Fire Retardant Foam, or fire suppression foam, is a foam used for fire suppression.

Its role is to cool the fire and to coat the fuel, preventing its contact with oxygen, resulting in suppression of the combustion. The surfactants used need to produce foam in concentration of less than 1%. Other components of fire retardant foams are organic solvents (eg. trimethyltrimethylene glycol and hexylene glycol. Foam stabilizers are also used, for example lauryl alcohol. Other chemicals are used as well, such as corrosion inhibitors. Low-expansion foams have an expansion rate less than 20 times. Foams with expansion ratio between 20-200 are medium expansion. Low-expansion foams such as AFFF are low-viscosity, mobile, and able to quickly cover large areas. High-expansion foams have an expansion rate over 200. They are suitable for enclosed spaces such as hangars, where quick filling is needed. Alcohol-resistant foams contain a polymer that forms a protective layer between the burning surface and the foam, preventing foam breakdown by alcohols in the burning fuel. Alcohol resistant foams should be used in fighting fires of fuels containing oxygenates, eg. MTBE, or fires of liquids based on or containing polar solvents.

Contents
[hide]

1 Class A foams 2 Class B foams o 2.1 Synthetic foams o 2.2 Protein foams 3 Applications 4 History of Fire Fighting Foams 5 References 6 See also 7 External links

[edit] Class A foams

A fire truck demonstrating Class A foam in a CAFS system

Class A foams were developed in mid 1980s for firefighting wildfires. Favorable experiences led to its acceptance for fighting other types of class A fires, including structure fires. [1] Class A foams facilitate wetting of class A fuels, lowering the surface tension of the water and assisting saturation of them with water, aiding fire suppression and preventing reignition.

[edit] Class B foams

Class B foams are designed for class B fires - flammable liquids. The use of class A foam on a class B fire may yield unexpected results, as class A foams are not designed to contain the explosive vapors produced by flammable liquids. Class B foams have two major subtypes.

[edit] Synthetic foams

Synthetic foams are based on synthetic surfactants. Synthetic foams provide better flow, faster knockdown of flames, but limited post-fire security. Aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) are water-based, frequently containing sodium alkyl sulfate, and/or perfluoro telomer as surfactants. They have the ability to spread over the surface of hydrocarbon-based liquids. Alcohol-resistant aqueous film forming foams (AR-AFFF) are foams resistant to the action of alcohols, able to form a protective film when they are present.

[edit] Protein foams

Protein foams contain natural proteins as the foaming agents. Unlike other synthetic foams, protein foams are bio-degradable. They flow and spread slower, but provide a foam blanket that is more heat resistant and more durable. Protein foams include regular protein foam (P), fluoroprotein foam (FP), alcohol resistant fluoroprotein foam (AR-FP), film forming fluoroprotein (FFFP), and alcohol-resistant film fluoroprotein (AR-FFFP). Protein Foam from non-animal sources is preferred because of the possible threats of biological contaminants like prions.

[edit] Applications
Every type of foam has its application. High-expansion foams are used when an enclosed space, such as a basement or hangar, needs to be quickly filled. Low-expansion foams are used on burning spills. AFFF is best for spills of jet fuels, FFFP is better for cases where the burning fuel can form deeper pools, AR-AFFFF is suitable for burning alcohols. The most flexibility is achieved by AR-AFFF or AR-FFFP. AR-AFFF must be used in areas where gasolines are blended with oxygenates, since the alcohols prevent the formation of

the film between the FFFP foam and the gasoline, breaking down the foam, rendering the FFFP foam virtually useless.

[edit] History of Fire Fighting Foams

Water has since long been a universal agent for suppressing fires, but is not best in all cases. For example, water is typically ineffective on an oil fire, and can be dangerous. Fire fighting foams were a positive development in extinguishing oil fires. In the late 1800s, a method of extinguishing flammable liquid fires by blanketing them with foam was introduced. The original foam was a mixture of two powders and water produced in a foam generator. It was called chemical foam because of the chemical action to create it. Generally, the powders used were sodium bicarbonate and aluminium sulfate, with small amounts of saponin or liquorice added to stabilise the bubbles. Hand-held foam extinguishers used the same two chemicals in solution: to actuate the extinguisher, a seal was broken and the unit inverted, allowing the liquids to mix and react. Chemical foam is a stable solution of small bubbles containing carbon dioxide with lower density than oil or water, and exhibits persistence for covering flat surfaces. Because its lighter than the burning liquid, it flows freely over the liquid surface and extinguishes the fire by a smothering action. Chemical foam is considered obsolete today because of the many containers of powder required, even for small fires. In the 1940s Percy Lavon Julian developed an improved type of foam called Aerofoam. Using mechanical action, a liquid protein-based concentrate, made from soy protein, was mixed with water in either a proportioner or an aerating nozzle to form air bubbles with the free flowing action. Its expansion ratio and ease of handling made it popular. Protein foam is easily contaminated by some flammable liquids, so care should be used so that the foam is only applied above the burning liquid. Protein foam has slow knockdown characteristics, but it is economical for post fire security. In the 1960s National Foam, Inc. developed fluoroprotein foam. Its active agent is a fluorinated surfactant which provides an oil-rejecting property to prevent contamination. It is generally better than protein foam because its longer blanket life provides better safety when entry is required for rescue. Fluoroprotein foam has fast knockdown characteristics and it can also be used together with dry chemicals which destroy protein foam. In the mid 1960s the US Navy developed aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) . This synthetic foam has a low viscosity and spreads rapidly across the surface of most hydrocarbon fuels. A water film forms beneath the foam which cools the liquid fuel, which stops the formation of flammable vapors. This provides dramatic fire knockdown, an important factor in crash rescue fire fighting. In the early 1970s National Foam, Inc. invented Alcohol Resistant AFFF technology. ARAFFF is a synthetic foam developed for both hydrocarbon and polar solvent materials. Polar solvents are combustible liquids that destroy conventional fire fighting foam. These solvents extract the water contained in the foam, breaking down the foam blanket.

Therefore, these fuels require an alcohol or polar solvent resistant foam. Alcohol resistant foam must be bounced off of a surface and allowed to flow down and over the liquid to form its membrane, compared to standard AFFF that can be sprayed directly onto the fire. Since AR-AFFF is effective on a variety of fuels, it the most accepted for American industry.

[edit] References

Detailed Report. Your testing will be conducted in accordance with both NFPA recommendation and UK Ministry of Defence standards. A details report will be sent to you within one week of receiving your foam sample. Then, in 12 months we will send you a reminder that it is time to test again. The following attributes of your foam sample will be compared against manufacturer's specifications: Appearance Viscosity Sediment 25% Drain Time All test results will be provided and given a pass or fail rating and a written evaluation of the concentrate tested. Specific Gravity pH Value Expansion Ratio

Zotek N B50 Polyamide Foams Offer Enviable Dimensional Stability In Various High-Temperature Applications
Walton, KY - Since high temperatures can cause certain foams to shrink, degrade or soften to the point of being unusable, Zotefoams Inc., the world's leading manufacturer of cross-linked block foams, recently conducted a series of tests on its ZOTEK N B50 line of foams in order to measure product performance characteristics at high temperatures. The tests included thermal dimensional stability, dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), and degradation of mechanical strength through long-term heat aging. The Dimensional Stability at elevated temperatures is important in many applications. ZOTEK N B50 has a very low coefficient of thermal expansion relative to many other foams. As with all foams, it will exhibit shrinkage after

exposure to higher temperatures. This is typically greater with increasing temperatures, longer exposure times and thinner foam material. Shrinkage was negligible (<1%) for long-term use at 130C for the ZOTEK N B50. At 160C, shrinkage increased but remained small (up to 4% after 1000 hours) for thicknesses less than 10 mm. Even at 190C during short-term exposure, shrinkage remains at acceptable levels (<5%). As with all polymers, the mechanical stiffness (modulus) decreases with increasing temperature. After environmental conditioning, ZOTEK N B50 foam loses much of its low temperature stiffness and maintains a relatively constant modulus over the temperature range 0C to 180C. Loss of mechanical stiffness becomes significant above 180C, a full 50C higher than expanded polypropylene (EPP) foams. The rate of polymer degradation increases with increasing temperature, particularly when exposed to air. Degradation can lead to loss of strength and embrittlement. Degradation has been measured by means of loss of mechanical strength after long-term exposure to hot air. There is little effect on the strength of N B50 after long-term aging (1,000 hours) up to 130C. Loss of strength becomes significant after longer periods at 160C and above. The environment and physical demands of an application are important when determining the upper usable temperature. Laboratory simulation has been conducted using generic tests to aid design. For a copy of the complete hightemperature performance test results, and for more information on the ZOTEK N B50 line of high-performance polyamide foams, please contact your local Zotefoams representative at (800) 362-8358. ZOTEK N is Zotefoams' brand name for a range of foams based on cross-linked polyamide (nylon) that have a closed cell structure. ZOTEK N B50 line of highperformance polyamide foams provide excellent thermal and chemical resistance, and can be thermoformed into simple or complex parts. Zotefoams Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zotefoams plc (LSE: ZTF). Zotefoams is the premier manufacturer of cross-linked block foams. Its products are used in a wide range of markets including sports and leisure, packaging, transport, healthcare, toys, building, marine and the military. Through a unique production process, the Company produces foams that have controlled properties and are of a strength, consistency, quality and purity superior to foams produced by other methods. Zotefoams Inc. is responsible for product sales to the United States, Canada and Mexico. Zotefoams products include a wide range of foam densities, sizes, and physical properties. They also include fire retardant, conductive, and food contact approved foams. For more information, please go to www.zotefoams.com.

ASSESSMENT OF BURNBACK PERFORMANCE Very little data is available which quantifies a minimum level of burnback resistance for specific applications. Standards/specifications (MIL SPEC, UL) set requirements essentially on what a foam agent can achieve in the small-scale test. The original AFFF modeling work by Peterson [16] provides a good analysis of the trade-off between extinguishment and burnback when comparing protein foam and AFFF. Previously, when protein foam was the primary agent for extinguishing aircraft fires, the burnback resistance or rate of foam-blanket burn-off was a common denominator in all applications. The stability or rate of water dropout (measured as 25 percent drainage time) from protein foams influences its ability to resist heat, and the burnback characteristics of protein foams varied depending on how they were made (expansion and drainage-time properties). However, these differences are small in comparison to the wide differences between types of agents. At one end of the scale is dry chemical (used as a secondary agent), which has practically a zero burnback resistance, and at the

other end is protein foam, which has in general the longest burnback resistance. The decision of what agent is best is difficult, since the highly sought property of quick fire control has been in an opposite relationship; i.e., dry chemical is very fast and protein foam very slow. Likewise, AFFF has very rapid fire control but may have less burnback resistance compared to protein foam.

1.An analysis of small-scale fire test burnback performance for marine applications was conducted as shown in Table 2 [22]. Performance was assessed in terms of the quantity of foam required per unit area of fuel surface to provide one minute of burnback protection. This assessment used the total foam discharge time as the basis of foam quantity. The fire test pan size was the basis of fuel surface area 2 . For the tests involving a sealability test before the burnback test, the time during the sealability test was included as part of the total burnback time. Interestingly, the burnback density (volume of foam per 11 unit of fuel area) to provide one minute of burnback protection falls within a relatively narrow range (0.014-0.021 gal/ft2 (0.58-0.84 L/m2)) for all of the test methods. However, test method differences (preburn times, pan freeboard areas and geometry, method of application including angle and movement, and actual burnback technique) may result in significant performance differences. This type of assessment would require additional comparative testing and analysis to reach meaningful results. No explicit correlation studies have been performed between small-scale burnback criteria and large-scale burnback performance. Limited data is available to perform such a correlation. The actual burnback performance differences between AFFF and other types of foam is not well established. The Navy philosophy has been to require very rapid extinguishment to meet the threat (e.g., prevent weapons cook-off), with less emphasis on burnback resistance. No explicit requirement has been established for burnback resistance (the exception is burnback performance required in shore-based hangars, which has been quantified [23]). Given the threat analysis, this philosophy continues to be appropriate. Table 2. Comparison Of Burnback Performance Of Various Test Standards Test Standard Test Test Pan Preburn Time (s) Square/CircularSize(m2) Quantityof Agent Discharge d (L) BurnbackTime (min) Burnback Density per Minute of Burnback Protection (L/m2) MIL SPEC 10 Circular 2.6 11.3 6 0.73 UL 162 Protein-based agents 60 Square 4.6 56.7 201 0.62 Film-forming agents 60 Square 4.6 37.8 141 0.58 ISO/EN Forceful application 60 Circular 4.5 34.2 Level A 10 0.76 Gentle application 60 Circular 4.5 57 Level B 15 0.84 Level C 10 1.27 Level D 5 2.53

CFR/NFPA 11/O-F-555C 60 Square 9.3 113.4 201 0.61 SOLAS 60 Square 4.5 57 202 0.63

1 Burnback time includes sealability time during which the torch test is performed before the burnback test. 2 Burnback time started 5 minutes after end of agent application.
OTHER FACTORS Protein foams and AFFF were originally developed to suppress low flash point aviation gasoline (AVGAS) and JP-4 jet fuel. The Navy has used higher flashpoint JP-5 aboard ship for many years, and the U.S. Air Force has converted to JP-8. JP-8 has similar characteristics to JP-5. Work has been performed to quantify the performance differences between low and high flash point fuels [15] and JP-5 vs. JP-8 [6,7,23]. Low flash point fuels (e.g., JP-4, gasoline) are more difficult to control and extinguish than higher flashpoint fuels. The elimination of JP-4 has improved military aviation fire protection. There are differences between JP-5 and JP-8; these differences are subtle and appear to be more pronounced under extreme conditions, e.g., when the fuel is hot or firefighting foam is diluted by water. It is unclear how these differences effect small-scale AFFF specification tests. 12 As noted, AFFF may not be totally effective on three-dimensional fires. Secondary agents (gaseous and powder) are provided to combat three-dimensional fires. Gravity-fed running fuel fires involving flight deck scenarios have been evaluated in the past [5]. This scenario included a deepseated 35-50 gpm multi-level fuel fire with debris and simulated wing obstructions. Previous [5] and recent [24] test results indicate that this debris pile scenario can be successfully extinguished with AFFF handlines in zero wind conditions. There is concern that this may not represent all credible fire scenarios. There may be scenarios, not represented by the debris pile, which cannot be extinguished with AFFF alone. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The systems approach is an effective method to evaluate liquid fuel hazards. For the Navy, the shipboard aircraft carrier flight deck application is one of the highest priorities for assessing firefighting agent performance. Flight deck liquid fuel hazards have a potential impact on personnel, ordnance, aircraft, and ship structures. The greatest threats are to personnel and ordnance. The potential impacts were identified: under absolute worst-case conditions (i.e., immediate immersion in flame), personnel could be seriously injured or ordnance could cook-off in less than one minute. For system analysis/design purposes, the time to reach critical thresholds for injury/damage is between 1 and 2 minutes after a liquid

fuel is ignited. To prevent the onset of critical thresholds, fire extinguishing agents must control/extinguish fires within thirty to ninety seconds. Current agents/systems meet this criteria. Agent performance characteristics could be reduced if system delivery characteristics were improved, or there was a concomitant reduction in fire threat or consequences of fire exposure, i.e., harden aircraft, increase weapons cook-off times, decreased agent delivery times, or increased system flow rates. It will be difficult to modify these existing characteristics. Agent performance in the future will likely have to meet the 30-90 second control/extinguishment performance. There is correlation between the AFFF MIL SPEC method/criteria and large-scale pool fire extinguishment performance. The small-scale MIL SPEC method provides a factor of safety in terms of large-scale performance for AFFF agents meeting the MIL SPEC. This factor of safety is considered important during the initial application of foam to large spill fires. Overall, there may be some degree of flexibility in modifying the MIL SPEC fire extinguishment/burnback characteristics based on current threats (e.g., JP-5 fuel hazard). New agents may not be correlatable using the same techniques currently used for AFFF. The MIL SPEC small-scale fire tests are considered appropriate to screen new agents. For novel agents which are not readily adaptable to the small-scale MIL SEPC fire tests, performance could be assessed at an intermediate scale. Fire control (90% extinguishment) in 30 seconds of a 1,000 ft 2 pool of low flashpoint fuel (gasoline or n-heptane) using a 50 gpm nozzle would be a reasonable screening method for aqueous foams. Any efforts to change the fire performance characteristics of the MIL SPEC should proceed with extreme caution. Reduction of safety factors carries an inherent increase in risk of degraded fire performance. No explicit foam burnback resistance criteria have been established for large spill fires. No studies correlating small and large-scale burnback performance have been conducted. The Navy philosophy of emphasizing fire extinguishment performance in lieu of burnback performance is appropriate. There is concern that current methods to assess three-dimensional fires may not adequately address all potential threats, particularly shielded, difficult-to-access fires in a debris field. These concerns should be addressed. 13 There are differences between JP-8 and JP-5 fuels in terms of extinguishment and burnback resistance. These differences are subtle and appear to be more pronounced under extreme conditions (e.g., heated fuel, heated deck, firefighting foam diluted by water