6
Dual agent positions D and E have the highest effective-
ness, both at 100%.
Detailed comparisons are also made between the
dual agent and single agent cases where dry chemical and
wet chemicals were chosen as the fire suppression agent.
Although dual agent cases used double the amount of sup-
pressant than single agent cases, the effectiveness does not
seem to improve much, which may suggest that picking the
right nozzle locations and the right suppressant is critical to
the success of suppression.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the breakdowns of the suppres-
sion effectiveness for nozzle locations A, B, and C sepa-
rately. A few observations can be made:
1. For position A, the two nozzles are pointing at the
engine block. CO2 and wet chemical have very low
suppression effectiveness, while dry chemical per-
forms the best.
2. For position B, which consisted of the two noz-
zles pointing directly at the fire source, most of
the fire suppression is successful, regardless of the
suppressant.
3. For position C, which consisted of one nozzle
pointing towards the fire source and one nozzle
pointing away, most tests were successful with the
exception of the cases employing the CO2 fire sup-
pression agent.
If comparisons were made between the three positions
for the same suppression agent, another interesting finding
is that, for most of the nozzle location configurations, wet
chemical seems to be the least effective agent in our sup-
pression tests, while dry chemical is effective in every test.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of CO2 and water mist
seem to be influenced by nozzle configuration.
CONCLUSIONS
A series of fire suppression tests were conducted on simu-
lated mobile mine equipment with different suppression
nozzle configurations and different fire suppressant agents.
Two sets of nozzle location configurations, namely single
agent systems and dual agent systems, were investigated to
study the suppression effectiveness. The major findings can
be concluded as follows:
1. For single agent nozzle location, position B is bet-
ter than positions A and C. It indicates that when
the location of the fire source is known, the sup-
pression nozzle should be pointed at the fire source
to achieve better effectiveness.
2. In most of the tests, dry chemical seems to be a
better fire suppressant in spray oil fires.
3. Dual agent does not necessarily provide higher
suppression effectiveness, picking the right nozzle
locations and suppressant might be more critical.
These results are only applicable to the studied test con-
ditions which are based on the fire not being 75% or more
enclosed. However, it is expected that the lesser perform-
ing systems will perform better under total system flooding
conditions where the fire is 75% or more enclosed.
LIMITATIONS
The results of this experimental research were limited to
only provide scientific data for the purpose of fire suppres-
sion effectiveness. Because the tests were designed to evalu-
ate five different fire suppression agents, using 6 distinct
configurations, there are conditions that were not evaluated
in this study. Location and orientation configurations were
selected based on objective to evaluate performance using
a consistent test set up and may not necessarily follow the
installation guidelines set by individual fire suppression
Table 2. Suppression effectiveness results for single agent
position A
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
CO
2 5 1 17
Dry chemical 0 6 100
Water mist 2 4 67
Wet chemical 6 0 0
Table 3. Suppression effectiveness results for single agent
position B
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
CO
2 0 6 100
Dry chemical 0 6 100
Water mist 0 6 100
Wet chemical 2 4 67
Table 4. Suppression effectiveness results for single agent
position C
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
CO
2 5 1 17
Dry chemical 0 6 100
Water mist 0 6 100
Wet chemical 2 4 67
Dual agent positions D and E have the highest effective-
ness, both at 100%.
Detailed comparisons are also made between the
dual agent and single agent cases where dry chemical and
wet chemicals were chosen as the fire suppression agent.
Although dual agent cases used double the amount of sup-
pressant than single agent cases, the effectiveness does not
seem to improve much, which may suggest that picking the
right nozzle locations and the right suppressant is critical to
the success of suppression.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the breakdowns of the suppres-
sion effectiveness for nozzle locations A, B, and C sepa-
rately. A few observations can be made:
1. For position A, the two nozzles are pointing at the
engine block. CO2 and wet chemical have very low
suppression effectiveness, while dry chemical per-
forms the best.
2. For position B, which consisted of the two noz-
zles pointing directly at the fire source, most of
the fire suppression is successful, regardless of the
suppressant.
3. For position C, which consisted of one nozzle
pointing towards the fire source and one nozzle
pointing away, most tests were successful with the
exception of the cases employing the CO2 fire sup-
pression agent.
If comparisons were made between the three positions
for the same suppression agent, another interesting finding
is that, for most of the nozzle location configurations, wet
chemical seems to be the least effective agent in our sup-
pression tests, while dry chemical is effective in every test.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of CO2 and water mist
seem to be influenced by nozzle configuration.
CONCLUSIONS
A series of fire suppression tests were conducted on simu-
lated mobile mine equipment with different suppression
nozzle configurations and different fire suppressant agents.
Two sets of nozzle location configurations, namely single
agent systems and dual agent systems, were investigated to
study the suppression effectiveness. The major findings can
be concluded as follows:
1. For single agent nozzle location, position B is bet-
ter than positions A and C. It indicates that when
the location of the fire source is known, the sup-
pression nozzle should be pointed at the fire source
to achieve better effectiveness.
2. In most of the tests, dry chemical seems to be a
better fire suppressant in spray oil fires.
3. Dual agent does not necessarily provide higher
suppression effectiveness, picking the right nozzle
locations and suppressant might be more critical.
These results are only applicable to the studied test con-
ditions which are based on the fire not being 75% or more
enclosed. However, it is expected that the lesser perform-
ing systems will perform better under total system flooding
conditions where the fire is 75% or more enclosed.
LIMITATIONS
The results of this experimental research were limited to
only provide scientific data for the purpose of fire suppres-
sion effectiveness. Because the tests were designed to evalu-
ate five different fire suppression agents, using 6 distinct
configurations, there are conditions that were not evaluated
in this study. Location and orientation configurations were
selected based on objective to evaluate performance using
a consistent test set up and may not necessarily follow the
installation guidelines set by individual fire suppression
Table 2. Suppression effectiveness results for single agent
position A
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
CO
2 5 1 17
Dry chemical 0 6 100
Water mist 2 4 67
Wet chemical 6 0 0
Table 3. Suppression effectiveness results for single agent
position B
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
CO
2 0 6 100
Dry chemical 0 6 100
Water mist 0 6 100
Wet chemical 2 4 67
Table 4. Suppression effectiveness results for single agent
position C
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of Not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness
[%]
CO
2 5 1 17
Dry chemical 0 6 100
Water mist 0 6 100
Wet chemical 2 4 67