1403 and Class A foam

Replies to This Discussion

永久链接Reply byJeff CotneronMarch 19, 2008 at 6:37pm

This is a very good question that someone is going to have to address on the 1403 committee. I will be very honest with you about our use of CAFS during training fires. We don't meet the standard on the 95gpm flow. We use two attack lines, both with CAFS. Our flows are close to 65-70gpm on the 1 3/4 line and around 80-85gpm on the 2 inch line. One CAFS line is used by the attack crew and the other is ready for the fueler/lighter. A back-up line with water at 120gpm flow and a second larger back-up line is always in place and ready for use. We use CAFS all day long and have great success with its use. With the use of CAFS, it reduces the water needed during a training fire. It is not uncommon to go all day and not use more than 300-400 gallons of water. We try to train just as we would handle the real thing. We use CAFS on anything thats on fire, so therefore we use CAFS for training. As a training officer and my understanding in the use of Class "A" Foam, I'm willing to take that risk. But, we follow the 1403 standard on every other aspect of the live fire training. We don't play the heat game during training to see how hot or big we can make the fire. We only burn pallets and straw, nothing else period. Our training is focused on team work, moving the hose around inside the structure, working in a smoky environment and nozzle techniques. If we focus on the basic stuff, I think we are much better off than trying to see who can handle the most heat. Thanks Jeff

永久链接Reply byKristofer DeMauroonMarch 20, 2008 at 9:42am

托尼，

好话题。我对使用CAF或类“ A”泡沫的情绪混合。A类泡沫的使用一直是我们部门在Wildland和Grass Fires上的优势。我只看到对结构火灾的有效性有限。尽管我们的车队中没有CAF系统，但我们的邻近部门使用它们。CAF系统中涉及的操作和机制似乎持续存在问题。我的钻机上的任何泡沫都是来自二十个桶和五加仑的桶。我们使用的导管需要200 psi入口压力。如果钻机流动多条线，这会导致一些问题。我喜欢专门用于仅泡沫操作。 Back to structures, it may that most contents in a typical residential structure are not class A anymore. With fires growing faster, and reaching flashover sooner, we need gpms to overcome the rise. I do not mean to state that the use of CAF is not effective, we have found that the initial expense for a system could be used for other equipment. I work in an environment, that for the most part, is only 600 feet from any hydrant.

永久链接Reply by托尼Piontekon2008年3月20日上午10:26

备份CAFS线路将使您按照1403的规定，这也是我过去处理的方式。我同意您必须训练所使用的东西。听起来您的脚在1403年就扎实地种植了！我想听听您的更多信息，如果您可以对其他线程发表评论，这将不胜感激。像真实的东西一样训练...我喜欢它...一个概念！！！

永久链接Reply by托尼PiontekonMarch 20, 2008 at 10:31am

I have some of the same concerns...a false sense of security in things I do not know much about. And I find that most departments with CAFS cannot explain to me any more than I already know...are the salesmen/manufacturers not training them? Seems like an overreliance on a technology to me, but I'd like to know I have gpms behind me, not some foam concentrate. Your point on contents within a structure is a valid point as well. We're walking into petroleum storage facilities, not residences. Nice thread!

永久链接Reply byJay Robinsonon2008年3月21日下午5:15

Forgive my ignorance guys. Seattle is new to the CAFS arena. I know that we have a few new engines with CAFS capabilities but I'm not aware of any training that has taken place. Is there an issue with GPM and CAFS systems? We typically pump 100 psi at the tip. For AFFF we have 120 gpm eductors with a similar 200 psi inlet pressure. My question is, can you overdrive the CAF system resulting in poor foam concentration? Do we need to gate down? As for live fire, our rigs at the state academy do not have the capability. We concentrate on teaching the recruits to monitor their heat conditions and be able to scientificaly justify their entrance into a space based upon the size (conversion space) of the room, size of fire involved (IOWA verses NFA) and heat levels (pre-flashover conditions). As you know pallets and hay can get us close to normal fire loading of 8,000 btu's per lb per sq. ft. but until they learn the fire chemistry and behavior as well as the proper water application, there is no reason to over tax them with CAF systems.

预先感谢您的投入，

Jrob

永久链接Reply by托尼Piontekon2008年3月21日下午5:38

标准需要至少95流量……一些啊f the smaller handlines will not have this due to the large proportions of foam and air. The foam will be good, but the cooloing effects of the water will not be there. I cannot get an answer from Ansul (foam producer) or Hale (pumps) as to how this would equate...hence it does not meet the standard. AFFF or class B foam is 94-99% water, vapor barrier AND water cooling effects. CAFS do not have these properties, or at least, no one can tell me this. It does work on fire, BIG fire, I've seen it. According to the standard, there is no exception to the 95 gpm flow rate. And to me, this is a bit low in todays structures, even if we stick with pallets and hay. We don't use it on our handlines, we've increased to 150gpm minimums, why is the training standard so low? If anyone can shed some light on the CAFS question, PLEASE chime in.

永久链接Reply byKristofer DeMauroonMarch 22, 2008 at 12:45pm

JRob,

我相信，Mistery是CAFS的一个问题是，我们（消防服务）试图像我们将A级或AFFF一样使用它。IT（CAFS）并非如此工作。一些人使用的销售点是减少水需求，从而使其非常适合农村运营。泡沫不会转换为蒸汽。它只能将氧气与火中分开。没有冷却，不转动蒸汽，吸收热能。我只是根据自己的经验，无论是在训练还是在真正的火灾方面讲话。如果您可以帮助我们了解CAF，请做。下次在Trainig Ground告诉我们CAFS钻机时。也许我们更有可能缺少一些东西。

永久链接Reply byMark CumminsonJuly 15, 2009 at 2:46pm

CAFS makes very tiny bubbles. These bubbles are made with thin films of wet water. They absorb heat and reach steam temperature twenty times faster than a solid water droplet. Bubbles don't burn, but they can capture CO2 by chemical action with the surfactants in the foaming agents. The controled production of steam and CO2 with CAFS flows extinguishes more fire that twenty times more water. That's why you see water running down the street when you don't use CAFS.
Your problem with CAFS will be how to run your big water pump at slow enough rpm to not burn it up with such small water flows. (50 gpm and LESS) You also need to train how to put your finger in the CAFS stream to create a fan pattern for interior fire fighting. The straight stream needs to be unrestricted from the reducer tips, Let the bubbles do their work. I have never burned a bubble.

永久链接Reply byBrian ArnoldonJuly 15, 2009 at 3:29pm

标记，
It still doesn't answer Tony's original question of how you meet the NFPA 1403 standard of providing a min. of 95gpm. Do you back up the CAFS with a line that flows 95gpm or more? If you have nothing but CAFS lines on the ground during Live Fire Training you have not met the standard. I understand how it works but it still doesn't meet the standard.

In our limited CAFS training, we back it up with a 1 3/4" SB line and generally have a biff line with the firestarters for a little added protection. Unfortunately, like Kris posted earlier not many departments around us run with CAFS and rely on class A foams in the 5 gallon buckets and eductors.

永久链接Reply byMark CumminsonJuly 15, 2009 at 6:19pm

Brian, thanks for the comments about my post.

The commitees that set the standards are trying to do the best they can with the technical information that they have. But there's the problem, they can't get the information about CAFS that will please everyone on the comitees.

The most effective applications for the CAFS technology stands to hurt the water pump manufacturers profits drastically. Some of them know good and well that CAFS should be measured by the foam volume being discharged at the end of the hose rather than the amount of water the pump is supplying at the manifold. The National Institute Of Standards and Technology published a very complimentary report comparing a gallon of water to a gallon of CAFS foam and showed the CAFS gallon to be much more effective than the gallon of water applied to all types of there test fires.

因此，当将200 cfm CAFS的CAF流动转换为被排出的加仑泡沫时，CAFS流量为1,496 gpm。我意识到NFPA可能永远不会改变此标准，因为他们无法理解或接受泡沫和水之间的区别。

There might need to be a change in who uses the CAFS and how they create a new standard for it.
.

永久链接Reply byBrian Arnoldon2009年7月17日,在9:02am

标记，

谢谢您，该信息。很有帮助。

Brian