Document kDjqKgvNXJxkxaXokxdQy6400

MILITARY SPECIFICATION MIL-F-24385F: FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT, AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FORM (AFFF) LIQUID CONCENTRATE, FOR FRESH AND SEAWATER Patricia A. Tatem and Clarence Whitehurst Naval Research Laboratory Ralph Ouellette and Robert L. Darwin Hughes Associates, Inc Douglas Barylski Naval Sea Systems Command SUMMARY OF CURRENT MILITARY SPECIFICATION Military Specification MIL-F-24385F (SH) [1] is approved for use by all departments and agencies of the Department of Defense. This specification covers the requirements for aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) liquid concentrate fire extinguishing agents consisting of fluorocarbon surfactants and other compounds, as required, to conform to this specification. Other specifications, standards, and publica tions (government and non-government) form a part of this military specification to the extent specified in theMILSPEC. M1L-F-24385F (SH) has specific chemical and physical requirements to which AFFF concentrates and solutions must conform for inclusion on the Qualified Products List QPL-24385-31 (30 October 1998 superseding QPL-24385-30, 30 September 1998). These requirements include conformance to concen tration as determined by refractive index and fluorine content: corrosivity (pH, total halides, general and localized corrosion); storage issues related to compatibility with other QPL agents and stability based on aging of the agent (measured by stratification and precipitation); environmental impact as determined by biodegradability factors, specifically, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) and toxicity (short-term measurement for salt water Killifish); performance as a film-forming agent (dry chemical compatibility, film formation and sealability, viscosity, spreading coefficient, and foamability), and, finally, fire performance on a 28-ft2 and 50-ft2unleaded gasoline pool fires. Tables 1 through 6 gives the Specification requirements for Type 3 and Type 6 concentrates and also results for a recent 6% candidate submitted for conformance to the Specification. The refractive index is determined at 25 0.1 C, using sodium vapor source lamp illumination. The viscosity is determined at temperatures of 5 0.1 C and 25 + 0.1 C in accordance with ASTM D44574, using capillary viscometers in the appropriate size. The viscosity requirement is based on the mech anics of the current Navy piping system and relates to the pressure loss in pipes as a function of factors such as pipe length and pipe diameter. Viscosity and refractive index requirements, not its fire perform ance, drive the presence of other compounds in candidate formulation (i.e., diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol and detergents). Methodology for determining the fluorine content is not specified in the MILSPEC. The requirement is that the test procedure used for the determination of total fluorine content be furnished as part of the qualification inspection report. Fluorine content is more of a quality control issue rather than pass/fail criteria. If using an optical absorption technique, it is more amenable to laboratory rather than ship board use. The pH value is determined potentiometrically, using a pH meter with a glass electrode and a reference electrode, at 25 C + 1.0 C. This corrosivity requirement is intended to minimize corrosion of metallic plumbing and storage containers. For general and localized corrosion, test coupons are evaluated for weight loss or visible pitting. As seen in Table 1, various types of coupons, in accordance with UNS designations, are evaluated according to ASTM E527 for weight loss (general corrosion) and for visible pitting (localized corrosion). The total halides measurement to evaluate for potential metallic corrosion is determined in accordance with ASTM D1821, with minor modifications. The terminology "total" is misleading because the method is more applicable to determining "free" (inorganic salt) chloride and bromide. Fluoride is not likely determined by this method. -- AETWC 2001 October 16-18,3001 3 US00006388 TABLE 1. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCENTRATES OR SOLUTIONS. Requirement Pass / Fail criteria* Refractive index, minimum 1.358(1.3630) Viscosity (Centistoke) Maximum @ 5 C Minimum @ 25 C Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH) Spreading Coefficient, dynes/cm, minimum Film Formation and Sealability 10 (20) 2 7.0 to 8.5 3 No sustained ignition Foamability: Foam Expansion Ratio, minimum Fresh Agent Test: Fresh Water / Sea Water Stability Test, concentrate: Fresh Water / Sea Water Stability Test, solution: Fresh Water / Sea Water Compatibility Tests: Fresh Water / Sea Water Foam 25% Drainage Time, minutes, minimum Fresh Agent Test: Fresh Water / Sea Water Stability Test, concentrate: Fresh Water / Sea Water Stability Test, solution: Fresh Water / Sea Water Compatibility Tests: Fresh Water / Sea Water Corrosion Rate: General Cold rolled. Low carbon steel (UNS G10100) mili in/yr, maximum Copper-Nickel (90-10) (US C70600) mili in/yr, maximum Nickel-Copper (70-30) (US N04400) mili in/yr, maximum Bronze (UNS C90500), milligrams maximum Localized, corrosion-resistant (CRES) steel, UNS S30400) Total Halides, ppm maximum 1.5 1.0 1.0 100 No pits 250 (500) Dry chemical compatibility, bumback resistance time 360 sec minimum 360 Environmental impact: Toxicity, LC5o,mg/L, minimum COD, mg/L, maximum BOD20minimum COD 1000 (500) 5x10s (lxlO6) 0.65 Fluorine content, mg/L Stratification: Stability Test Compatibility Test Precipitation, % by Volume: Stability Test Compatibility Test, 1:1 Ratio Mixes Compatibility Test, All Agent Mix Container cap opening torque (average)______________ ________ None None <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 50 in-lbs max Numbers in parentheses are for Type 3 if different from Type 6. 6% Candidate results 1.3595 9.08 6.3 7.6 5.4 No sustained ignition 9.0/8.2 9.1 / 8.8 9.6/9.1 5.1 / 7.9 4.25/ 4.20 3.5/4.25 4.0 / 4.0 3.15/4.0 0.69 0.02 0.03 0.03 No pits 186 427 >1000 279,000 0.80 5250 mg/L None None <0.05 <0.05 < 0.05 <50 in-lbs max 4 AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 US00006389 TABLE 2. 28 FT2FIRE PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS: 6% CANDIDATE FRESH CONCENTRATE. Property measured Extinguish time criteria* (max) Fresh Water Full Strength Fresh Water Half Strength Sea Water Full Strength Sea Water Half Strength Quintuple Strength (15%) SeaWater 30 sec 45 sec 30 sec 45 sec 55 sec *Criteria are the same for Type 3. Actual times 25 43 30 41 40 Burnback time criteria (min) 360 sec 300 sec 360 sec 300 sec 200 sec Actual times 551 436 555 491 325 TABLE 3. 28 FT2FIRE PERFORMANCE STABILITY TEST RESULTS: 6% CANDIDATE AGED CONCENTRATE. Property measured Extinguishment time criteria* (max) Fresh Water Full Strength Fresh Water Half Strength Sea Water Full Strength Sea Water Half Strength 30 sec 45 sec 30 sec 45 sec *Criteria are the same for Type 3. Actual times 25 43 29 37 Burnback time criteria (min) 360 sec 300 sec 360 sec 300 sec Actual times 438 345 472 485 TABLE 4. 28 FT2FIRE PERFORMANCE STABILITY TEST RESULTS: 6% CANDIDATE AGED SOLUTION. Property measured Extinguishment time criteria* (max) Fresh Water Full Strength Sea Water Full Strength 30 sec 30 sec *Criteria are the same for Type 3. Actual times 27 23 Burnback time criteria (min) 360 sec 360 sec Actual times 428 472 AETWC2001 October 16-18,2001 5 US00006390 TABLE 5. 28 FT2FIRE PERFORMANCE CONCENTRATE COMPATIBILITY TEST RESULTS: 6% AGED CONCENTRATES. (SOLUTIONS FOR FIRE PERFORMANCE TESTS WERE MIXED AT FULL STRENGTH) Qualified agent QPL#1 QPL#1 QPL#2 QPL#2 QPL#3 QPL#3 QPL#4 QPL#4 All of the Above All of the Above Property measured Fresh Water Sea Water Fresh Water Sea Water Fresh Water Sea Water Fresh Water Sea Water Fresh Water Sea Water Extinguish time criteria* (max) 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec 30 sec Actual times 24 28 26 30 26 27 24 26 24 25 Bumback time criteria* (min) 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec 360 sec Actual times 426 428 399 370 368 438 442 457 489 427 Criteria are the same for Type 3. TABLE 6. 50 FT2FIRE PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS: 6% CANDIDATE FRESH CONCENTRATE. Property measured Extinguishment Actual times Bumback Actual time criteria* (max) time criteria (min) times 40 sec summation Actual total Sea Water Full Strength 50 sec 36 360 sec 406 320 (min) 325 Criteria are the same for Type 3. The environmental inpact of the candidate agent is measured, firstly, m terms of its effect on Killifish (Fundulus herteroclitus) in accordance with ASTM E729, using dynamic procedures. Th minimum acceptable dissolved oxygen content of water used m this procedure shall be 5 ppm Killifish toxicity is a measure of short-term toxicity for salt water fish. There ,s a hnnted season on Kill fish, which occasionally presents a problem when attempting to qualify agents. AFFFs are historically considered relatively nontoxic by this short-term measure. The COD is determined m accordance with procedures in Standard Methodfo r the Examination of Water and Waste W arerlatesapplicable edition). Biodegradability is determined by dividing the value expressed in mg/L B J020 determined from 5-day BOD test in accordance with the procedure specified m Standard Methods for the Examination o f Water and Waste Water (latest applicable edition) by the value expressed in mg/L for COD as expressed previously. This quotient is more applicable where waste runs to small bodies of water in waste water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants. Storage issues as related to compatibility with other QPL agents and stability based on aging of the agent, as measured by stratification and precipitation, are measured as chemical and physical requirements as well as in fire performance requirements. Samples of concentrate andType 3A FFF ( evaluated) and Type 6 AFFF (if evaluated) fresh water and sea water solutions are subjected to the following evaluations after exposure to 65 2.0 C for 10 days (stability). a. Spreading coefficient b. Foamability c. Film formation and sealability d. Fire performance (28 sq ft) e- Stratification f. Precipitation 6 AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 US00006391 In addition, samples of products on the QPL are mixed with the candidate fresh water and sea water solutions (compatibility) and stored at elevated temperatures as above (stability) before being subjected to the following tests: a. Foamability b. Film formation and sealability c. Fire Performance (28 sq ft) d. Stratification e. Precipitation The spreading coefficient is determined with reference to cyclohexane in accordance with the following relationship: qa/b= b - 5a - 5], where: 8^ = Spreading coefficient 8b = Surface tension of cyclohexane, as determined under "Surface Tension" below, 8a = Surface tension of AFFF solution, as determined under "Surface Tension" below, 8i = Interfacial tension between liquids, as determined under "Interfacial Tension" below. Surface tension - The surface tension of 3 + 0.05% of Type 3 or 6 + 0.1 % of Type 6 by volume in distilled water, as appropriate, and of reagent grade cyclohexane is determined with a DuNoy tensiometer, or equal, at 23 2.0 C in accordance with ASTM D 1331. Interfacial tension - The interfacial tension between 3 0.05% of Type 3 or 6 0.1 % of Type 6 by volume in distilled water, as appropriate, and reagent grade cyclohexane is determined with a DuNoy tensiometer, or equal, at 23 + 2.0 C until the readings come to equilibrium and are in accordance with ASTM D1331. Stratification and precipitation measurements are done on all the compatibility solutions and stability solutions. The presence of stratification is determined by visual examination of the candidate sample contained in glass cylinders. The amount of precipitation is determined by centrifuging 100 mL samples after thorough agitation in accordance with the primary method of ASTM D96. Foamability of the candidate samples is checked by means of a special 2 gal/min test nozzle. The basic nozzle, as made by National Foam System, Inc., Lionville, PA (or equal) is modified and the nozzle inlet pressure and solution temperature maintained as quoted in the MILSPEC. The method and procedure followed are is accordance with NFPA 412. Foamability is run on both fresh and sea water solutions of the candidate concentrate (Type 3 and/or Type 6). Film formation and sealability are usually conducted on the candidate samples once they have passed the 28-ft2 fire tests. This measurement assures that the films formed over the fuel by the candidate samples are capable of maintaining an effective vapor seal to prevent further vaporization of the fuel during fire fighting. The test is performed on the film-forming liquid without most of the residual foam that can be generating when delivering the agent. There is a container cap opening torque requirement of 50 in.-lbs max. This requirement assures that a sailor under the duress of fire fighting is able to open an AFFF container with relative ease. The 28-ft2fire tests are conducted in a level, circular pan 6 ft in diameter, fabricated from 0.25 in. thick steel with a 4 in. high side. A shallow water layer is used to protect the pan bottom and ensure complete coverage of the area with fuel. The nozzle used for foam application is the 2 gal/min device used for the foamability measurements. The foam from the candidate agent is generated at 23 5.0 C from AFFF solutions made with fresh or sea water, as required, at various concentration values given in Tables 2 through 4. Table 2 gives requirements and results for fresh concentrate at full, half and quintuple (sea water only) strengths. Table 3 gives requirements and results for aged concentrates at full and half strengths. Table 4 gives requirements and results for aged solutions at full strength only. Table 5 gives _: AETWC 2001 October 16-18,2001 7 US00006392 therequirements and results for concentrate S iiS S r currently on the QPL. To perform the compatibil ty t o tests tte candtda g ^ jn a , and then used to prepare the solutions used for fire performance testing. Certain procedures must be foilowed. Ten gallons a s TM D439. The fuel shall be dumped within a 3-sec per od g and extinguished as allowed to burn freely for 10 sec. After the preburn peri , 9Q sec even if the f,re has extin- expeditiously as possible, continuing foam aPP1' ^ 1 guished. The actual fire extinguishing time ^ extinguishment requirement criteria in pan (7 f t in diameter with (25%) of the total area is involved in flames. r s u h * t o iontainmen, of the fuel on a ,.d t0 enslire complete coverage of the area with the fuel. The nozzle usearer toa pf 2 g a l/S n device specified previously and operated at a gage pressure of 100 Ib/m shall requir- The foam is generated at 23 5.0 C from M l t o " "!1' o ^ m S g ^ o A S 'n d D ^ S ^ 'T h e fuel is dumped trte. Fifteen gallons of unleaded gasolme fuel is us g a,,d allowed a preburn of into the area in less than 60 sec. ignited m less thani 30 s a f te r t o i du p g, ^ ^^ Within 60 sec of the completion of fire tests, except that the bumback area shall be 12.5 ft (25 *>). ^ history and evolution of the afff military specification In , 961, researchers a, the Naval Research potential firefighting capabilities of a new faTM>( Initial studies showed that foams made from " hydrocarbon fuel fire, providing then in use. The supCTiori.y of these new f e n t s aqueous film on the fuel surface which resu Film Forming Foam (AFFF).- A p a , rapjdly spread over the surface of a fimes relative to the protein-based foams >their tendency to form (erm ,,Light WaKr ,, ..AqUeous technology was filed in September 1963 [2], later. The final patent was awarded in lune 1966, w,,,, r e i g n e d J U - , - " Co ^ i S S l t e r the initial specification had limited pracuca appl. a,,on because . wasonly ^ ^ ^, year, a formulation was developed that r^ u c e d the n r a m r e n conventional foams then m use by the US mihta y. g at'NAS Miramar, CA, confirmed a 1968, a joint effort margin of superiority over protem-based foaw so X n T ia ^ a s te lie v L l m be compatible with sea by NRL and the 3M Company produced a formu rnnfirmed the compatibility with sea water. Testing a. NAS Jacksonville, F L , ^ m b e r of ^ S p i n s well as Naval water [5] and demonstrated the efficacy of deploying the new agent on ivavy P US00006393 Air Stations. The report of the Jacksonville tests [6] contained the initial draft of a proposed specifi cation for sea water compatible AFFF, which was formally issued as Mil-F-24385 a year later. As indicated in Table 7, numerous revisions and amendments to the original specifications have occurred over the years. Table 8 summarizes the significant changes to AFFF physical and chemical limits that were incorporated in revisions to Mil-F-23905. Similarly, Table 9 summarizes changes in the required physical and chemical properties that have been made to Mil-F-24385 from 1969 to the present version dated January 7, 1992. The most important changes are as follows: The conversion from a 25% mixture ratio to a 6% mixture ratio in 1967 The incorporation of corrosion limits in 1969 The establishment of maximum chloride limits and the incorporation of a dry chemical compatibility test in 1971 The 1972 adoption of a minimum pH value of "7" The incorporation of a "spreading coefficient" as well as environmental limits in 1977 The inclusion of a Type 3 concentrate (allowing a 3% mixture ratio) in 1981 The tightening of the BOD20/COD ratio in 1992 TABLE 7. EVOLUTION OF THE AFFF MILITARY SPECIFICATION. Mil-F-23905 23905A Amendment 1 Amendment 2 23905B Mil-F-24385 (replaced Mil-F-23905) Amendment 1 Amendment 2 Amendment 3 Amendment 4 Amendment 5 Amendment 6 Amendment 7 Amendment 8 24385A 24385B Amendment 1 24385C Amendment 1 Amendment 2 Amendment 3 Amendment 4 24385D 24385E 24385F 11/1/63 3/26/65 8/13/65 9/1/66 4/25/67 11/21/69 5/11/70 6/25/70 7/7/71 1/14/72 2/17/72 6/29/73 7/24/73 6/20/74 5/2/77 5/25/78 5/16/79 3/12/81 6/5/81 12/4/81 4/26/82 3/3/83 10/26/89 11/30/90 1/7/92 In addition to changes in specific physical and chemical limits, there have been considerable enhance ments to the required level of fire performance. The evolution of stricter fire performance criteria is shown in Table 10. The incorporation of ever-increasing fire performance can be illustrated by the reduction over time in the "maximum allowable extinguishment application density," which is defined as the maximum gallons of AFFF solution required per unit area of fuel surface to achieve total extin guishment. The maximum allowable density dropped from 0.1 gal/ft2 (1963) to 0.08 (1971), to 0.054 (1977), and finally to the current limit of 0.036 for the 28-ft2 fire and 0.033 for the 50-ft2 fire. Similarly, the "minimum 40-sec summation" has increased from 285 to its current level of 320. The 40-sec summation imposes a requirement for very rapid fire knockdown. Finally, there has been a corresponding AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 9 US00006394 TABLE 8. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO PHYSICAL AND ^ TM M^ ^ 1^ ITtSf r ,, MIL-F-23905 (WEP) FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT, LIGHT WATER Tin i ITD CONCENTRATE [21. 'Revision (3/26/65) Mixture Ratio: 25% (fresh water) Viscosity: 14-28 cs @ 25 C Surface Tension: 14-22 dynes/cm (1/370) Requirement for "fuel vapor sealability' ' Revision (4/25/67) Mixture Ratio: 6% (fresh water) pH: 4.2 min Viscosity: 50-150 cs @25 C 300 cs @ 4.4 C _S_ur_f_a_ce Tension: 20 dynes/cm max (1/370) Requirement for "film formation and sealability" Requirement for "foamability" (Expansion Ratio 7:1 minimum) (1/4 Drainage Time 2.5 min) tightening of the allowable "burnback" (the time required for the fire to spread from the burnback pan to involve 25% of the original fire area). The minimum burnback time has been mcreased from 240 sec 1969 to the current limit of 360 sec for both the 28 and 50-ft fires. Fire testing is also required to demonstrate adequate performance of "aged" AFFF concentrate and "aeed" AFFF solution ("aging"is simulated by storage at 65 C for 10 days), and also to show th concentratTfiomone1manufacturer can be safely mixed with any other concentrate Drv chemical compatibility must also be demonstrated by successfully passing a burnback test in the "A" revision to the current specifica>toiowndCinT'1977atdodaitsisunraelafdreqtueast`e performance for SmSis-pSroSporStioSnedfoamToludom l u h e time, Navy shipboard foam proportioned were very r ^ ^ ^ OOMldered necessary to assure some level of firefighting capability for both lean and nch solutions Tables 11 and 12 summarize the performance required by revision "A" and the change incorporated revision "C," which still applies in the current version of the specification. As indicated in Table 12, foam solution at "half strength" (3% of Type 6, or 1.5% ofType 3) must fch eve S extinguishments in 45 sec as opposed to only 30 sec for a full strength foam solutton A solution'of^ f i r S , , strength (30% of a Type 6, or 15% of a Type 3), made * ^ L a achieve total extinguishments of the same size fire within 55 sec. Maximum allowable burnback are also shown. RATIONALE FOR SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The establishment of specific limits on AFFF physical and chemical characteristics, as well as the impoImon t f S I 1 lev ek o f fire performance, has evolved in an attempt to provide t h e b t flammable liouid firefighting agent for military applications. While some requirements have resulted from the unique nature of Navy shipboard foam systems, most changes that^have^resulted ^ r th^ y^arS ^ beneficial improvements to common shore applications as well [7], Table 13 provides the underlying rationale for various requirements in the current AFFF specification. 10 AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 US00006395 TABLE 9. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL LIMITS: MIL-F-24385 (NAVY) FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT, AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAM (AFFF) LIQUID CONCENTRATE, FOR FRESH AND SEA WATER [1], Original Spec Version (11/21/69) Mixture Ratio: 6% (fresh and sea water) pH: 4-8 Surface Tension: 18 dynes/cm max Interfacial Surface Tension: 5 dynes/cm Corrosion Limits (for steel, aluminum alloy, CRES, 90/10 copper/nickel) Inter-Agent Compatibility Requirements Stability of Aged Agent_________________________1/4 Drainage Time Raised to 3 Min Amendment 1 (5/11/70) Increased the "pour opening" to 1Vi inch Amendment 3 (7/7/71) Lowered 1/4 Drainage Time to 2.5 min Added "no visible pitting" of CRES 304 Limit of 100 ppm max for chlorides Dry Chemical Compatibility test Precipitate < 1% by volume for aged concentrate Amendment 5 (2/17/72) Changed pH to 7-8.5 "A" Revision (5/2/77) Spreading Coefficient limit of 3 minimum Expansion ratio reduced to 6:1 Bronze and 70/30 copper nickel added to corrosion requirements Corrosion expanded to "general" and "localized" limits Environmental limits (TL50> 1500 ppm, BOD2o and COD < 500,000 mg/1) Cans must be "stackable" and "self supporting" "B" Revision (5/25/78) Environmental limits modified (COD < 500,00 mg/1, BOD2o/COD>.85) Fluorine content shall not deviate more than 15% Cap opening torque max of 50 in-lbs "C" Revision (3/12/81) Type 3 concentrate added to spec (unique Type 3 limits added to spec) Total halides limit (250 ppm for Type 6, 500 ppm for Type 3) Current viscosity and toxicity limits established Color coding for containers (blue-Type 6, green-Type 3) "D" Revision (10/26/89) Revision issued but never implemented ("E" re-invoked "C" version) "F ' Revision (1/7/92) Environmental limits changed (BOD2o/COD > .65) Expansion Ratio reduced to 5:1 Changes in Fire Performance Requirements AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 H US00006396 TABLE 10. EVOLUTION OF FIRE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. Spec Version Spec Date Fire Flow Max Area Rate Control (ft2) (gpm) Time Max Ext Max Control Time Appl Dens (secs) (gal/ft Max Ext Appl Dens (gal/ft2) Min Min 40 BB Sec Time Sum (secs) (secs) 23905 24385 Amend 3 Amend 8 24385 A 24385 B 24385 C (To present) 11/1/63 11/21/69 7/7/71 6/20/74 5/2/77 5/25/78 3/12/81 NR* 28 400 1260 28 50 28 1260 28 50 1260 28 50 NR 2 16 50 2 2 2 60 2 2 60 2 2 NR NR 30 30 NR 40 NR 30 NR NR 30 NR NR NR 84 NR NR 65 NR 45 NR 30 50 NR 30 50 NR NR .02 .02 NR .027 NR .024 NR NR .024 NR NR NR .10 NR NR .08 NR .054 NR .036 .033 NR .036 .033 NR NR 285 285 NR 225 NR 285 NR 300 300 NR 320 NR 240 NR NR 240 240 320 NR 320 300 NR 360 360 *Not required -PROPORTIONED FOAM SOLUTION: MIL-F-24385A (28-FT2FIRE). TABLE 11. TEST OF MIS 50% (SW) Max Ext Time BumbackTime 45 sec 320 sec (min) 65 sec 240 sec (min) 55 sec 100 sec (min) -PROPORTIONED FOAM SOLUTION: MIL-F-24385C TO PRESENT TABLE 12. TEST OF MIS (28 FT2FIRE) Max Ext Time Bumback Time 30 sec 360 sec (min) 45 sec 300 sec (min) 55 sec 200 sec (min) references o , Mil F 94385 (Navv) "Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film-Forming 1. Military Specification, Mil-F-24385 (N vy), ,, 2] November, 1969 (and all Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate, For Fresh and Sea Water, z i inu , revision and amendments thereto). . ,, R- h fi 2. United States P a , . 3,258,3," L. Tuve and Edwin J. Jablonski, assignors to the United States ox Amer f 5" Secretary of the Navy, June 28,1996. ,, T -d _ t , Mil F 93905 (WEP) "Fire Extinguishing Agent, Light water L q 3. and amendments thereto). 4. Peterson, H.G., Jablonski, E.J., Neil, R J U G f e Test Studies of Light Water and Protem Type Foams, NRL Report 05/5, E me Peterson, H.B., "A Brief Sum nwy of Fire^ests with -Light Water" Concentrates for Use w,,h 5. Sea Water," NRL Letter Report, October 15, 1968. 12 AETWC2001 October 16-18, 2001 US00006397 TABLE 13. RATIONALE FOR MIL-SPEC REQUIREMENTS. Spec Requirement Refractive index Viscosity pH Corrosivity Total halides Environmental limits Accelerated aging test Sea water compatibility Inter-agent compatibility Half and 5 x strength Dry Chem Compatibility Torque to remove cap Packaging Qualification testing Quality assurance tests Spreading coefficient Film formation/sealability Fire extinguishments tests Bumback tests Rationale for Requirement Enables use of reffactometer to measure solution concentrations in field (method recommended in NEPA 412) Assures accurate performance through pumps and orifices Assures concentrate is not acidic or excessively basic Limits corrosion of and deposit build-up on metallic components Limits corrosion Reduces environmental impact Assures a long shelf life Assures satisfactory performance with brackish or sea water Allows storage tanks to be topped off with concentrates of different manufacturers Assures adequate performance for mis-proportioned foam Allows "twin agent" application Able to remove cap by hand in field Assures uniformity of containers and ease of handling (strength, stackable, color, size, pour opening, tamper proof seal) Establish conformance with requirements Assure continued conformance of future lots Provides film formation capability Assures film formation on fuel Ultimate measure of effectiveness Assures foam stability and firefighter safety Darwin, R. L,, and Jablonski, E. J., "Full-Scale Fire Test Studies of Sea Water-Compatible "Light Water" as Related to Shipboard Fire Protection," Naval Ship Engineering Center, August 25, 1969. Scheffey, J.L., Darwin, R.L., Leonard, J.T., Fulper, C.R., Ouellette, R.J., and Siegmann, C.W., "A Comparative Analysis of Film Forming Fluoroprotein Foam (FFFP) and Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Services," Hughes Associates, Inc., Report 2108-A01-90 for the NFPA Aviation Committee, June 1990. AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 13 US00006398 Headquarters U.S. A ir Force Integrity - Service - Excellence Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression Systems (AFFF ^ versus High Expansion Foam) U .S . A IR F O R C E Mr. Fred Walker 16 Oct 2001 U.5.AIW FO W CB Fire Suppression System s - A FFF versus H i-Ex In teg rity - Service - Excellence i > A ircraft H angar Fire Suppression System s - A FFF versus Hi-Ex F-15 in Saudi Maintenance Hangar I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e E x c e ll e n c e 14 AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 US00006399 A ircraft Hangar Fire Suppression Systems - A FFF versus Hi-Ex 3M announcem ent caused concern in AF fo r fu tu re o f our investm ent in a irc ra ft hangar fixed system s Primary firefighting chemical in hangars has been AFFF 3M Corporation, the leading manufacturer of AFFF, will cease manufacturing their surfactant because of toxicity concerns Other AFFF manufacturers use different surfactants which are closely related and being evaluated by EPA and industry next two years Integrity - Service - Excellence A ircraft H angar Fire Suppression System s - A FFF versus Hi-Ex J o in tly w ith N avy w orked w ith EPA and m an ufactu rers to d evelo p a p ossible tim e lin e to possible restricted a v a ila b ility Regulatory restrictions would take roughly 10 years to begin to restrict availability Unilateral action by a m anufacturers) could inp act sooner T he J o in t A F /N avy p o s itio n is w e can expect u nlim ited a v a ila b ility o f A FFF until th e years 2010 Future after that date is open to scientific a id political pressures Integrity - Service - Excellence Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression * Systems - AFFF versus Hi-Ex S . AIR FO R C E # Current hangars are b u ilt fo r a service life o f 50 plus years Current DOD facility replacement rate is over 100 years C urrent hangars suppression system s are b uilt fo r a service life of 30 to 50 years It does not appear prudent to continue investing in new AFFF-based system s given potential for future regulatory controls/lim its I n t e g r i t y S e r v i c e - E x c e lle n c e AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 15 US00006400 i J Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression V U.S.AIR FORCE Systems - A FFF versus Hi-Ex * ______________ W here to go? C urrently o n ly hig h- expansion (H i-E x) foam approved in th e national consensus codes fo r use in hangars instead o f AFFF Form ally w ater deluge w as approved fo r hangar applications --but w as dropped because th e re are docum ented cases w here such system w ere o ver w helm ed Begin research effo rt to develop new approach to hangars - N avy had ju st com pleted a $5 m illio n plus effo rt w hich clearly dem onstrated you need foam s u p p re s s io n _____________ . I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e ........................................ Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression Systems - AFFF versus Hi-Ex U .S. A IB F O R C E __________________ H igh- expansion (H i-E x) foam chosen and provides these im m ediate benefits M eets c u re n t consensus model code requirem ents, avoids th e use governm ent/m ilitary unique criteria Existing com m ercial technology to support installation in all sizes o f hangers fro m a variety of foam and equipm ent m anufacturers. 25 to 50 reduction in cost over AFFF systems Integrity - Service - Excellence Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression *1- S ystem s-A FFF versus Hi-Ex OS-AIRKIHCB ...... AF/1LE approved policy w ith coordination of all MAJCOlWCEs to: Require Hi-Ex in all new aircraft hangars Implement Hi-Ex in all projects under design Evaluate all awarded and under construction projects and implement HEF where cost effective. .... I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e ________________ __ 16 AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 US00006401 Aircraft Hangar Fire Suppression <+ U .S. A IR FO R C E Systems - AFFF versus Hi-Ex * Integrity - Service - Excellence AETWC 2001 October 16-18, 2001 7 US00006402