5
is 1.97 kg/m3. rCO is the density of CO, which is 1.25 kg/
m3. DCO2 is CO2 gas concentration produced in the fire,
ppm and DCO is CO gas concentration produced in the
fire, ppm.
Figure 4 shows the HRR comparison of two cases, one
where the fire was fully suppressed, and the other was not
(non- suppressed). For the suppressed case, a rapid drop
in HRR is observed after the fire is put out. For the non-
suppressed case, a temporary drop in HRR is observed
which was probably due to a partial suppression of the fire.
However, since the fire is not suppressed after the suppres-
sant is depleted, the fire starts growing again as indicated by
the increase in the HRR.
Figure 5 shows the temperature evolution of exit gas at
different measurement locations. The gas temperatures are
also identified in the figure corresponding to their distance
from the floor and airflow rate in feet per minute (FPM).
Similar to what was found on the HRR evolution, in the
suppressed case, the gas temperature increases until the fire
suppression is initiated. Once the suppression is initiated,
the gas temperature drops to the pre-fire condition.
Figure 6 shows the temperature evolution of a non-
suppressed case. The gas temperature first rises with fire,
then it shows a temporary drop due to fire suppression, but
since the fire was not suppressed, the temperature increases
again after the suppressant is depleted.
The overall effectiveness results of the fire suppression
tests are shown in Table 1. The effectiveness of the differ-
ent tests was determined by the ratio between the number
of suppressed cases to the number of total cases for each
nozzle configuration. Results indicated that the single agent
position A achieved the least effectiveness, below 50%. All
other nozzle locations achieved an effectiveness over 70%.
Table 1. Test results of the fire suppression tests
Nozzle
Location
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
Single agent
position A
13 11 46
Single agent
position B
2 22 92
Single agent
position C
7 17 71
Dual agent
position D
0 6 100
Dual agent
position E
1 5 83
Dual agent
position F
0 6 100
Figure 4. HRR comparison of suppressed and non-
suppressed cases
Figure 5. Temperature evolution of a suppressed case
Figure 6. Temperature evolution of a non- suppressed case
is 1.97 kg/m3. rCO is the density of CO, which is 1.25 kg/
m3. DCO2 is CO2 gas concentration produced in the fire,
ppm and DCO is CO gas concentration produced in the
fire, ppm.
Figure 4 shows the HRR comparison of two cases, one
where the fire was fully suppressed, and the other was not
(non- suppressed). For the suppressed case, a rapid drop
in HRR is observed after the fire is put out. For the non-
suppressed case, a temporary drop in HRR is observed
which was probably due to a partial suppression of the fire.
However, since the fire is not suppressed after the suppres-
sant is depleted, the fire starts growing again as indicated by
the increase in the HRR.
Figure 5 shows the temperature evolution of exit gas at
different measurement locations. The gas temperatures are
also identified in the figure corresponding to their distance
from the floor and airflow rate in feet per minute (FPM).
Similar to what was found on the HRR evolution, in the
suppressed case, the gas temperature increases until the fire
suppression is initiated. Once the suppression is initiated,
the gas temperature drops to the pre-fire condition.
Figure 6 shows the temperature evolution of a non-
suppressed case. The gas temperature first rises with fire,
then it shows a temporary drop due to fire suppression, but
since the fire was not suppressed, the temperature increases
again after the suppressant is depleted.
The overall effectiveness results of the fire suppression
tests are shown in Table 1. The effectiveness of the differ-
ent tests was determined by the ratio between the number
of suppressed cases to the number of total cases for each
nozzle configuration. Results indicated that the single agent
position A achieved the least effectiveness, below 50%. All
other nozzle locations achieved an effectiveness over 70%.
Table 1. Test results of the fire suppression tests
Nozzle
Location
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
Single agent
position A
13 11 46
Single agent
position B
2 22 92
Single agent
position C
7 17 71
Dual agent
position D
0 6 100
Dual agent
position E
1 5 83
Dual agent
position F
0 6 100
Figure 4. HRR comparison of suppressed and non-
suppressed cases
Figure 5. Temperature evolution of a suppressed case
Figure 6. Temperature evolution of a non- suppressed case