Clean Agents in Total Flooding Applications | LinkedIn Page 1 of 4

-->

Home Profile Contacts Groups Jobs Inbox Companies News More

Workshop Permit to Work - Free Permit to Work workshop Abu Dhabi 14/11 & Do

Industrial Fire Protection (IFP)

a subgroup of National Fire Protection Association

Discussions Members Promotions Jobs Search More...

Clean Agents in Total Flooding Applications

The article "Clean Agents in Total Flooding Applications” from the August 2012 issue of
International Fire Protection discusses the past, present and future use of clean agents in total
flooding applications, and provides the factual information you need to understand the
environmental impact and use of clean agent fire extinguishants when protecting your critical
Follow Mark L. facilities.

The article is available at:

http://www2.dupont.com/FE/en_US/assets/downloads/pdf/201208_IFP_mag_reprint.pdf
20 days ago

Like Comment Follow Flag More

Gianluca Indovino likes this

4 comments

Daniel Dye • Mark

Are there any plans to test clean agents for the ability to provide fire protection, or a
degree of fire protection performance under dynamic conditions that are found in
applications where recirculation air flow must remain on to maintain normal business
Follow Daniel
continuity? A common example - large data sites containing many thousands of computer
servers typically will not shut down HVAC or electrical power when fire is detected,
however they can put the HVAC system into recirculation mode with power to servers
remaining on. There is a notion in some parts of the fire protection industry that clean
agents can be applied in dynamic air flow conditions regardless of air speed on the fire
area as long as the total volume of the system and recirculation duct work is included in
the calculation for the gas quantity and the gas concentration when discharged is above
the minimum specified value when discharged under dynamic airflow conditions. When
fire testing NFPA 750 compliant water mist systems in dynamic conditions it is not
assumed fire suppression performance equal to static air will be achieved without testing
as flue gas speeds and forced air ventilation will have a direct effect on the air movement
over the combusting test fuel. Have any tests been conducted on clean agents under
dynamic air movement conditions?
19 days ago • Like • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate

Mark L. Robin, PhD • Daniel

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=2144505&it... 11/15/2012
Clean Agents in Total Flooding Applications | LinkedIn Page 2 of 4

To my understanding it has been common practice for some time for a significant number
of facilities to forego powering down during clean agent system discharges, and I am
unaware of any instances of the systems failing to perform as designed under such
Home Profile circumstances.
Contacts Groups Jobs Inbox Companies News More

Follow Mark L. I am perhaps not surprised that water mist suppression performance under dynamic
conditions is not equal to its static air performance, considering the non-gaseous nature
(lack of three dimensionally) of water mist, which prevents it from completely filling an
enclosure as is achievable with a gaseous clean agent. This lack of three-dimensionally is
also the cause of the inability of water mist to extinguish highly obstructed or hidden fires
(e.g., in-cabinet fires, cf., J.R. Mawhinney in Chapter 8, Section 16 of the Fire Protection
Handbook, 20th edition (NFPA, 2008)). I would think that under dynamic conditions water
mist behaves even less like a gas than under static conditions, the water mist particles
being subject to transport due to the ventilation flow, leading to their non-uniform
distribution within the enclosure (cf. R Crosfield, et. al., Travelling Distance of Droplets
from Water Mist Suppression Systems in Tunnels with Longitudinal Ventilation, Advanced
Research Workshop on Fire Protection and Life Safety in Buildings and Transportation
Systems, Santander, Oct. 2009).

Mark L. Robin, PhD

DuPont Chemicals & Fluoroproducts
November 10, 2012
5 days ago • Like

Daniel Dye • Mark

Thank you for your perspective. I am perhaps not surprised at the diversity of approved
water mist fire protection acceptance and understanding, as the normally accepted
Follow Daniel
standard for approved water mist is based on performance in contrast to the more
pervasive prescriptive based standards.

The question in my previous post relates to the performance of clean agent in dynamic air
flow conditions with the minimum design clean agent gas concentration achieved and
maintained by an initial clean agent discharge or an initial plus extended discharge into
the space where the HVAC system was designed to recirculate the air and clean agent
gas mixture through all equipment during a fire event for the purpose of maintaining
business continuity. Increasingly there are equipment installations such as very large data
sites that desire not to shutdown power and cooling during a fire event. I would also ask if
the clean agent human/animal exposure tests for no observable effect level, lowest
observable effect level and lowest observable adverse effect level (NOEL, LOEL &
LOAEL) would include exposure testing to any products of decomposition resulting from
decomposed clean agent that may or may not be produced that resulted from burning and
electrically energized equipment that continue to overheat because they are still
energized. I ask this as in your post you refer to “forego powering down during clean agent
system discharges”. In order to maintain business continuity in this instance the piece of
equipment that has become involved in fire frequently must be physically identified during
the fire event and manually isolated from power while other equipment in the same
protected space continue to be electrically energized and cooled by the HVAC in
recirculate mode. If technical persons are not already present in the protected space the
fire event may require personnel to enter and manually isolate the electrical power to
affected burning equipment. While entering the space under fire event condition wearing
self contained breathing apparatus would be one of the minimum safety requirements,
however I am not certain that all facilities would maintain training and SCBA equipment for
all site personnel who could be called to enter the area and isolate the effected
equipment. I ask this as there appears to be a notion, or rumor, in the industry that clean
agents will function and suppress fire as per the respective approval in still air or in

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=2144505&it... 11/15/2012
Clean Agents in Total Flooding Applications | LinkedIn Page 3 of 4

dynamic air flow conditions with no limit on air speed as long as the minimum clean agent
design concentrations are achieved and maintained for the duration of the specified
protection time.
Home Profile Contacts Groups Jobs Inbox Companies News More
The diversity of water mist fire protection acceptance and understanding is dynamic, and
considered by many to be a process of continuous improvement. The management of
water mist performance parameters of approved water mist systems are the domain of
manufactures and accredited 3rd party fire test protocol creators and accredited 3rd fire
test laboratories. Much informal testing, experimentation and evaluation has been
conducted and continues to be conducted globally. There are water mist systems and
there are tested and approved water mist systems hence the performance based
standards and NFPA 750.

Continued on next post

2 days ago • Like

Daniel Dye • Continued from previous post

With respect to your comment - “considering the non-gaseous nature (lack of three
dimensionally) of water mist, which prevents it from completely filling an enclosure as is
Follow Daniel
achievable with a gaseous clean agent. This lack of three-dimensionally is also the cause
of the inability of water mist to extinguish highly obstructed or hidden fires”. Performance
based approved water mist system are required to meet or exceed specific fire tests
pursuant to the test protocol for the given certification or approval. For example, Factory
Mutual has published fire test protocol standard 5560 that lists the required numerous fire
tests for various applications including the extinguishment of concealed fires. Similar fire
test protocols exist including IMO Msc 1165 from the International Maritime Organisation
that not only require numerous successful fire tests it also required a thermal management
tests requiring that the system maintain the test area during a fire test below a specified
maximum temperature for the specified duration. The FM and IMO standards are available
and go through revision cycles’ routinely as technology and hazard demands evolve.
However, having met the minimum fire test requirements for certification or approval this in
itself does not provide an indication of any superior fire suppression performance of a
system that has exceeded the minimum requirement by a large margin until Royal
Caribbean International saw fit to produce a video titled “Lesson learned Engine room
fires” that in detail described two fire events, one costly fire event that was followed the
next year by another event with a much better outcome. The video indicates that the
second fire event started in an almost completely concealed location behind engine
covers and the entire event was captured on video and is available to view at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mux_2FUrInQ with narration by Capt. William Wright of
RCCL who compares losses of the two incidences and the remedial action that was taken
following the first incident. In the video there is also a good deal of description of different
types of extinguishing systems including different types of water mist systems that may
provide some incite to the diversity of approved water mist fire protection acceptance and
understanding relating to fire protection. I am not surprised by the International Maritime
Organization requirement for vessels to be equipped with water based extinguishing
system designed to be released as the first order of events upon detection of a fire
effective October 2005. Among many reports and papers there is an interesting paper by
M. Tuomisaari that is publically available at
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/upload/R9902732.pdf that discusses concealed fire
tests citing test report by Hughes Associates Inc. This paper also discusses the
extinguishing performance of the system and how the system also captures smoke/HCI
and reduces CO levels in a computer room subfloor where the spray head design does
not cause direct impingement of the water mist spray on the seat of the telltale/test fires
located in various positions in the test area.

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=2144505&it... 11/15/2012
Clean Agents in Total Flooding Applications | LinkedIn Page 4 of 4

Water mist is not a young fire protection technology it dates back to 1938 as referenced in
the history of water mist at link:
http://www.fogtec-international.com/content_all/fogtec_watermist_history/history.html
Home Profile Other information
Contacts Groups relating
Jobsto historical
Inbox information
CompaniescanNews
be foundMore
at can be found at link:
http://www.firetactics.com/Paper%20IWMC%202008%20(MA).pdf
2 days ago • Like

Add a comment...

Send me an email for each new comment.

Ads by Calling Project Managers AMEX Go

LinkedIn Join us for International Project Benefits and
Members Management Day 2012 and earn 15 pdus your lifestyle.

Help Center About Blog Careers Advertising Talent Solutions Tools Mobile Developers Publishers La
LinkedIn Corporation © 2012 User Agreement Privacy Policy Copyright Policy Send Feedback

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=2144505&it... 11/15/2012