 15 percent.

While fires in electric vehicles happen less often than those with internal combustion engines, they do present unique challenges to firefighters. Fires in electric vehicles often take crews longer to handle than those in vehicles with internal combustion engines. 

For fire crews, electrical vehicle batteries are hard to reach, difficult to cool down, and the energy created with thermal runaway can easily re-ignite or spread from cell to cell.

Ziamatic’s innovation in firefighting

Ziamatic’s new Vehicle Cooling Units could be the answer to the challenges created by fires in both electric and internal combustion vehicles, with 1-meter (VCU-36) and 2-meter (VCU-72) options available.

Ziamatic’s new Vehicle Cooling Units adapt to conventional fire hoses.

They can be slid underneath vehicles with a ground clearance of less than 14 centimeters and still be very effective.

Ziamatic’s VCU-36 unit uses as little as 151 liters of water per minute.

A lot of time and effort went into the creation of the Vehicle Cooling Units, according to Keith Creely, VP of Ziamatic Corp.

It all started with feedback from local fire departments.

“Local departments came to us with a concern,” Creely tells. “Their concern was that it is difficult to not only extinguish vehicle fires, but it is sometimes hard to access the areas heating up or burning.

“This requires someone to lift the vehicle to spray copious amounts of water on areas that are heating up or on fire.

“Ziamatic has designed vehicle cooling units that can be used on vehicles that have as little as 14 centimeters of ground clearance and still be effective helping control vehicle fires.

“Ziamatic chose to focus on designing something that made it safer for the firefighter and also addressed decreasing water flow from the typical 302-378 liters per minute to 151-302 liters per minute.”

According to Creely, the size of the different units (1 meter and 2 meters) is critical in cooling an adequate area of a vehicle: “The lengths offered were chosen when we evaluated the areas needing to be cooled and extinguished simultaneously.

“If you approach the vehicle from the side, our 1-meter Vehicle Cooling Unit will be effective saturating a 1.2 x 2.4-meter area.

“If you approach the vehicle from the front or back, our 2-meter Vehicle Cooling Unit would be effective saturating a 2.1 x 2.4-meter area.

“Another approach is using the 2-meter VCU from the side of a vehicle, with both ends protruding out from under the vehicle, so that some of the spray is free flowing and not confined under the vehicle.”

Other applications

The Vehicle Cooling Units have other uses. They may also be used as under-carriage cleaning sprayers.

“It has been said that our VCUs can be used under vehicles as an under-carriage cleaning sprayer due to the high velocity water flow at higher pressures similar to a drive through a car wash,” Creely explains.

“It has also been said that linking multiple units together can be used as a water curtain, helping to protect property and structure from fire or heat nearby.”

According to Creely, Ziamatic’s Vehicle Cooling Units may be the most effective, cost-efficient option on the market.

“We believe our design is superior when used on an electric vehicle in that the velocity allows the water to travel along the pan which constantly draws heat away,” says Creely.

“It is not just spraying and dropping off or misting the area.

“Our website shows this feature really well using Plexiglass so we could see what patterns we would get at different PSI.”   

Since their release in the spring, the feedback of Ziamatic’s VCUs has been positive.

“Most departments are giving us very good feedback,” Creely says.

“Departments are continuously training with them and are impressed at the water flow they can achieve and the effectiveness of how much the VCU can cover at very low ground clearances.”

Creely feels like the market for Ziamatic’s VCUs will continue to grow.

“We feel that it is a larger market for now, but only because the US had not embraced these vehicles as fast,” he adds.

“It seems there is a lot of incentive to buy electric vehicles now, and the skepticism behind the dependability and distance one can drive is subsiding.

“So yes, we feel the VCU product line can be an immediate game changer in a safer way to address the electric vehicle issue.”

This article was originally published in the November 2023 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Chris Logan speaks to IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey about the Fire Sprinkler Podcast

Chris Logan is on the board of the directors for the Canadian Fire Safety Association. He is the Second Vice President of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers Southern Ontario Chapter, Canada and is involved in the Future Leadership Committee with the National Fire Sprinkler Association. He is also the creator of the increasingly popular Fire Sprinkler Podcast. IFSJ sat down with Chris to ‘talk sprinkler’ and find out more about the man behind the microphone.

Where did the idea for Fire Sprinkler Podcast come from?

I started doing the podcast because, I am a sprinkler fitter in the field who moved into the design and project management in a small family business, and I am looking for new ideas and looking to educate myself in more ways than paid seminars. When I started it, there wasn’t a lot of content out there.

With no background in audio, or computers aside from sprinkler design, I started looking into developing a podcast. I made a Facebook page called the Fire Sprinkler Podcast where I asked: ‘if somebody had a fire sprinkler podcast, who would listen?’. I created the page at 9.30pm and the next morning, I had over 100 followers. I realised I now actually had to do this.

My first three or four episodes were just me talking to myself about things in the industry that were interesting and my thought process on different stuff – they were terrible. Then I started having guests on.

I just like talking sprinkler. I’ll talk about that with anybody as long as they’re not filling the industry with negativity. I’m open to everybody’s opinions. I’m more than happy to have the conversation. I just wanted to create something that I was looking for, and it gives me the opportunity to talk to the smartest people in the industry from around the world. It is very selfish of me to do this podcast, because I believe, personally that I get more out of this podcast than any of the listeners do – I might as well be talking to a buddy that I went to high school with except that its only about the industry.

Do you get a lot of feedback or do people have conversations with you online about things you’ve spoken about in an episode?

I’ve actually made a lot of really, really good friends – guys that I knew before I started the podcast in the industry, just sprinkler guys from all over North America – but the relationships have kind of evolved from ‘How are the kids?’ to ‘I saw this problem, this is what I think you need to talk about next’.

People are coming to me with problems that they have looking for solutions – not because they don’t think that they can pick up the phone and talk to [their supplier] but because if they are having a problem, other people are having the same problem, and I may be able to help and benefit the industry in one way.

What are the typical guests that you have on your show?

Lately I’ve had a lot of manufacturers come on and talk about advances in their technology and new product releases. I’m trying to not necessarily move away from the manufacturers but I’m trying to get more sprinkler business people to come on board to talk through their career. I’m interested in speaking to heavy hitters in the fire sprinkler industry and understanding how they went from being a first-year apprentice and moved up the ranks to where they now have their own business. What was that evolution? What did they learn from it?

How often do you release the podcast?

I have been getting a lot of help this year from a lot of manufacturers that are jumping on board with consistent content every other month. They want to provide something to the industry. If I don’t have somebody to talk to, I don’t release an episode. I noticed when I upload regularly, my viewership goes up in leaps and bounds. I do have a fair amount of content from Intersec in Dubai and I’m going to be posting that on the regular. I think I have content probably for the next month and a half.

What are the main issues that people have been speaking to you about?

The big issue that I’m finding in our industry is getting the education out on sprinklers. It has gone a long way in the past six or so years to where people are becoming more knowledgeable on how fire sprinklers work.

Hollywood is doing a better job of depicting sprinklers in a positive note, as opposed to a negative note where the hero lights a lighter next to a sprinkler and then every sprinkler on the building goes off and they’re able to escape. That’s not the way sprinklers work. You’re seeing a lot of education there.

I do still think that there’s a lot of need for improvement. When I go to a customer that doesn’t have a sprinkler system they say ‘Why do I have to? I don’t want this whole building to flood if I have a fire or if somebody burns toast’. As much as it’s gotten better over the past couple of years, I still think there’s a lot of work to do in benefiting the industry and getting that education out there.

There’s a lot of good educational things out there for the layman and the professional – shout out to MeyerFire University, to Joe Meyer who was doing a lot of big stuff in the industry, Drew Slocum from the Fire Protection Podcast, Gus Gagliardi with Fire Code Tech.

Is there anybody else you want to give a shout out to?

I have to thank all of my major guests. My first guest was Drew Slocum from the Fire Protection Podcast – he hadn’t created that at the time, but he was my first guest. We talked about Inspect Point and just talking about the industry in general. He’s actually been a guest on the podcast the most.

Over the past four or five years the podcast has grown a lot, but it remains an expense. Without the support of companies like Reliable and Tyco and Victaulic and Viking, EGF manufacturing, Inspect Point – all of those companies and organisations help me to create a better product and to travel North America and now the world which is insane. I’d also like to shout my family. I’m a third generation sprinkler fitter. My grandfather started the family business that I work with.

Finally, why should our readers listen to your show?

I like to think that the benefit of what I do with this podcast is: I’m a curious guy, I like to learn about the industry. When I have a guest on I don’t script questions, it’s not premeditated. I have guests on from the industry and we talk sprinkler.

One of the best compliments I’ve ever gotten in my life was somebody who said that the podcast is giving everybody a behind the curtains peek of the conversations that are happening in sprinkler contracting offices, in schools, and on job sites. It lets everybody be involved in on these conversations that may not be privy to these conversations otherwise.

When a salesman comes into an office and the designer and owner are asking questions, ‘You’ve got this new product, why should I use this?’ All of a sudden it ends up on a job site with that fitter not understanding why this product is better and they’re left questioning ‘Why are we doing this instead of the way we’ve always done it?’ One of the most dangerous phrases in the English languages is ‘We’ve always done it this way.’

Anybody that has any topics or questions about the fire sprinkler industry, or if you’re interested in supporting the podcase feel free to reach out to me at Chris@firesprinklerpodcast.com.