AFCEC-CX-TY-TR-2014-0033

EVALUATION OF THE AMEREX MODEL 775

WHEELED EXTINGUISHER WITH NOVEC 1230

Mark Enlow
Vulcan Research and Controls, LLC.
919 Hurst Ct
Panama City, FL 32404-2317

John Hawk
Air Force Civil Engineer Center
Requirements and Acquisition Division
139 Barnes Dr., Ste 2
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5323

Contract No. FA8051-14-P-0010

November 2014

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015

AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER

READINESS DIRECTORATE
 Requirements & Acquisition Division  United States Air Force  Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403-5323
 DISCLAIMER

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or approval by the United States Air Force. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Air
Force.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Air Force.
Neither the United States Air Force, nor any of its employees, makes any warranty,
expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
 NOTICE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

Using Government drawings, specifications, or other data included in this document for any
purpose other than Government procurement does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government.
The fact that the Government formulated or supplied the drawings, specifications, or other data
does not license the holder or any other person or corporation; or convey any rights or permission
to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may relate to them.

This report was cleared for public release by the AFCEC Public Affairs Office at Joint Base San
Antonio-Lackland Air Force Base, Texas available to the general public, including foreign
nationals. Copies may be obtained from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
(http://www.dtic.mil).

AFCEC-CX-TY-TR-2014-0033 HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND IS APPROVED FOR

PUBLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASSIGNED DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT.

//SIGNED// //SIGNED//
______________________________________ _______________________________________
JOHN R. HAWK, GS-13 JOSEPH D. WANDER, PhD
Contracting Officer Representative Technical Advisor

This report is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange, and its
publication does not constitute the Government’s approval or disapproval of its ideas or findings.
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188),
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
18-NOV-2014 Final Technical Report 1-MAR-2014 -- 1-AUG-2014
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Evaluation of the AMEREX Model 775 Wheeled Extinguisher with Novec FA8051-14-P-0010
1230 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Mark A. Enlow* and John R. Hawk%
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

X14PL001
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
*Vulcan Research and Controls, LLC.
919 Hurst Ct
Panama City, FL 32404-2317

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

%Air Force Civil Engineer Center AFCEC/CXA
Readiness Directorate
Requirements and Acquisition Division 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403-5323 AFCEC-CX-TY-TR-2014-0033
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Ref Public Affairs Case # AFCEC-201501, 7 January 2015. Document contains color images.
14. ABSTRACT
As part of an ongoing effort to identify a replacement for the Department of Defense (DOD) Halon 1211 flightline
extinguisher, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) performed a series of tests to evaluate the
performance of the Amerex Corporation model 775 wheeled extinguisher containing the Novec 1230 firefighting
agent manufactured by 3M. This test series consisted of ten rear engine fire tests, ten access panel fire tests, and one
stream reach test. Overall, the Amerex model 775 extinguisher demonstrated the ability to extinguish both
three-dimensional and hidden fires and was shown to have a stream reach distance that exceeds throw range
requirements established in an earlier joint Air Force-Navy project.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Flightline Extinguisher, Halon 1211, Novec 1230.

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE ABSTRACT OF John Hawk
PAGES
SAR 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
U U U 25 850 283-3736
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Reset Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii
1. SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................1
2. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2
2.1. Background ..........................................................................................................................2
2.2. Description of Extinguisher .................................................................................................4
2.3. Description of Agent ............................................................................................................5
3. METHODS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND PROCEDURES .......................................................7
3.1. Rear Engine and Access Panel Fire Tests. ...........................................................................7
3.1.1. Rear Engine Fire Tests .........................................................................................................8
3.1.2. Access Panel Fire Tests .....................................................................................................10
3.2. Stream Reach Tests ............................................................................................................11
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................13
4.1. Rear Engine Fire Tests .......................................................................................................13
4.1.1. Extinguishment Time .........................................................................................................14
4.1.2. Reignition ...........................................................................................................................15
4.1.3. Quantity of Agent Consumed ............................................................................................15
4.1.4. Comparison with Previously Tested Hardware/Agent Combinations ...............................15
4.2. Access Panel Fire Tests .....................................................................................................16
4.2.1. Extinguishment Time .........................................................................................................17
4.2.2. Reignition. ..........................................................................................................................18
4.2.3. Quantity of Agent Consumed. ...........................................................................................18
4.2.4. Comparison with Previously Tested Hardware/Agent Combinations ...............................18
4.3. Stream Reach Tests ............................................................................................................18
5. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................19
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................20
7. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................21
LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS ................................................22

i
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Amerex Model 600 DOD Halon 1211 Flightline Extinguisher .......................................2
Figure 2. Amerex Model 775 Wheeled Fire Extinguisher ...............................................................4
Figure 3. The F-100 Nacelle Mock-Up Used for Rear Engine Testing and Access Panel
Testing. In This Photo, Fuel is Flowing through the Nacelle in Preparation for a Rear
Engine Test ..........................................................................................................................7
Figure 4. The Amerex 775 Extinguisher Resting on a Scale during Preperations for a Rear
Engine Test ..........................................................................................................................8
Figure 5. The F-100 Nacelle Mockup during the Pre-Burn Phase of a Rear Engine Fire Test .......9
Figure 6. A Firefighter Applying Agent into the F-100 Nacelle Mockup during a Rear Engine
Fire Test .............................................................................................................................10
Figure 7. A Firefighter Applying Agent Through the Side Panel of the F-100 Mockup during
an Access Panel Fire Test ..................................................................................................11
Figure 8. Fuel Cups Positioned At 5-ft Intervals from the Amerex Extinguisher (Background)
(left); Firefighter Discharges the Extinguisher into/over the Cups (right) ........................12
Figure 9. Plot of Extinguishment Time vs. Test Number for the Nine Succesfully
Extinguished Rear Engine Fires.........................................................................................14

ii
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Manufacturer’s Specifications for the Amerex Model 775 Extinguisher and the
DOD Halon 1211 Extinguisher ............................................................................................5
Table 2. Manufacturer’s Specifications for 3M Novec 1230 Firefighting Agent............................6
Table 3. Summary of Data from the Rear Engine Fire Tests; Data in Parenthesis Are
Excluded from the Statistical Analysis in the Last Four Rows of the Table .....................13
Table 4. Pearson Product–Moment Correlation Coefficients for the Correlation between Rear
Engine Fire Extinguishment Time and Four Parameters ...................................................15
Table 5. Comparison of Rear Engine Fire Test Results.................................................................16
Table 6. Summary of Data from the Access Panel Fire Tests—Data in Parenthesis are
Excluded from the Statistical Analysis in the Last Five Rows of the Table......................17
Table 7. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients for the Correlation Between
Access Panel Fire Extinguishment Time and Four Parameters .........................................18
Table 8. Comparison of Access Panel Fire Test Results ...............................................................18

iii
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
1. SUMMARY

As part of an ongoing effort to identify a replacement for the Department of Defense (DOD)
Halon 1211 flightline extinguisher, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) performed a
series of tests to evaluate the performance of the Amerex Corporation model 775 wheeled
extinguisher containing the Novec 1230 firefighting agent manufactured by 3M. This test series
consisted of ten rear engine fire tests, ten access panel fire tests, and one stream reach test.

The Amerex extinguisher successfully extinguished nine out of ten rear engine fires in an
average time of 21 s using an average of 132 lb (88 percent of extinguisher capacity) of Novec in
each fire.

The Amerex extinguisher successfully extinguished nine out of ten access panel fires in an
average time of 15 s using an average of 81 lb (54 percent of extinguisher capacity) of Novec in
each fire.

During the stream reach test, the extinguisher demonstrated the ability to extinguish small fires at
a distance of at least 30 ft from the nozzle. This exceeded requirements on effective throw range
of 25 ft specified in a joint Air Force–Navy project for the Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP) that looked at potential replacements for the Halon 1211
flightline extinguisher.

Overall, the Amerex model 775 extinguisher demonstrated the ability to extinguish both three-
dimensional and hidden fires and was shown to have a stream reach distance that exceeds throw
range requirements established in an earlier joint Air Force–Navy project.

1
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Background

It has been estimated that there are currently 20,000 flightline fire extinguishers at DOD
installations, primarily at airfields operated by the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Navy and Marine
Corps. The current DOD flightline extinguisher uses Halon 1211, an ozone depleting substance
(ODS). Under the terms of the Montreal Protocol and the U.S. Clean Air Act, the production of
Halon 1211 ceased in 1993. DOD maintains a stockpile of Halon 1211 under the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) Defense Reserve. Annual consumption of Halon 1211 for flightline
applications is estimated to be as high as 200,000 lb per year. Based on the size of the DLA
reserve, the stockpile could be depleted in less than ten years (1). Planned restrictions on the use
of Halon 1211 in other countries may require an USAF alternative agent/extinguisher sooner.

The existing Halon 1211 flightline extinguishers were procured by DOD using a purchase
description prepared by Warner Robins ALC (2). Figure 1 shows the current unit.

Figure 1. Amerex Model 600 DOD Halon 1211 Flightline Extinguisher

The extinguisher holds 150 lb of Halon 1211, which is discharged through a hand-held nozzle
connected to 50 ft of ¾-in hose. The agent container is of the stored pressure type, using nitrogen
as the pressurizing medium. The overall discharge time is approximately 48 s, yielding an
average flow rate over the entire discharge of 3.1 lb/s. The unit has a 30A:240B:C rating from
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) based on UL Standard 711 (3).

AFCEC desires to identify and select an alternative agent and/or a dispensing system to replace
the existing 150-lb Halon 1211 flightline units.

A test protocol was previously designed and Halon 1211 was evaluated to determine the ability
of the agent to extinguish pooled and flowing fuel tailpipe fires and a hidden engine fire. This
was documented in a USAF/Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) report on establishing

2
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
minimum performance requirements for USAF flightline fire extinguishers (4) as well as a
follow-up USAF/AFRL report documenting the performance of the current Halon 1211
extinguisher (5).

Because any agent used in an extinguisher proposed for testing would be considered a
replacement for an ODS, under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act of 1990 the agent would have
to be approved as an acceptable Halon 1211 replacement through the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program prior to testing.

In previous ESTCP testing, criteria used in selecting candidate agents for testing included (1):
 Agent must be “clean” (leave no residue and be electrically non-conductive)
 Agent must not be a Class I or Class II ODS
 Agent atmospheric lifetime must be less than 250 years
 Agent global warming potential (GWP) must be less than 10,000
 Agent could not increase safety or occupational health risks
 Agent had to possess known effectiveness on both Class A and B fires
 Agent had to demonstrate an effective throw range of no less than 25 ft.

Previous USAF/AFRL efforts have examined the effectiveness of several firefighting agents and
extinguisher platform combinations, as well as baseline performance measurements using the
current DOD Halon 1211 extinguisher (5). Previously tested agents include the firefighting
agents HFC-236fa (Dupont trade name FE-36) and HFCF Blend B (American Pacific
Corporation trade name Halotron 1). Previously tested extinguishers include hardware
manufactured by Ansul Incorporated, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, and Amerex
Corporation. None of these agents and extinguishers met the fire extinguishment equivalency
criteria described in the test protocol.

Amerex Defense recently began marketing the Amerex model 775 extinguisher, a wheeled fire
extinguisher containing the Novec 1230 agent manufactured by 3M, as a replacement for the
Halon flightline extinguisher to meet the requirements of National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) Standards 407: Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing and 410: Standard on Aircraft
Maintenance (6), (7). This report describes the evaluation of this extinguisher/agent combination.
Three test procedures were conducted: the rear engine fire test, the access panel fire test, and the
stream reach test. The results are compared with the results from previously evaluated
extinguisher–agent combinations and the current Halon flightline extinguisher standard.

AFCEC proposed a revised approach to the Halon flightline extinguisher replacement evaluation
process as it appeared that an agent and extinguisher meeting or exceeding the
equivalency/alternative criteria was not likely to be found. AFCEC proposed that the data from
all the previously tested agents/extinguishers and the data from the Amerex model 775 be
compared not on a pass/fail basis but on a best performance basis. Based on this comparison, the
Air Force Fire Protection Panel can determine based on best performance if any of the
commercially available agents/extinguishers provide an acceptable level of mission protection to
be employed on USAF flightlines.
Performance considerations:
 NFPA Compliance (NFPA 407, section 5.13.4, (6))

3
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 o 80 B:C rating
o 125 lb agent
 SNAP Approved for portable extinguishers
 Air Force Performance Test (AFRL-ML-TY-TR-02-4540. (4))
o Engine Nacelle
o Engine Concealed
 Weight and Cube (Technical Order 13F4-4-121, (8))
o Weight: 165 lb±15 lb (empty)/315 lb±15 lb (filled)
o Cube: 59 × 29 × 36 in

2.2. Description of Extinguisher

The Amerex Model 775 wheeled fire extinguisher is shown in Figure 2. The manufacturer’s
specifications for the Model 775, as well as a DOD Halon extinguisher (the Amerex Model 600)
are presented in Table 1 (6). Physically, the model 775 is very similar to the Halon 1211
extinguisher, having an identical carriage but with a somewhat longer and narrower cylinder.

The model 775 is 3 in taller, 4 in deeper and 40 lb heavier than the model 600. Both
extinguishers hold 150 lb of their respective agent. Both extinguishers are pressurized with
nitrogen to expel their extinguishing agent, the model 775 operating at 125 psi compared to the
Halon 1211 extinguisher operating at 200 psi. The model 775 has a 40-ft long, 1-in hose, which
is somewhat shorter than the 50-ft long, ¾-in hose on the Halon 1211 extinguisher. The listed
discharge range for the model 775 is 30 ft, whereas the Halon 1211 extinguisher range is given
as being 30–40 ft. The listed discharge time for the model 775 is 22 s, giving it an average
discharge rate of 6.8 lb/s (compared to 40 s and 3.1 lb/s for the Halon 1211 extinguisher). The
model 775 extinguisher has a 3A:80B:C rating from UL based on UL Standard 711 (3).

Figure 2. Amerex Model 775 Wheeled Fire Extinguisher

4
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Table 1. Manufacturer’s Specifications for the Amerex Model 775 Extinguisher and the
DOD Halon 1211 Extinguisher
DOD Halon 1211
Specifications Amerex Model 775
(Amerex Model 600)
Model Number 775 600
Agent Novec 1230 Halon 1211
U/L Rating 3A:80B:C 30A:240B:C
Capacity (lb) 150 150
Shipping Weight (lb) 355 (filled) 315 (filled)
205 (empty) ±15 165 (empty) ±15
Discharge Time (s) 22 48
Cylinder—DOT 4BW240
Operating Press (psi) 125 200
Test Pressure (psi) 480 480
Burst Pressure (minimum-psi) 960 960
Discharge Range (ft) 30 30–40
Operating Temp. Range (°F) -40 to +120 -65 to +120
Safety Disc Burst Range (psi) 400–500 400–500
Hose Length (ft) 40 50
Hose Diameter (in) 1.0 0.75
Wheels (semi-pneumatic) (in) 16 × 4 16 × 4
Height (in) 62 59
Width (in) 29 29
Depth (in) 40 36
NSN 4210-01-610-6985 4210-01-140-2233

2.3. Description of Agent

Novec 1230 is a firefighting agent manufactured by 3M. It is composed of a single chemical

compound, dodecafluoro-2-methylpentane-3-one, with the chemical formula
CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2. Novec 1230 is a liquid at room temperature (with a boiling point 49.2 °C
/ 120.6 °F). However, it has a very low heat of vaporization (88.0 kJ/kg), meaning it evaporates
rapidly, even at temperatures well below its boiling point. For comparison, Halon 1211 has a
heat of vaporization of 121 kJ/kg, while water has a heat of vaporization of 2,260 kJ/kg,
approximately 25 times that of Novec 1230. When discharged through a nozzle under pressure
Novec 1230 very rapidly transitions to the gaseous phase.

Gaseous mixtures of Novec 1230 and air have a much larger heat capacity than air alone. The
primary method of extinguishment for Novec 1230 is the removal of heat from the combustion
zone in the fire, which causes the combustion zone to cool to the point where it no longer
supports fire. Typical concentrations required for extinguishment of flammable liquids are in the
range of 4.5 to 8.5 percent, based upon cup burner tests (7).

Novec 1230 has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero and a GWP of 1. By comparison,
Halon 1211 has an ODP of 4 and a GWP of 16. Novec 1230 has been approved for
nonresidential use by the EPA as an alternative to Halon 1211 under the SNAP program.

5
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
Novec 1230 exhibits very low dermal, inhalation, and oral toxicity. However the combustion
products of Novec 1230 include very toxic and acidic gasses such as hydrofluoric acid and
carbonyl fluoride. Novec 1230 may pose an asphyxiation hazard if an excess amount of agent is
discharged in a confined space. Halon 1211 has similar toxicity and hazard characteristics.

Additional manufacturer’s specifications for Novec 1230 are presented in Table 2 (7).

Table 2. Manufacturer’s Specifications for 3M Novec 1230 Firefighting Agent

Specifications Novec 1230
Chemical formula CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2
Molecular weight 316.04 g/mol
Boiling point @ 1 atm 49.2 °C (120.6 °F)
Freezing point -108 °C (-162.4 °F)
Density, sat. liquid, 25 °C 1.60 g/mL (99.9 lbm/ft3)
Density, gas @ 1 atm 25 °C 0.0136 g/mL (0.851 lbm/ft3)
Specific volume @ 1 atm 0.0733 m3/kg (1.175 ft3/lb)
Liquid viscosity @ 0°C/25 °C 0.56/0.39 centistokes
Heat of vaporization @ Boiling Point 88.0 kJ/kg (37.9 Btu/lb)
Solubility of H2O in Novec 1230 fluid <0.001% by wt
Vapor pressure @ 25 °C 0.404 bar (5.85 psig)
Relative dielectric strength @ 1 atm (N2=1.0) 2.3
Ozone Depletion Potential 0
Global Warming Potential 1
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 0.014
SNAP (Yes/No) Yes
Use Concentration 4.5–6 %
NOAEL 10 %

6
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
3. METHODS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND PROCEDURES

3.1. Rear Engine and Access Panel Fire Tests.

Rear engine fire tests and access panel fire tests were performed using the F-100 nacelle test
fixture located at the Silver Flag test site (Figure 3). The fixture is a cylinder 16 ft long that
contains an inner cylinder (the space between the cylinders is termed the annulus) and three
baffles positioned along the inside of the inner cylinder. The fixture is equipped with three spray
nozzles that allow fuel to flow into different regions of the nacelle to simulate different fire
scenarios. The nacelle sits atop a concave concrete pad that can collect a pool of jet fuel as part
of the fire scenario. Design details and test protocol using this fixture are described in AFRL-
ML-TY-TR-02-4540 (4) and AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2002-4604 (8).

Figure 3. The F-100 Nacelle Mock-Up Used for Rear Engine Testing and Access Panel
Testing. In This Photo, Fuel is Flowing through the Nacelle in Preparation for a Rear
Engine Test

During the rear engine tests and access panel tests, the Amerex 775 extinguisher was positioned
on a scale so that the mass could be monitored during the test (Figure 4). A computer and data
acquisition system was coupled to the scale to record mass data at a rate of one data point per
second. This was done to facilitate filling the extinguisher with the proper amount of agent
before each test, and to allow calculation of the mass of agent used and discharge rate of agent
during each test. The scale accuracy was ± 1 lb.

7
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
Figure 4. The Amerex 775 Extinguisher Resting on a Scale during Preperations for a Rear
Engine Test

Two tripod-mounted video cameras were set up to record each test from two different angles. A
tripod-mounted Kestrel weather meter was also used to monitor the ambient temperature,
humidity, and wind speed and direction. Testing was performed only when wind speed was 8
mph or less. The extinguisher and nacelle were positioned so that the wind direction was from
the firefighters’ back and towards the nacelle, plus or minus 30 degrees.

3.1.1. Rear Engine Fire Tests

Rear engine fire tests were conducted as outlined below, and consisted of a pretest phase, in
which a the nacelle was first preheated to a specified temperature (Figure 5), and then a certain
amount of fuel was allowed to flow into the nacelle and onto the concrete pad (Figure 3),
followed by test phase, in which the firefighter attempted to extinguish the fire (Figure 6).

Pretest Phase
 Determine and record extinguisher full weight.
 Initiate flow of JP-8 through the afterburner nozzle (nozzle 3) at a flow rate of 2 gpm.
 Ignite fuel.
 Heat tail pipe to 550 ± 25 °F.
 Shut off fuel.

8
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
  Allow metal to cool to 475 ± 25 °F.
 Initiate fuel flow through nozzles 2 (2 gpm) and 3 (2 gpm) at a total flow rate of 4 gpm.
 Flow 25 gal of JP-8 through the fixture into the concrete pan.
 If spontaneous ignition occurs, shut off fuel and allow metal to cool to a lower
temperature. Then resume flowing JP-8 fuel.

Figure 5. The F-100 Nacelle Mockup during the Pre-Burn Phase of a Rear Engine Fire Test

Test Phase
 Ignite low-pressure turbine and afterburner fuel sprays with a suitable torch applied
through the ignition port.
 Ignite fuel in the pan on the ground with a suitable torch.
 Allow the fuel to burn for 15 s.
 Apply fire extinguisher according to manufacturer’s instructions.
 Record
o Time to extinguish.
o Weight of agent used.
o Weight of extinguisher after test.

9
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Figure 6. A Firefighter Applying Agent into the F-100 Nacelle Mockup during a Rear
Engine Fire Test

3.1.2. Access Panel Fire Tests

Access panel fire tests were conducted as outlined below, and consisted of a pretest phase in
which the nacelle was preheated, followed by test phase, in which the firefighter attempted to
extinguish the fire (Figure 7). Unlike the rear engine fire test, during the access panel fire test it
was necessary for the firefighter to direct agent into the side panel of the nacelle to extinguish
fire that developed in the nacelle annulus. The intent of this test is to simulate a hidden fire in an
engine nacelle.

Pretest Phase
 Determine and record extinguisher full weight.
 Initiate flow of JP-8 through the afterburner nozzle (nozzle 3) at a flow rate of 2 gpm.
 Heat tail pipe to 550 ± 25 °F.
 Shut off fuel.
 Initiate fuel flow through nozzle 1 at a flow rate of 4 gpm.

Test Phase
 If spontaneous ignition does not occur, ignite access panel spray with a suitable torch
applied between the engine shell and nacelle shell at the bottom rear of the fixture.
 Allow the fuel to burn for 15 s.
 Apply fire extinguisher according to manufacturer’s instructions.
 Record
o Time to extinguish.
o Weight of agent used.
o Weight of extinguisher after test.

10
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Figure 7. A Firefighter Applying Agent Through the Side Panel of the F-100 Mockup
during an Access Panel Fire Test

3.2. Stream Reach Tests

Stream Reach tests were performed inside the fire hangar (9500E) located at the AFCEC Test
Range II (Sky X) test site. Stream reach was determined based on the ability to extinguish small
fires at given distances. Testing was conducted indoors with no perceptible ambient wind. Five
small steel cups (approximately 3-in diameter × 2-in tall) were placed on level ground at
measured distances of 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 ft from the agent discharge nozzle (Figure 8, left).
Each cup was filled with 0.5 in of JP-8 on top of 1 in of water. After a pre-burn period of at least
15 s for the last cup ignited, a firefighter attempted to use the extinguisher to extinguish as many
cups as possible. The firefighter was required to remain at a fixed location, and to hold the
extinguisher nozzle at hip height (Figure 8, right). However, variation in nozzle elevation during
discharge was permitted.

11
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Figure 8. Fuel Cups Positioned At 5-ft Intervals from the Amerex Extinguisher
(Background) (left); Firefighter Discharges the Extinguisher into/over the Cups (right)

12
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Rear Engine Fire Tests

A total of eleven rear engine fire tests were performed. Test 3 was deemed invalid due to a
structural defect that developed in the F-100 nacelle during the test. The results from test 3 are
therefore not included in the analysis of extinguishing performance, but are included in some of
the statistical analysis presented later in this section. Of the remaining ten tests, the extinguisher
successfully extinguished the fire in nine tests.

Table 3 summarizes the results of the rear engine fire tests performed with the Amerex 775
extinguisher. Temperature, wind speed, and humidity are values measured by the Kestrel
weather meter just before the start of the test. Extinguishment time, the time between the start of
agent application and extinguishment of all visible fire, was obtained from the video footage.
Discharge time and quantity discharged were obtained from balance data recorded by the data
acquisition system. Average discharge rate is the quantity discharged divided by the discharge
time.

Table 3. Summary of Data from the Rear Engine Fire Tests; Data in Parenthesis Are
Excluded from the Statistical Analysis in the Last Four Rows of the Table
Average
Extin- Dis-
Wind Qty Dis- Dis-
Test Temp Humidity guish charge Extin-
Speed charged charge
Number (°F) (%) Time Time guished
(mph) (lb) Rate
(s) (s)
(lb/s)
1 61.1 1.8 68.1 21 123 Yes
2 58.5 0.0 89.5 20 25 132 5.28 Yes
3 (60.1) (2.6) (78.2) (NA) (25) (145) (5.1) NA
4 68.2 5.3 73.7 (NA) (29) (146) (4.3) No
5 69.2 6.2 75.5 22 21 122 5.81 Yes
6 67.6 6.7 76.8 22 22 139 6.32 Yes
7 58.3 2.6 64.1 20 20 138 6.90 Yes
8 59.3 4.6 25.5 24 148 Yes
9 58.9 5.0 24.5 21 22 139 6.32 Yes
10 59.5 2.9 89.8 18 19 121 6.37 Yes
11 68.1 1.1 88.3 18 20 124 6.20 Yes
Average 62.6 3.5 68.5 20.7 21.3 131.8 6.2
Standard
4.6 2.2 23.1 1.9 2.0 9.7 0.5
Deviation
Relative
Standard 7.3 % 61.5 % 33.7 % 9.4 % 9.3 % 7.4 % 8.2 %
Deviation
Relative
Standard 2.3 % 19.5 % 10.6 % 3.1 % 3.5 % 2.5 % 1.3 %
Error

During tests 3 and 4, the tests in which the firefighter failed to extinguish the fire, the firefighter
discharged the extinguisher 25 and 29 s before ceasing. Data recorded by the scale revealed that

13
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
very little mass was lost from the extinguisher during the last several seconds of discharge. The
long discharge time and low average discharge rate were therefore excluded from Table 3 to
prevent them from skewing the average values and standard deviations of the successfully
extinguished fires. In addition, the data acquisition system recording the scale readings failed
during tests 1 and 8. Therefore some of the statistical analysis that follows included only the
remaining seven tests.

4.1.1. Extinguishment Time

The Amerex extinguisher successfully extinguished nine of ten rear engine fires. The average
extinguishment time for the nine successful attempts was 20.7 s with a standard deviation of
1.9 s, compared to an average extinguishment time of 16.6 s, with standard deviation of 9.9 s, for
Halon 1211.

Although the firefighter performing the test was very experienced in performing rear engine fire
tests, it could still be expected that as the firefighter performed successive tests with this
particular extinguisher that the extinguishment times would tend to decrease as the firefighter
became accustomed to the unique features of the extinguisher and agent. Figure 9 presents a plot
of extinguishment time vs. test for the nine successfully extinguished fires and a least squares
linear curve fit of the data. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for this data set
is -0.33, indicating the extinguishment time is weakly and negatively correlated to the test
number. In other words, the extinguishment time tended to decrease with each successive test,
but the correlation is low.

30

25
Extinguishment Time (s)

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Test Number

Figure 9. Plot of Extinguishment Time vs. Test Number for the Nine Succesfully
Extinguished Rear Engine Fires

The correlation between extinguishment time and ambient wind speed, temperature, and
humidity can similarly be examined. Table 4 presents the Pearson product–moment correlation

14
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
coefficients for the correlation between extinguishment time and these three parameters, as well
as the coefficient for test number, described above. This quantity varies between +1 and -1,
indicating total positive and negative correlation, respectively, while a value of 0 indicates that
no correlation exists. The extinguishment time is moderately positively correlated (+0.62) with
wind speed – higher wind conditions resulted in longer extinguishment times, and moderately
negatively correlated (-0.65) with humidity – higher humidity conditions resulted in lower
extinguishment times. Essentially zero correlation (+0.03) existed between extinguishment time
and ambient temperature, although testing occurred over a limited range of temperatures (58.3 to
68.1 °F).

Table 4. Pearson Product–Moment Correlation Coefficients for the Correlation between

Rear Engine Fire Extinguishment Time and Four Parameters
Range Encountered
Parameter Correlation Coefficient
During Testing
Test Number 1–11 -0.33
Wind Speed 0–6.7 mph +0.62
Temperature 58.3–68.1 °F +0.03
Humidity 24.5–89.8 % -0.65

4.1.2. Reignition
No reignition occurred in any of the nine tests where the extinguisher successfully put out the
fire.

4.1.3. Quantity of Agent Consumed

The Amerex model 775 extinguisher has a capacity of 150 lb. Of the nine tests in which the fire
was successfully extinguished, the average discharged weight was 131.8 lb (88 percent of full
capacity) with a standard deviation of 9.7 lb, compared to an average discharged weight of
66.2 lb (44 percent of full capacity) and standard deviation of 21.3 lb for the Halon 1211
extinguisher from previous tests.

The Amerex model 775 extinguisher has a nominal capacity of 150 lb of Novec 1230. In
addition, it was noted that approximately 2 lb of nitrogen gas was needed to pressurize the
extinguisher to the required 125 psi. During tests 3 and 4 the firefighter completely discharged
the extinguisher without extinguishing the fire. For those tests, the scale recorded a mass loss of
145 lb and 146 lb, respectively. It appears that a small amount of agent remains in the
extinguisher after all the pressurizing gas is expelled. This was also noted when servicing the
extinguisher between tests. After removing the hose and valve, the extinguisher still had a
noticeable volume of liquid at the bottom of the cylinder.

4.1.4. Comparison with Previously Tested Hardware/Agent Combinations

The Amerex/Novec system extinguished nine of ten rear engine fires. The quantity of agent
required to extinguish the fires varied from 121 to 148 lb, averaging 131.8 lb of agent used.
Extinguishment times varied from 18 to 24 s, for an average extinguishment time where
successful of 20.7 s. Table 5 summarizes these results, and presents the results from rear engine
tests using Halon 1211 and several other extinguisher/agent combinations obtained from
references (1) and (5).

15
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Table 5. Comparison of Rear Engine Fire Test Results
Range of Range of Average
Average Qty of
Extinguisher Number of Agent Used Extin- Extin-
Agent Used to
Manufacturer / Test Fires to Extin- guishment guishment
Extinguish Fire
Agent Extinguished guish Fire Times Time
(lb)
(lb) (s) (s)
Halon 1211 23 of 25 (92%) 36 – 113 66 9 – 51 17
Amerex/Novec 1230 9 of 10 (90%) 121 – 148 132 18 – 24 21
Ansul/FE-36 4 of 10 (40%) 111 – 144 131 17 – 23 20
Buckeye /Halotron 3 of 10 (30%) 92 – 114 107 16 – 21 19
Amerex /Halotron 3 of 10 (30%) 73 – 135 103 17 - 44 29

4.2. Access Panel Fire Tests

A total of ten access panel fire tests were performed. Nine fires were successfully extinguished,
one was not extinguished.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the access panel fire tests performed with the Amerex 775
extinguisher. Temperature, wind speed, and humidity are values measured by the Kestrel
weather meter just before the start of the test. Extinguishment time, the time between the start of
agent application and extinguishment of all visible fire, was obtained from the video footage.
The quantity of agent discharged was obtained from balance data recorded by the data
acquisition system.

In the rear engine fire tests, the firefighter extinguished the fire with one continuous discharge of
agent. However, in the access panel fire tests, the firefighter applied two or more short bursts of
agent while moving around the F-100 mockup. Because the discharge was not continuous in the
access panel tests, the discharge time and average discharge rate were not calculated.

16
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Table 6. Summary of Data from the Access Panel Fire Tests—Data in Parenthesis are
Excluded from the Statistical Analysis in the Last Five Rows of the Table
Wind Extinguish Quantity
Test Temp Humidity Extin-
Speed Time Discharged
Number (°F) (%) guished
(mph) (s) (lb)

1 59.5 2.9 89.8 18 106 Yes

2 68.1 1.1 88.3 13 104 Yes
3 77.6 1.1 32.2 (DNE) (149) No
4 82.3 2.8 80.9 17 88 Yes
5 84.7 1.9 72.6 19.5 91 Yes
6 85.2 1.0 66.6 15.5 84 Yes
7 85 3.8 77.5 12 60 Yes
8 82.7 1.8 82.7 13 63 Yes
9 85 3.5 79.3 14 59 Yes
10 85.1 1 78.1 13.5 70 Yes
Average 79.5 2.09 74.8 15.1 80.5
Standard
8.8 1.1 16.4 2.6 18.3
Deviation
Relative
Standard 11.1 % 51.8 % 22.0 % 17.2 % 22.7 %
Deviation
Standard
2.8 0.3 5.2 0.9 6.1
Error
Relative
Standard 3.5 % 16.4 % 6.9 % 5.7 % 7.6 %
Error

4.2.1. Extinguishment Time

The Amerex extinguisher successfully extinguished nine out of ten fires access panel fires. The
average extinguishment time for the nine successful attempts was 15.1 s with a standard
deviation of 2.6 s.

The correlation between extinguishment time and test number, ambient wind speed, temperature,
and humidity were examined by calculation of the Pearson product–moment correlation
coefficient for these parameters. Table 7 presents the Pearson product–moment correlation
coefficients for the correlation between extinguishment time and these four parameters. The
extinguishment time is moderately negatively correlated (-0.49) with test number—the
extinguishment time tended to decrease each successive test as the firefighter became more
experienced with this fire scenario. Little to no correlation is seen between extinguishment time
and wind speed, temperature, or humidity.

17
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 Table 7. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients for the Correlation Between
Access Panel Fire Extinguishment Time and Four Parameters
Range Encountered Correlation
Parameter
During Testing Coefficient
Test Number 1 – 10 -0.49
Wind Speed 1 – 3.8 +0.00
Temperature 59.5 – 85.2 -0.22
Humidity 32.2 – 89.8 -0.13

4.2.2. Reignition.
No reignition occurred in any of the nine tests where the extinguisher successfully put out the
fire.

4.2.3. Quantity of Agent Consumed.

The Amerex model 775 extinguisher has a capacity of 150 lb. Of the nine tests in which the fire
was successfully extinguished, the average discharged weight was 80.5 lb (54 percent of full
capacity) with a standard deviation of 18.3 lb.

4.2.4. Comparison with Previously Tested Hardware/Agent Combinations

The Amerex/Novec system extinguished nine of ten access panel fires. The quantity of agent
required to extinguish the fires varied from 59 to 106 lb, with an average of 80.5 lb of agent
used. Extinguishment times varied from 12 to 19.5 s, for an average extinguishment time when
successful of 15.1 s. Table 8 summarizes these results, and presents the results from rear engine
tests using Halon 1211 obtained from references (5).

Table 8. Comparison of Access Panel Fire Test Results

Range of Agent Avg Qty of Range of Average
Extinguisher Number of
Used to Agent Used to Extin- Extin-
Manufacturer/ Test Fires
Extinguish Fire Extinguish guishment guishment
Agent Extinguished
(lb) Fire (lb) Times (s) Time (s)
Halon 1211 8 of 10 (80%) 81.8 17.3
Amerex/Novec 1230 9 of 10 (90%) 59 - 106 80.5 12 – 19.5 15.1

4.3. Stream Reach Tests

One stream reach test was performed using the Amerex model 775 extinguisher. Stream reach
was estimated based upon the ability of the extinguisher to extinguish small cups containing
burning JP-8 fuel as described in section 3.2. Cups were positioned at 5-ft intervals from 20-ft
through 40-ft distance from the extinguisher. The extinguisher demonstrated the ability to
extinguish the cups of burning fuel at a distance of at least 30 ft from the nozzle in still air.

Previous stream reach tests on the DOD/Halon 1211, Ansul/FE-36, Amerex/Halotron-1, and
Buckeye/Halotron-1, extinguisher/agent combinations established that the stream reach in each
case was a minimum of 35 ft. The Amerex/Novec 1230 extinguisher/agent combination is
therefore comparable to these other systems in terms of stream reach.

18
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
5. CONCLUSIONS

The Amerex model 775 wheeled extinguisher containing the Novec 1230 firefighting agent was
evaluated by conducting a test series consisting of ten rear engine fire tests, ten access panel fire
tests, and one stream reach test.
 The Amerex extinguisher successfully extinguished nine of ten rear engine fires.
Extinguishment times for the nine successful tests varied from 18 to 24 s, with an average
extinguishment time of 20.7 s. For extinguished test fires, the amount of Novec
discharged varied from 121 to 148 lb (81 to 99 percent of full extinguisher capacity), with
an average amount discharged of 132 lb (88 percent of full capacity). Extinguishment
times were noted to be moderately correlated with the ambient wind speed and ambient
humidity. No correlation with ambient temperature was observed.
 The Amerex extinguisher successfully extinguished nine of ten access panel fires.
Extinguishment times for the nine successful tests varied from 12 to 19.5 s, with an
average extinguishment time of 15.1 s. For extinguished test fires, the amount of Novec
discharged varied from 60 to 106 lb (40 to 71 percent of full extinguisher capacity), with
an average amount discharged of 80 lb (54 percent of full capacity). Extinguishment
times were noted to be moderately correlated with the test number. No correlation with
ambient temperature, humidity, or wind speed was observed.
 One stream reach test was performed. The extinguisher demonstrated the ability to
extinguish small fires at a distance of at least 30 ft from the nozzle. This exceeded the
requirement of 25 ft set forth in a previous joint Air Force–Navy project

19
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Serious consideration should be given to the Amerex model 775 extinguisher with Novec 1230
as a replacement for the current Halon 1211 flightline extinguisher. Aspects like material
compatibility and life-cycle cost of the extinguisher will have to be studied before a final
decision is made, but the performance of the extinguisher on test fires combined with the fact
that the EPA has included Novec 1230 in its SNAP list as a clean agent forms a strong argument
for making the model 775 an acceptable alternative to the current extinguisher.

A project to investigate the practicality and performance of Novec 1230 in an ultra-high-pressure

(UHP) extinguisher is recommended. UHP technology has been shown to be more efficient than
conventional extinguishers in applications that share many characteristics with flightline fires,
and a portable UHP system of size comparable to the Model 775 might exhibit better
performance than the Model 775.

Local guidance in technical report, AFRL-ML-TY-TR-02-4540—Minimum Performance

Requirement for Air Force Flightline Fire Extinguishers: Extinguishing Performance Against 3-
Dimensional and Hidden Fires, should be reviewed and, if appropriate, updated. The report was
written at a time when it was thought that research would soon produce an environmentally safe
substitute for Halon 1211 with comparable firefighting performance. Given that in the 12 years
since the report was written no such substitute has been discovered, consideration should be
given to adopting different acceptance criteria.

20
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
7. REFERENCES

1. Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program,

“Qualification of an Acceptable Alternative to Halon 1211 DOD Flightline
Extinguishers”, ESTCP Project WP-0618, NAWCWD TP 8572 (available online at
www.serdp.org).

2. Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Purchase Description PD 99LECF02, “Extinguisher, Fire
Liquefied Gas (Halon 1211) 150 Pound, Wheeled”, dated 19 Feb 1999.

3. Underwriters Laboratory Standard 711, “Rating and Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishers”, dated
17 December, 2004.

4. “Minimum Performance Requirements for Air Force Flightline Fire Extinguishers:

Extinguishing Performance Against 3-Dimensional and Hidden Fires”, AFRL-ML-TY-
02-4540, May 2002.

5. Dierdorf, D.S., and Kiel, J.C., “HALON Flightline Extinguisher Evaluation: Data Supporting
Standard Development”, AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2005-4583, October 2005.

6. NFPA 407: Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing, National Fire Protection Association (2007).

7. NFPA 410: Standard on Aircraft Maintenance, National Fire Protection Association (2010).

8. Air Force TO 13F4-4-121, "Fire Extinguisher, Wheeled Liquified Gas, 150 LB. Capacity, Part
NO. 03496 and 05673", (Change 7 - 19 June 2007).

9. Data obtained from http://amerex-fire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/FE600K.pdf and

http://amerex-fire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FE-775-Commercial.pdf, on June
2014.

10. Data obtained from

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UuZjcFSLXTtlXfyn8TE
EVuQEcuZgVs6EVs6E666666--&fn=prodinfo_novec1230.pdf, on May 2014.

11. “F100 engine nacelle firefighting test mockup drawings.”, AFRL-ML-TY-TR-2002-4604,

July 2002.

21
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015
 LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
atm atmosphere (pressure)
AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineering Center
AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory
Btu British thermal unit
cm3 cubic centimeter
DLA Defense Logistics Agency
DOD Department of Defense
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
ft feet
ft3 cubic feet
ft3/lb cubic feet per pound
g gram
gal gallon(s)
g/ml grams per mililiter
g/mol gram per mole (quantity)
gpm gallons per minute
GWP global warming potential
kJ/kg kilojoules per kilogram
lb pound
lbm pound-mass
lbm/ft3 pound-mass per cubic feet
lb/s pound per second
m meter
mph miles per hour
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NOAEL no observed adverse effect level
ODP ozone depletion potential
ODS ozone depleting substance
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gage
s second
SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy
UHP ultra-high-pressure
UL Underwriters Laboratories
USAF United States Air Force
wt weight

22
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. AFCEC-201501; 7 January 2015