Pros and Cons of Foam Systems on Fire Apparatus

[chiefbpfd 41]

Does your department use foam sytems on your rigs?

What are the pros & cons using foam system on rigs?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Does your department use foam sytems on your rigs?

What are the pros & cons using foam system on rigs?

We do not.

Seen too many that fail, mostly because they are not properly maintained or the mpo is not properly trained. You can preconnect an eductor and drop it in the foam just as quick and it works everytime.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Are you referring to A or B type foam cells on apparatus or CAFS?

I have seen CAFS units that are not built into the pump but rather their own unit that show a lot of promise if you want foam capabilities if A. you do not want to add water to your apparatus B. you do not want to have the built in foam systems.

[38ff 250]

We have a Foam Pro system on 2 of our engines, they work great. One suggestion if your going to retrofit a Foam Pro system onto a truck, spring for the extra $ for the onboard refill pump. The external one is a bit cumbursome.

[Guest jcnyc]

Read an article in one of my BMW motorcycle mags about a Fire Dept in England that has two 6 gal tanks on the bike and a hundred foot hose reel with compressed foam to respond to high traffic areas. That would be a great detail!

[Remember585 815]

Our Engine 118 is a 1993 HME / Saulsbury and features a 100 gallon tank which is filled with 1%/3% AR-AFFF foam. The rig has on board capability and the foam can be pumped from any discharge (working with the 1000 gallon water tank).

Our other two Engines (119 & 120) do not have on board foam. Both carry 15 gallons (3 pails) of 1%/3% AR-AFFF foam and utilize an eductor, similar to what Barry mentioned.

Additionally, we added 30 gallons (6 pails) of the same foam, an eductor and new foam capable nozzle to Marine 12 this year.

As far as uses, we generally utilize water for all fires, but we do have the foam if we need it.

[IFCO3080 26]

In mount kisco the two newest engines...104 and 106... have foam tanks on board that is included with the pump of the truck...Both are husky foam systems. I know that 106 had 60 gallon foam cell to hold foam and I do not know how much is carried on 104. the other three enginges 102,103, and 105 all have at least three 5 gallons buckets of foam. The foam is used rarely and once in a blue moon gets used to put a fire out. But overall MKFD has lots of foam ready to be used.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

In mount kisco the two newest engines...104 and 106... have foam tanks on board that is included with the pump of the truck...Both are husky foam systems. I know that 106 had 60 gallon foam cell to hold foam and I do not know how much is carried on 104. the other three enginges 102,103, and 105 all have at least three 5 gallons buckets of foam. The foam is used rarely and once in a blue moon gets used to put a fire out. But overall MKFD has lots of foam ready to be used.

Before JFLYNN or Bneiches takes this and as taught in FFII, no, no you dont. You may have enough foam for a car fire or two but if a 3,000 gallon tanker truck spills and goes up you are going to be calling in a great many surrounding friends to come play.

E102, 103 and 105: 5 gallons per bucket x 3 buckets per truck x 3 trucks is 45 gallons of foam

E104 and 106: 60 gallons per truck x 2 trucks is 120 gallons

This creates a total of 165 gallons of foam carried. At a expansion ratio of 3:1 that is only 495 gallons of foam. Obviously different ratios can be used but I am simply trying to say that it is not enough.

Other than the obvious hazards in YFDs district, there is a reason why they have an entire truck devoted simply to carrying foam from one location to another. Its because when you need some, odds are you will also need a lot.

Edited December 7, 2010 by bvfdjc316

[firefighter-70 27]

I've been told that Departments that have high rises do not use foam do to the standpipe systems. They stated that they are not reliable past 10 + floors. I'm not sure this is fact, but would like to see it put to the test. NYC, Yonkers, White Plains, NewRoc and the Vern have high rises. None to my knowledge use these "CAF" systems. I asked several FDNY Officers who made the reliability comment I mentioned earlier. They said they had tested foam with marginal results.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Before JFLYNN or Bneiches takes this and as taught in FFII, no, no you dont. You may have enough foam for a car fire or two but if a 3,000 gallon tanker truck spills and goes up you are going to be calling in a great many surrounding friends to come play.

E102, 103 and 105: 5 gallons per bucket x 3 buckets per truck x 3 trucks is 45 gallons of foam

E104 and 106: 60 gallons per truck x 2 trucks is 120 gallons

This creates a total of 165 gallons of foam carried. At a expansion ratio of 3:1 that is only 495 gallons of foam. Obviously different ratios can be used but I am simply trying to say that it is not enough.

Other than the obvious hazards in YFDs district, there is a reason why they have an entire truck devoted simply to carrying foam from one location to another. Its because when you need some, odds are you will also need a lot.

Well done!!!!

Now lets look at Ethanol (which is alcohol mixed with gasoline). E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, while E10 is 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. E10 is commonly found in cars. Ethanol is now the #1 rail transported product, with 350,000 annual railcars, usually rail cars carry pure ethanol. MC306 Tanker trucks generally care either E85 or E10 with approximately 8,400 tanker trips annually. Which is about 10% of the total tanker trips.

Ethanol is a polar solvent which means it mixes with water. Gasoline is a non-polar solvent, when gasoline and ethanol are mixed they create a unique series of problems for the fire service.

One concern is how much foam is needed, which is dramatically more than with other flammables. The 1% / 3% (Hydrocarbons / Polar Solvents) AR-AFFF is considered the most appropriate for Ethanol and should be set at 3%.

15 gallons of Ethonal from a car tank that has spilled on the ground and ignited will require approximately 10-16 gpm of foam concentrate for a minimum of 15 minutes, which is 150 to 230 gallons of concentrate. If an M306 gasoline tanker were to spill its entire load the requirements would be approximately 80,000 – 128,000 gallons of concentrate. I do not believe that much concentrate exists in the entire region. Airport Crash Trucks are not an option, they do not carry Alcohol Resistant Foam. If the fire occurs in a loading dock the flow rate needs to be doubled. If the spill is contained in a diked area, the application time doubles, but the amount of foam needed maybe less based on total square footage.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I've been told that Departments that have high rises do not use foam do to the standpipe systems. They stated that they are not reliable past 10 + floors. I'm not sure this is fact, but would like to see it put to the test. NYC, Yonkers, White Plains, NewRoc and the Vern have high rises. None to my knowledge use these "CAF" systems. I asked several FDNY Officers who made the reliability comment I mentioned earlier. They said they had tested foam with marginal results.

I do not know if class A and class B work the same on the issue of backflow. When developing a large capacity program to deal with a tanker fire, we looked into how to flow foam from a tower ladder. We now have large eductors that can feed our tower ladder. While extension of the boom is not a problem, elevation above 30 feet creates enough back pressure that minimal or no foam flow. If this back pressure is an issue with class A (and it should be based on the pressures inside the venture of an eductor) then the only way to get foam above the 3rd floor is to carry the buckets & eductor up with you. And since you need 200psi at most eductors and standpipe systems almost never give that much pressure that wont work either.

Come to think of it, since the maximum distance of most systems is 200 feet from the eductor, and you need about 150' (minimum) from the standpipe to nozzle, that only leaves 50' to get from the engine to the standpipe, then up the building. Most of the time you need 50 feet or more to get to the standpipe. That leaves 0 feet of elevation.

Finally, we supply standpipes with 2 1/2" - 3" lines (some use 4" or 5") how many depts have anything larger than 1 3/4" eductors?

[Guest jcnyc]

Give me one reason why you would need foam in a hi rise? Even a commercial hi rise. You use foam for hydro carbon fires. The Hi expansion stuff we have at work gets used so rarely that it gets thrown out before it gets used (joke). All you need is water, and lots of it. And the biggest Spamco nozzle flows maybe 190gp, a far cry from the 2.5 with 1 and 1/8th tip.

And isnt the 1% and 3% the concentration solution not the expanison ratio.

[pjtm4 4]

Every Department should have class A foam on board to use on all structure fires , especially if you have water supply issues (Northern Westchester). If you use foam you will use alot less water. It's hard to change the way we think and do things in the fire service because we've always used water. If departments took the time to look into it and practice with foam. I think it would open alot of eyes.

[antiquefirelt 994]

It is somewhat apparent that when posting you need to point out which type of foam you're speaking of Class A or B or CAFS. Clearly there would be no gain to Class B in a high rise situation even if it was possible, which clearly it is not short of purpose built systems. Class A may be beneficial as a "water maximizer", but then who are building high rises in places with inadequate water supplies? I suspect CAFS would lose it's bubbles in the standpipe system piping reducing it to a very expensive class A system.

We run three engines, one with a Class B around the pump system, one with both the B around the pump and a direct injection Class A system and the newest with just the class A direct injection system.

Class B: It's used far too infrequently to maintain operator efficiency. Both trucks carry 100 gallons of AR-AFFF 3x3%. We store more, but in reality it's not enough for anything more than saddle tank spills/fires. The third and newest engine was specced with just a portable eductor in hopes the region would see the light and purchase a foam trailer so we all could stop putting these systems on the truck and then not use them.

Class A: We tend to use this mostly for wildland type jobs and some wet downs. Some shifts have some guys who run it on every fire, others never. For a portion of our coverage area there is no municipal water so we specced this in hopes we could see the "water maximizing results". I doubt without a well planned demonstration of water vs. foam, we ourselves will prove or disprove this, with far too many variables in any given fire.

As for pros and cons of on-board systems: expense, maintenance, upkeep, infrequent use leads to foam gelling, if you have to fill from the top, it's slippery and dangerous, class A is super easy to use, class B is nearly the opposite and lasltly, most trucks will not carry enough foam for an incident of any size.

[NWFDMedic 58]

For those of you who have tank farms in your area, you might want to see what resources they have available. We have a foam pumper due to the tank farms on the river in our district. They also maintain significant foam resources (both piped and stored) that can directly connect to fire apparatus. If there was an incident off the tank farms that required significant foam resources, I'd imagine they would be able to make it available in an emergency situation. Granted, it's not on a truck ready to go, but it may still be of use.

[commonsensejake 6]

Anyone who purchases a modern piece of fire apparatus and does not include a foam injection system has done the community they protect a great disservice. There is no excuse for not having class A foam on almost every fire. The use of modern foam systems requires the MTO to know how to operate a toggle switch. Use of Class A in highrise/standpipe applications is discouraged due to the possibility of cross contamination of potable water. As far as CAFS - go look at the Science before you discuss it further - it works everywhere outside of the Northeast. The Palmdale, CA study conducted with NIST should be required reading. The utilization of CAFS in highrise/standpipe applications can only occur if the OS&Y to the standpipe is closed and CAFS is pumped to the siamese. The vast majority of the personnel at FDNY don't have a clue what the letters C.A.F.S. stand for - regardless of rank. Hope this helps.

[abaduck 123]

Before JFLYNN or Bneiches takes this and as taught in FFII, no, no you dont. You may have enough foam for a car fire or two but if a 3,000 gallon tanker truck spills and goes up you are going to be calling in a great many surrounding friends to come play.

Or you're going to protect any exposures and let it burn; if it's possible, this may cause a lot fewer problems than getting a few thousand gallons of finished foam & petroleum product into the nearest stream...

Mike

[firemoose827 324]

I guess it all depends on the size of the department and the call volume, as well as the hazards located in the district, manpower, and budget.

Class "A" foam has proven to be very effective against some structural fires but it is expensive, and unless you use it alot (CAFS I mean) it will start to cause more problems than solve them. You need to maintain those systems quite regularly and to be honest; around me I dont see too many departments properly maintaining their HANDTOOLS let alone any CAFS or other power equipment. You hear it all too often in this county where a department goes out on a call only to have one or even TWO of its rigs call out of service for repair, because they dont use them or service them enough.

For any class "B" spill or fire the use of 5 gallon pails and self educting foam nozzles is just as quick and efficient as long as you train on their use regularly. That includes firefighters, pump operators and officers, everyone needs to know how to use foam and its many appliances in order for it to be effective.

We just carry 8 5-gallon pails of AFFF, both a self-educting nozzle and an in-line eductor on our engines and it works for us.

[Fireman488 57]

Does your department use foam sytems on your rigs?

What are the pros & cons using foam system on rigs?

Note: This is strictly our experience with Class A foam!!!

In July 2007, our department converted all of its onboard foam systems from Class B foam to Class A foam; and issued a Department SOP that Class A foam hoselines will be the first hoselines stretched at most fires, unless otherwise directed by an officer.

Engine Company preconnected foam hoselines are 2 inch, pumped at 200 PSI, with Class A foam at 0.5 percent, and equipped with automatic gallonage combination nozzles.

Class B foam is still carried on our apparatus in 5 gallon containers for use with portable eductors.

This conversion was done for the following reasons:

All of our onboard foam systems were equipped with Class B foam, which was rarely used and regularly caused system maintenance problems.

A neighboring department reported remarkable success with Class A foam on vehicle and structure fires.

The added expense was not an issue, because of the very small percentages (0.5 to 1.0 percent) needed to be effective.

The department did extensive research, testing, and training to validate its implementation.

Since the above mentioned conversion, the following positive results have been observed:

The use of Class A foam at 0.5 percent on vehicle, dumpster, brush and structure fires has proven to be very effective. These fires are extinguished much more quickly, due to the foam’s penetrating and cooling properties; using much less water, with no resulting rekindles.

Quicker knockdowns with no rekindles greatly reduce firefighter stress and improve firefighter safety. Recently, we were confronted with heavy fire conditions at two structure fires and Class A foam proved most impressive. At both fires, the first hoseline stretched (2 inch Class A foam) and placed into operation darkened the fires down before the pump operator switched from tank to hydrant water.

There have been no maintenance problems since the above-mentioned conversion.

Our 2 ½ gallon pressurized water extinguishers have been supplemented with 8 ounces of Class A foam.

Class A foam at 1.0 percent has been found to be most effective for exposure protection.

Conclusion: Our current apparatus are only equipped with one foam system discharge. Future rigs will be designed with multiple foam system discharges.

From our experience there are no downsides to using Class A foam, in most situations, including the often cited criticism is that it is too expensive. At 0.5 percent, the foam is not used in great quantities: “We are only ‘topping off’ our foam tanks after every three or four uses.”

The benefits of increased firefighter safety and increased fire suppression efficiency far outweigh the costs of approximately $65 per 5 gallon container.

[Alpinerunner 61]

This is all very interesting. Class A foam isn't used or discussed in any departments around me and I remember learning in FF1/2 that it was primarily used out west to protect exposures in wildfires. I will certainly keep it on the back of my mind if the opportunity comes to change SOGs.

[antiquefirelt 994]

As far as CAFS - go look at the Science before you discuss it further - it works everywhere outside of the Northeast. The Palmdale, CA study conducted with NIST should be required reading. The utilization of CAFS in highrise/standpipe applications can only occur if the OS&Y to the standpipe is closed and CAFS is pumped to the siamese.

This very well be a reality. Remember the building stock of the Northeast is far older than most of the "progressive" places nationwide. Standpipe system design has changed to allow/utilize outlet higher pressures. Nonetheless, you first have to prove to many that CAFS can be delivered reliably. Our CAFS demo failed to work on arrival!

[markmets415 524]

We are located in Batt. 4 in Dutchess County and we are the only department out of five that doesn't have a CAFS pumper. We are in the process of spec'ng one as I write this with hopes of having our own in service by the end 0f 2011. If you have ever used CAFS or been on a scene where it was used you would clearly see the benefits of it's use.

Our Engine 69-11 has a Class A and Class B system (20 gallons of tanks for each, although the Class B tank is empty as we realize that if we are going to be using Class B there clearly isn't enough on board). Engine 69-12 is set-up as our brush/grass fire rig and has a Class A system with a 20 gallon tank and carries 1000' of forestry hose. Our BRAT utility has a Class A system on it which is used for generally grass/brush fires although it was put into service at our garage fire a few weeks ago, it also has 1000' of forestry hose and another 1000' in bags for in the field use.

Picture #1: 69-12 supplying Class A foam to firefighters at a large debris pile to get to the deep seated fire.

Picture #2: The results of applying the Class A foam

[pjtm4 4]

Someone at the County Level, needs to get in touch with Foam pro or another company and have them conduct a demostration at the training center. Pack a car, truck or bus with wood pallets light it and put it out with water, then do it again with foam. The differnce in knock down time and the amount of water use is dramatic. It's apparent the only way people will believe it is, they have to see it with their own eyes. You do not need CAFS, just add class A foam to your hose lines and you would see a big differnce. Again Every department should have Class A foam, especially in Northern Westchester where water supply is a big problem.

Edited December 8, 2010 by pjtm4

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Someone at the County Level, needs to get in touch with Foam pro or another company and have them conduct a demostration at the training center. Pack a car, truck or bus with wood pallets light it and put it out with water, then do it again with foam. The differnce in knock down time and the amount of water use is dramatic. It's apparent the only way people will believe it is, they have to see it with their own eyes. You do not need CAFS, just add class A foam to your hose lines and you would see a big differnce. Again Every department should have Class A foam, especially in Northern Westchester where water supply is a big problem.

A foam system demo was done in N. West over the summer. Your exact demonstration description is what took place. I can not recall what the name of the manufacturer was however.

Edited December 8, 2010 by bvfdjc316

[Bnechis 3,961]

Someone at the County Level, needs to get in touch with Foam pro or another company and have them conduct a demostration at the training center. Pack a car, truck or bus with wood pallets light it and put it out with water, then do it again with foam. The differnce in knock down time and the amount of water use is dramatic. It's apparent the only way people will believe it is, they have to see it with their own eyes. You do not need CAFS, just add class A foam to your hose lines and you would see a big differnce.

I have seen depts convinced of many things with just one demo. The whole debate on Class A and CAFS, we need to remember its just another tool. USFA did a 6 month (or yr long) study with Boston. They installed a system on the busiest engine and had it respond to all working fire (in addition to its primary responses). The final report was basically, its nice, it works, thank you very much and that was the end of it.

Again Every department should have Class A foam, especially in Northern Westchester where water supply is a big problem.

I do agree, that there are benifits to it, but I also have great concerns about our ability to use it.

A number of fire instructors have told me that when doing live burns at DES (both classes and dept drills), they ask the MPO what pressures they plan on using and the most common answer is dont know, just till the hose is hard.

The other issue, is while standing by mutual aid in another dept., there were 2 M/A engines from 2 different depts (we had a truck there). One engine had CAFS and one class A both drivers said the chiefs who bought the rigs said it works great, and both drivers said they dont use it because it never works.

Now most of this is training issues, but it leaves me very negative, that most MPO's have issues with basic pumping. That needs to be addressed 1st.

[ny10570 745]

Anyone who purchases a modern piece of fire apparatus and does not include a foam injection system has done the community they protect a great disservice. There is no excuse for not having class A foam on almost every fire. The use of modern foam systems requires the MTO to know how to operate a toggle switch. Use of Class A in highrise/standpipe applications is discouraged due to the possibility of cross contamination of potable water. As far as CAFS - go look at the Science before you discuss it further - it works everywhere outside of the Northeast. The Palmdale, CA study conducted with NIST should be required reading. The utilization of CAFS in highrise/standpipe applications can only occur if the OS&Y to the standpipe is closed and CAFS is pumped to the siamese. The vast majority of the personnel at FDNY don't have a clue what the letters C.A.F.S. stand for - regardless of rank. Hope this helps.

Thats a pretty bold statement. I dare say that anyone that doesn't flow foam more than a couple of times a year is doing their community a disservice if they waste the money on an injection system and foam cell. They need to be used or else the maintenance becomes a serious problem. A 5 gallon pail, eductor, and a half dozen foam cans is just as effective and more versatile. Chicago is a big adaptor of CAFS and last I saw they were till using lots of water for their high rise operations.

[SSCharged E100 7]

Engine 100 in Ossining carries about 100 gallons of F-500 with a foam pro system out of 6 discharges, The new engine 99 has a 30 gallon tank carring F-500 also with a foam pro system out of 2(i think) discharges.

[pjtm4 4]

Thats a pretty bold statement. I dare say that anyone that doesn't flow foam more than a couple of times a year is doing their community a disservice if they waste the money on an injection system and foam cell. They need to be used or else the maintenance becomes a serious problem. A 5 gallon pail, eductor, and a half dozen foam cans is just as effective and more versatile. Chicago is a big adaptor of CAFS and last I saw they were till using lots of water for their high rise operations.

Class A Foam should be used everytime you flow water for a structure fire,car fire or if possible brush fires (all class A fires) and training. Then you would be using it more often. It's true, you need to be trained on how it works. Just like any other tool we use. I do not see what the big deal is. Go out and test it and see for yourself!

[38ff 250]

With the Foam Pro system that is prepiped on an engine, all the MPO needs to do is start water flow as normal, then hit a button to turn the Foam Pro system on, then select the percentage of foam. Upon shutdown, hit the button again, drain the drain, and thats all thats "different" than flowing water normally. A Foam Pro rep came to our dept, gave us a classroom and practical instruction. It's easy to use, and there is no excuse not to use it.

[ny10570 745]

Class A Foam should be used everytime you flow water for a structure fire,car fire or if possible brush fires (all class A fires) and training. Then you would be using it more often. It's true, you need to be trained on how it works. Just like any other tool we use. I do not see what the big deal is. Go out and test it and see for yourself!

And there are depts that don't do that for months at a time. I'm not disputing the value of foam or other additives. I am disputing the need for an expensive and complicated foam system.