Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

A Chattawayw, R Gail* & D J Spring’

‘Kidde International, Mathisen Way, Coinbrook, Slough, SL3 OHB UK

Tel: +44 1753 683245 Fax: +44 1753 683810

* Kidde Deugra GmbH, HalkestraRe 30, D-40880, Ratingen, Germany

Tel: +49 2102 405142 Fax: +49 2102 405151

1. Introduction
Dry chemicals remain one of the most efficient extinguishing media available.
On a weight basis, a dry chemical system kequently outperforms any gaseous
system, including Halon, although their applicability to manned areas is not as
wide.

In the US dry chemical fixed systems are used in many applications, including
gasoline filling stations, restaurant cooker protection, mining vehicles and
other associated machnery. ‘ I h s paper will give examples of typical systems,
and a brief overview of some of the relevant legislative standards.

In Europe a new “Machinery Directive” calls for all new machines to have
some form of fire protection system designed in ffom the start. The efficiency
of dry chemicals, in particular the pre-formed Aerosols (XAs), makes them an
obvious choice where space and weight are at a premium. Applications where
XAs are being used include the protection of spark erosion machines, and
walk-in h e cupboards. Again, typical systems will be illustrated, and the
relevant legislation reviewed and contrasted with the situation in the US.

2. US Viewpoint

2.1 Legislation: NFPA 17, UL1254 & UL300

NFPA 17 [l] is a general overview standard pertaining to dry chemical usage.
It indicates where standard dry chemical (also referred to as BC powder or
sodium bicarbonate) and where multipurpose dry chemical (ABC powder,
monoammonium phosphate, MAP) should be used. It also differentiates
between total flooding and local application, and gives guidelines for both
suppression approaches. Unlike NFPA 12 (the equivalent standard for gaseous
suppressants) no concentration requirements are given. This is because the

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed

21 6 ~alon n n ~ ~ aConferem
O p l ~ ~ n ~ T e ~WoMng l 6-8 May 1997
 suppression efficiency of a dry chemical depends in part on its chemical
identity (including its purity) and in part on its particle size distribution.
Therefore, all standards for dry chemical systems are based on the results of
specific tests.

UL1254 [2] is a standard for pre-engineered dry chemical systems used in:-
a) Industrial total flooding protection systems;
b) Class B local application protection systems;
c) Restaurant cooking area protection systems;
d) Automobile service station fuelling area protection systems;
e) Industrial paint spray booth protection systems;
f) Off-road vehicle protection systems;

The standard includes pertinent fire tests to evaluate potential dry chemical
suppression systems in each of the above areas. In addition, other
performance-related tests are carried out including-
a) Hydraulic testing of cylinders;
b) Elevated temperature ( m a . operating temp for 30 days);
c) Temperature cycling;
d) Salt spray corrosion test;
e) 500 Cycle operation test;
r) One year leak test;
g) Mounting device test;
h) Flexible hose low temperature test (where applicable);
i) Vibration and shock tests;
etc.

UL300 [3] is the standard containing the fire extinguishmg tests specifically
for restaurant cooking areas. Standard fire threats encompassed include:-
a) Deep fat kyers;
b) Griddles;
c) Broilers (many varieties including gas, electric, lava pumice, upright erc.);
d) Woks.

The standard specifies how extinguishing tests should be carried out including
fuel type, loading temperature measurement etc.

2.2 General Industrial Systems (total flooding vs. local application)

NFPA 17 states that if the area is predominantly enclosed, with the sum of the
uncloseable openings not exceeding 15% of the surface area of all the walls,
then a total flooding system may be employed, subject to the provisions below.
If the area of uncloseable opening is less than 1%, then no additional dry
chemical suppressant is required. Between 1 and 5%, extra dry chemical

Halon Oplmns Technical WorkNng Conference 6-8May 1997 217

 suppressant is required, and if the area of uncloseable openings exceeds 5%,
then a screening system, or approved local application system is required.

If the above conditions cannot be met then the system is designated local
application, and needs to be tested as such.

2.3 Restaurant Systems

a 3 0 0 describes the various cooking area fire threats that a Restaurant Fire
Protection system (dry chemical or wet chemical) needs to be able to
extinguish. In addition, there are provisions for nozzle spacing, nozzle height
from the lire threat, and provisions for the suppression system not to cause
splashing of the hot fat.

2.4 Gasoline Filling Stations

The dry chemical fire suppression systems used are typified by the Kidde
IND-25 and IND-50 cylinders, utilising sodium bicarbonate (gasoline is a
typical Class B risk) and 2 & 4 nozzles respectively. These are pre-engineered
systems, each cylinder being used to protect a designated area. The starting
module (a single IND-50 cylinder and four overhead nozzles) can protect a
single “island”, 6’ x 12’ and its associated parking area , as shown in Figure 1.
A second IND-50 module can then be added to protect the “end area”, also
shown in Figure 1. Thus the total area covered by a basic IND-50 cylinder
containing 501b. of sodium bicarbonate is 288 square feet, whereas a two
cylinder system can protect an additional area of 432 square feet. Further
examples of more complex modular systems may be found in reference 4. In
addition to the overhead nozzles, “groundsweep” nozzles can be used to
provide extra protection. In certain circumstances further modules may be
mandated to allow for special hazards, such as prevailing wind etc. Again the
reader is referred to the instruction manual for further details [4].

2.5 Paint Spray Booths

Paint spray booths are divided into two categories: open face and enclosed.
They fall with the “General Industrial” section of UL. 1254. Both types are
usually large and complex enough to need a multiple system as described in
2.2 above, requiring a combination of total flood, screening or local
application [ 5 ] . A typical suppression system for a paint spray booth (14’4” x
10’-0” x 9’-10”) is shown in Figure 2.

An analysis of the hazard reveals that the open face represents 13% of the total
surface area, so a “total-flooding plus screening” approach is acceptable [1,5].
 The design codes then define how many of each class of nozzles are required,
and how many detectors are needed (one). The total system comprises:-
3 x IND-50 cylinders;
1 x IND-25 cylinder;
8 x screening nozzles protecting the open face of the booth;
2 x total flood nozzles protecting the work area;
2 x duct/plenum nozzles protecting the plenum area;
2 x ductlplenum nozzles protecting the duct area;

Not all paint spray booth systems are this complex, but this serves to illustrate
the approach used.

3. European Viewpoint

3.7 New Legislation

The principal new legislation concerning fixed dry chemical systems (as
opposed to hand extinguishers) in Europe is the Machinery Directive currently
being formulated by working group CENiTCiWG 16 N 171 [6]. It is a full
ranging EU directive which will eventually be integrated into many other
standards, but is at the moment still very much at the draft stage. The scope of
the directive is shown by the organisation chart (Figure 3 ) outlining proposed
fire-risk reduction measures in Europe.

The approach is to perform a risk assessment, and if necessary, take

appropriate steps to reduce the risk to an acceptable value. This may involve
elimination of ignition sources or the use of non-flammable components, or
other “passive” fire protection measures, or it may require the inclusion of an
active fire suppression system. It is the latter approach which is discussed here.

This directive does not explicitly call for dry chemical fire extinguishing
systems, but in Germany in particular, the use of gaseous fire-fighting agents
which have perceived detrimental atmospheric effects (either ODP or GWP) is
outlawed. Hence there is an increased use of other forms of fire protection:
conventional sprinklers, water mist, inert gas systems, COz and, of course, dry
chemical.

Currently the retrofit market is not being addressed; only new machines will he
covered by this proposed legislation.

3.2 Extinguishing Aerosols (XAs)

Extinguishing Aerosols ( U s ) are special class of dry chemical fire
extinguishant. They are chemically similar to conventional BC powders, being

Halon OplionsTechnicalWohlng Conference 6-8May 1997 219

 based on potassium bicarbonate, but are much more efficient, owing to their
much smaller particle size distribution (1-5 pm, compared with 20-150 pm for
standard dry chemical powders). They are made by a unique spray drylng
process developed recently by Kidde International [7]. In addition to their
small size, the unique morphology of XAs (loosely aggregated hollow spheres)
gives them a tremendous surface area, further enhancing their fire suppression
properties. In certain circumstances, they can be up ten times more efficient
than Halon 1301. As the current fixed dry chemical suppression technology in
place in Europe is much less advanced than in the USA, it seemed logcal to
launch XAs (as KD-A-96) into a less developed market, given their extremely
high efficiency. The following sections describe two potential applications of
this novel fire suppression technology.

3.3 Spark Erosion Machines

One category of machinery that combines a hgh fire risk with a high capital
value is that of spark erosion machnery. These use a high voltage to cause a
spark which erodes or etches precision machned components. These small
work-pieces get hot during this process, and are cooled in a bath of mineral oil.
Thus all three of the comers of the fire triangle are present: a source of ignition
(the spark), a source of fuel (the hot mineral oil), and oxygen.

Figure 4 shows a typical spark erosion system. The overall volume of the spark
erosion chamber was ca. 5.4 m3 and the oil bath area was 1 mz. Kidde Deugra
have successfully demonstrated suppression of real spark erosion fires in this
machine using only 200 g of potassium bicarbonate XA. This equates to
approximately 37 g/m3, although the chamber is not sealed, so this suppression
scenario is a cross between total flooding and local application.

The choice of an aerosol suppressant was made largely due to the space
consideration within the machne. There is not sufficient space to install an
inert gas or CO, system. Furthermore, the high pressure used in these systems
would have blown the burning oil outside the oil bath container, causing a
hazardous situation. Therefore a “low” pressure system was employed (20
bar), and to ensure even dispersion of suppressant, a spray ring with many
small holes was chosen. This approach was successful, as suppression was
achieved without spraying burning oil outside the chamber.

3.4 Fume Hood Protection

Another category of “hgh-risk”that has been successfully tackled with XAs is
that of difficult or dangerous fuels in full height “walk-in” fume hoods. These
larger fume hoods are often encountered in pharmaceutical, medicinal or fine
chemical research and development laboratories, where large quantities of

220 Halon OptimsTechnicai Walking Conference 6 4 May 1997

extremely flammable solvents may be used, possibly well above their flash-
point. Fire occurrence is a reality not a potential hazard.

In a recent series of tests at Kidde International Research, Colnbrook, a mock-

up of a typical fume hood was constructed, as shown in Figure 5, and a
number of fire tests carried out. Table 1 below summarises the results obtained
for a variety of fuel threats. It should be noted that the figures in this table are
not necessarily minimum extinguishing concentrations; no attempt was made
to optimise the suppression system, and there was not sufficient time or (in
some cases) fuel to bracket the pasdfail criterion accurately.

Extinguishing
Fuel Concentration
(E m”)*
n-heptane 62
diethyl ether 93
methyl magnesium chloride in THF 93
n-butyl lithium in hexane 93
I1 11
* Halon 1301 at 5.0 volume% E 330 g m-’
It should also be noted that the last two chemical reagents are air (moisture)
sensitive, and can be pyrophoric, spontaneously combusting in air. During an
initial test, following a successful suppression, re-flash occurred when the
airflow was restored, and the aerosol suppressant removed, thus indicating the
hazardous nature of these materials. However, if the aerosol is allowed to settle
in the vicinity of the fuel, it will inert the fuel, for long enough to allow it cool
to below its autoignition temperature, thus preventing re-ignition.

4. Summary
This brief overview gives some insight into the potential areas of application
of dry chemical suppression systems. In any application where the need for
high suppression efficiency outweighs the need for a truly “clean” agent, dry
chemicals offer many advantages over all other extinguishing media.
Thorough system design, however, is the key to obtaining a safe, reliable
system. In the US, the design codes of NFPA 17, UL 1254 & UL 300 specify
how a system should be designed for optimal fire protection. In Europe, as far
as the use of aerosol suppressants is concerned, that state of affairs is yet to
come. It is an area where Kidde Deugra are working closely with design
authorities and insurance organisations, such as the VdS, with assistance from
Kidde International Research.

Halon OptionsTechnicalWolklng Conference 6-8 May 1997 221

 5. References

[l] Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems NFPA 17,National

Fire Protection Association, 1980.

[2] Standard for Safety UL 31254: Pre-Engineered Dry Chemical

Extinguishing System Units, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Jan 12,
1994.

[3] Standard for Safety UL 300: Fire Extinguishing Systems f o r Protection

of Restaurant Cooking Areas, Fire Testing OL Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. Jan 12, 1994.

[4] Walter Kidde Gas Station Dry Chemical Fire Suppression System
Model IND-50 & IND-25 Instruction Manual, UL-EX2153, Jan 15
1987.

[5] Industrial Dry Chemical Fire Protection System. Installation, Operation

and Maintenance Manual, UL EX-2153, Nov 1994.

[6] European Directive 89/392/EWG “Safety of Machnery-Fire

Prevention and Protection” Draft Issue March, 1997.

[7l A Chattaway, R G Dunster, R Gall & D J Spring; “The Evaluation of

Non-Pyrotechnically Generated Aerosols as Fire Suppressants”,
Proceedings of the 1995 Halon Options Technical Working
Conference, May 9-1 1 1996, Albuquerque, pp 473-483.

222 Halon OpllonsTechnicalWaning Conference 6-0 May 1997

 U U
a
L
, a,
1
a, L
> a, >
0
I X 0 0
0
a
a, a
L a,
a 2
I
I
E E
a,
c1 a,
v) c1
>
0
v)
v)
0
m 0
m
I
n n
I

- Z
Z
-
U a,
t U
\
w 6 cuc
I

. c, I
cc c, c1
d- .-c .-c
cu 0 0
Q Q
E .-
.- E
a a
* X

Halon OplionSTeChniCal Wohing Conference 6-8 May 1997 223

 +!I-

224 Halon Options Technical Working Conlerence 6-8 May 1997

 W

.-2m
L
.-
m
c
c
._
m
._
m U

m
a
.-
-
C

*$$
v)
w .-??
U
U
3
v)
a
w
2
Z
0
i=
0
3
n
w
U
?L
-
v)
U
W
-
U
LL

..
m
W
U
2
-
(3
LL

Working Conference
Halon OPliOnSTeChn~cal 6-8 May 1997 225
..
9
 Figure 5: Walk-in Fume Hood
0.38 m Y s fan

1
\

D 3 / SoIven t Bar re1

* /Slotted Floor
4

A..F Fire Threats

1..4 Nozzles

Halon OptionsTeChniCalWorking Conference 6-8 May 1997 227