Protection of Combustible Liquids Stored In
Composite Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) Research Project
Phase II Final Report
Prepared for
The Fire Protection Research Foundation
Quincy, MA
Prepared by
Joseph L. Scheffey, P.E.
Hughes Associates, Inc.
3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817
Baltimore, MD 21227
Ph. (410) 737-8677 FAX (410) 737-8688
www.haifire.com
and
Martin J. Pabich, P.E.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Northbrook, IL
September 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Suppliers and manufacturers are continually faced with either receiving or storing chemicals
in DOT-approved composite intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). NFPA 30 recognizes
protection of composite IBCs (e.g., 31H1A units) when Listed and Labeled. This is based on
previous Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) testing. There has been limited
implementation of this protection methodology, as evidenced by the lack of sales of Listed IBCs.
Yet, anecdotally, many flammable and combustible liquid-filled composite IBCs are reportedly
used in storage.
Since Listed IBCs have the same general appearance as non-Listed units, there was a
perception that there was no difference in fire performance. Phase I of this current effort
demonstrated that non-Listed units may fail rapidly (in about three minutes) when protected by
water sprinklers and subjected to a pan fire test. AFFF might be used to protect these units.
The objective of the current Phase II tests was to provide replicate tests for two situations:
1. The Phase I, Test 1, using Listed IBCs instead of non-Listed units used in Phase I –
the intent was to demonstrate any performance difference when 0.60 gpm/sq ft water
sprinklers protected a 14-ft x 14-ft pan fire with mineral seal oil-filled IBCs.
2. An associated issue was the perceived difference in fire resistive performance
between water-ladened and combustible liquid-filled IBCs. Differences at the
bench-scale level have been observed.
Associated with these two issues were performance differences between pan fire tests
conducted in Phase I, and the large-scale fire performance test specified in Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. (UL) Standard Fire Exposure Testing of Intermediate Bulk Containers for
Flammable and Combustible Liquids, UL 2368. The water-ladened and combustible liquidfilled comparison testing was conducted using the UL 2368 large-scale method.
A series of three fire tests were conducted at the Underwriters Laboratories Inc.’s large-scale
fire test facility during the time period April 10–12, 2007. All of the tests were conducted under
a 30-ft. ceiling and utilized a water only sprinkler system. The system was designed with
K- 11.2 (gpm/psi½) pendent standard spray sprinklers having a 286°F standard response
temperature rating. The nominal discharge density was 0.60 gpm/ft2. All tests were conducted
with eight Listed IBCs in a 2 high by 2 wide by 2 high (2 x 2 x 2) storage array.
Test 1 involved the use of IBCs filled with mineral seal oil (254°F flash point Class IIIB
combustible liquid) positioned in the center of a 14 x 14-ft. containment pan. The pan held
leveling water and 110-gallons of mineral seal oil. The fire was ignited, and exposed the IBCs
until sprinklers operated. A total of four (4) sprinklers operated. The pool fire was allowed to
burn for approximately 20 minutes. The IBC had developed a distinguishable leak during the
fire exposure.
The second test was conducted in accordance with the UL 2368 large array test method using
water-filled IBCs. The exposure fire was initiated with a heptane spill, followed by a heptane
flow of 2 gpm through a pipe positioned in the center of the IBC storage array. A total of two (2)
ii
sprinklers operated during the second fire test, after which relatively steady-state fire conditions
were achieved. There was a persistent flue fire, and some flaming at the face of the array. The
location of this face fire was variable during the test. The spill fire was allowed to burn for thirty
minutes (30:00). The immediate posttest evaluation indicated that the IBC array exhibited melt
down and burn through at the top of the lower units. The IBC appeared to hold the lading
throughout the fire exposure and were set aside posttest to allow for further drainage of the
applied fire protection water. After sitting for 24 hours the IBC were examined for leakage. The
IBC had developed a weeping leakage of the laden material.
The third test was a repeat of Test 2 using mineral oil-filled IBCs. A total of four (4)
sprinklers operated. Again, steady-state conditions were observed after sprinkler actuation
during the second fire test. The immediate posttest evaluation indicated that the IBC array
exhibited melt down and burn through at the top of the lower units. The IBC appeared to hold
the lading throughout the fire exposure and were set aside posttest to allow for further drainage
of the applied fire protection water. After sitting for 24 hours the IBC were examined for
leakage. The IBC had developed a weeping leakage of the laden material.
Differences in failure times between non-Listed (Phase I, Test 1) and Listed IBCs (Phase II,
Test 1) in the pan fire test scenario cannot be exactly quantified. Listed IBCs in the pan fire test
failed in less than 20 minutes. The failure results (collapse of bottles, discharge of the entire
liquid contents) were similar to Phase I, Test 1, where non-Listed IBCs were used.
The 14-ft x 14-ft pan test is not equivalent to the UL large-scale fire test for assessing fire
performance of composite IBCs. This is consistent with the findings of the original composite
IBC scaling tests, where a smaller pan fire (5-ft x 5-ft platform within a 7-ft x 7-ft pan) was
found to be a more severe challenge to IBCs compared to unconfined two- and three-dimensional
spill fires.
Tests 2 and 3 were a comparison of the effect of liquid ladening in the UL test method.
Neither test passed the UL leakage criteria, which requires prevention of liquid loss below the
IBC full liquid level. The Listed IBCs supplied for these tests apparently differed in construction
details compared to the units which were originally tested. This may have contributed to the
breaches observed in these tests. All other NFPA 30 performance criteria were essentially
achieved. No significant differences in failure modes were observed. For this test scenario, no
significant differences were observed in the performance between water ladened and oil filled
containers.
In Test 3 where mineral oil IBCs were tested, development of a large, growing pool fire was
prevented. This is attributable to either a low amount of leaking oil (likely a function of the
inherent fire resistivity of the unit tested) and/or the effectiveness of the water sprinkler system.
The observation of the oil sheen in Test 3 suggests some suppression effectiveness of the
sprinklers. However, the sprinklers were unable to suppress the Test 1 pan oil fire. Because of
differences in test configurations (unconfined running fuel fire with leaking IBCs vs. confined
pan with relatively thick fuel substrate plus leaking fuel from IBCs), quantitative conclusions on
suppression effectiveness cannot be made. As observed in the original IBC tests, successful
performance is likely a combination of IBC fire hardening (resistively to thermal threat) and
water sprinkler cooling.
iii
Protection of Combustible Liquids Stored in
Composite Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs)
Research Project
Technical Panel
Graham Atkinson, Health and Safety Laboratories, UK
John Davenport, Consultant, Chair, Protection Task Group, NFPA 30 Committee
Dwight Havens, Phoenix Fire Department
Anthony Ordile, Loss Control Associates, Inc., Chair NFPA 30 Committee
David Swenson, The Sherwin-Williams Company
Christopher Wieczorek, FM Global
Bob Benedetti, NFPA Staff Liaison
Sponsors
Dow Corning Corporation
GE GAPS
The Proctor and Gamble Company
Schutz Container Systems, Inc.
Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council
The Viking Corporation
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are extended to the project sponsors, including Dow Corning Corporation (Mike
Snyder and Don Hicks), GE GAPS/Swiss Re (Pete Willse), The Proctor and Gamble Company
(Christina Francis), Schutz Container Systems, Inc. (Brian Minnich), the Silicones
Environmental Health and Safety Councile (represented by Joe Aleksa), and the Viking
Corporation (Eldon Jackson). Thanks are also extended to the project technical panel, and the
staff of the FPRF, particularly Kathleen Almand. The fire test team at Underwriters Laboratories
Inc. provided excellent support. Finally, special thanks are provided to Dave Swenson of
Sherwin-Williams for providing extra photographic and video documentation of the tests.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ v
1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF PHASE I TESTING........................................................... 2
3.0 PLANNING FOR PHASE II AND PHASE II OBJECTIVES ............................................. 4
4.0
MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................... 5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
NFPA 30 ......................................................................................................................... 5
Pan Fire Test ................................................................................................................... 6
UL 2368 .......................................................................................................................... 6
Potential Variations on Performance Criteria ................................................................. 6
5.0
TEST FACILITY................................................................................................................... 7
6.0
EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND INSTRUMENTATION.............................................. 8
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Intermediate Bulk Containers ......................................................................................... 8
Stored Liquid Commodity .............................................................................................. 8
Ceiling Sprinkler Systems............................................................................................... 9
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 9
Steel Containment Pan.................................................................................................. 10
Heptane Delivery System ............................................................................................. 10
7.0 TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 12
7.1
7.2
Test 1............................................................................................................................. 12
Tests 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................. 12
8.0 TEST RESULTS.................................................................................................................. 16
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.0
Test 1............................................................................................................................. 16
Test 2............................................................................................................................. 21
Test 3............................................................................................................................. 27
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 32
9.1
9.2
9.3
Construction of Listed IBC........................................................................................... 32
Comparison of Fire Test Methodologies ...................................................................... 34
Impact of Liquid Ladening ........................................................................................... 36
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 36
11.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX A — TESTS 1, 2 AND 3 RESULTS ..................................................................... A-1
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 — Summary of Test Phase I Results ................................................................................. 3
Table 2 — Flash Point Results........................................................................................................ 9
Table 3 — Phase II Test Parameters and Results ......................................................................... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 — Test Facility ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2 — Locations of Ceiling Thermocouples and Associated Sprinkler Designations ......... 10
Figure 3 — Test 1 Set Up ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 4 — Test 2 and Test 3 Set Up Showing Heptane Fuel Supply.......................................... 11
Figure 5 — Test 1 Plan View ....................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6 — Test 2 and Test 3 Plan View...................................................................................... 14
Figure 7 — Fuel Pipe for Tests 2 and 3 ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 8 — Heptane Filled Bags for Ignition in Tests 2 and 3..................................................... 15
Figure 10 — Test 1, Sprinkler Operation Times .......................................................................... 19
Figure 11 — Test 1, Post-test Bulging of North Side of the Array .............................................. 20
Figure 12 — Test 1, Bottle Collapse ............................................................................................ 21
Figure 13 — Test 2, Sprinkler Operation Times .......................................................................... 22
Figure 14 — Test 2, Fire at Sprinkler Operation .......................................................................... 23
Figure 15 — Test 2, Fire in Steady-state Conditions.................................................................... 23
Figure 16 — Test 2, Burning at Unit S1 Fill Cap, Exposing Underside of Unit S2..................... 24
Figure 17 — Test 2, Post-test Condition of Unit N1 Ullage Area................................................ 25
Figure 18 — Test 2, Post-test Holing of Unit N1 Top Fill Cap.................................................... 25
Figure 19 — Test 2, Post-test Condition of Unit N1 Bottle Showing Stress Crack from Vertical
Bar Branding............................................................................................................ 26
Figure 20 — Test 3, Sprinkler Operation Times .......................................................................... 28
Figure 21 — Test 3, Fire after Sprinkler Operation...................................................................... 29
Figure 22 — Test 3, Fire at Northwest Corner of the Array......................................................... 29
Figure 23 — Test 3, Leak in Unit W2 .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 24 — Test 3, Ullage Hole in Unit W1............................................................................... 31
Figure 25 — Test 3, Leak from Unit W1 Doghouse Valve Cap .................................................. 31
Figure 26 — Field Repair of IBC Doghouse for Tests 1 and 2 .................................................... 33
Figure 27 — Construction Details of the Listed IBC Supplied for Test 3 ................................... 33
Figure 28 — Comparison of Large Array and Pan Fire Test Results, Class IB Fire Exposure,
From Previous IBC Testing [5] ............................................................................... 35
vii
1.0
BACKGROUND
Many industries utilize bulk packaging to store liquids, which are ultimately used for the
production of commercial consumer products. Many of these liquids are classified as
combustible liquids as defined by NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code [1].
Due to market conditions and environmental regulations, there has been an increased interest
worldwide in the use of composite intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) to store combustible
liquids. Storage of bulk combustible liquid containers, including composite containers, is
regulated in two distinct environments: during shipment or transport (Transportation
Regulations); and in place in protected warehouses (Fire and Building Codes, such as NFPA 30).
When bulk containers are transported, they fall under DOT/UN guidelines. These guidelines
classify liquids as “flammable” if the flash point is 141°F or lower. Containers transporting
flammable liquids must be tested for this application, e.g., for structural integrity such as
resistance to dropping and puncturing. Packaging, such as composite IBCs, for materials having
a flash point higher than this level, may not be required to be subjected to this testing. Many
“end users” believe that since the container is “approved” for transportation purposes it is
automatically acceptable for indoor storage of combustible liquids.
In North America, when liquids are stored in protected warehouses using NPFA 30 criteria,
Class I, II and III designations (associated with liquid flash and boiling points) are used, in part,
to determine the protection criteria. In the mid 1990s, the Fire Protection Research Foundation
(FPRF) carried out a major fire test program to determine how composite IBCs storing
flammable and combustible liquids could be safely stored and protected; the focus was on how
well the containers survived an exposure to a flammable liquid fire [2–6]. This research resulted
in a formal container Listing process which, when combined with appropriate sprinkler
protection, was intended to assure container integrity in the event of a warehouse fire [7]. No
distinction is currently made in NFPA 30 in terms of flash point; all composite IBCs must be
Listed containers where associated Class II and III liquid storage is to be considered “protected.”
This requirement is not presently believed to exist in the fire regulations of other countries,
however, increased regulatory focus on composite IBCs is taking place within the UK based on
the results of UK Health & Safety Laboratory testing and several recent fires involving
composite IBCs. Thus, there are differing construction requirements for composite IBCs in the
transportation and warehouse (storage) environments in the United States, and in the warehouse
storage environments among different countries.
In March of 2005, industrial and commercial representatives, who manufacture and use
combustible liquids, met with industry experts from the NFPA 30 Container and Portable Tank
Committee to discuss possible approaches to resolve this issue. Due to their lower susceptibility
to ignition, Class III combustible liquids stored in composite IBCs may inherently be less
hazardous than lower flash point liquids (e.g., Class II liquids) from an ignitability standpoint.
Examples of such liquids include cooking oil, motor oil, lubricants, paints and coatings, scents
and flavorings, and other chemical intermediates. Currently there is little data to fully evaluate
the hazard and associated protection requirements of composite IBCs containing high flash point
liquids.
1
Since the original focus of the Foundation research project was on maintaining container
integrity, rather than exploring ignition and fire development of the stored liquid, it was agreed
that there might be an opportunity to bring the transportation and building storage requirements
closer together. Additional testing of certain combustible liquids in non-Listed/labeled IBCs,
involving scenarios in which the composite IBC is breached during actual fire conditions, was of
interest.
Recent tests sponsored by Spacecraft Corporation, which involved IBCs with motor oil using
a smaller ignition source without an initial spill (pool), demonstrated the role of automatic
sprinkler protection in early stages of fire growth [8]. A logical extension of this work applied to
the current situation with storage of high flash point liquids in certain IBCs, is to explore the
performance of certain generic IBCs in a simulated storage situation with “real-world” ignition
scenarios.
The FPRF initiated a research program to investigate the appropriate fire protection
requirements for the storage of Class IIIA and Class IIIB combustible liquids stored in composite
IBCs. The program had two Phases. Phase I involved initial demonstration and scoping tests to
explore the integrity of a common, unlisted IBC in a well-controlled pool fire exposing a pallet
array. In reaction to the results of Phase I, Phase II tests investigated differences in test
methodologies and liquid ladening in Listed composite IBCs.
2.0
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF PHASE I TESTING
Three palletized storage array tests were conducted August 22–25, 2006 at the Southwest
Research Laboratory, San Antonio, TX. The results are documented in References 9 and 10. The
storage array consisted of 275 gal (1041 liters) composite IBCs stacked in a 2 x 2 x 2 high array.
The IBC, having a UN designation of UN31HA1Y, was a representative, non-listed container
comprised of an inner HDPE bottle within a solid sheet steel outer enclosure. The only exposed
area of the bottle was the top fill opening. The IBCs were filled with mineral oil having a 270°F
flash point. The array was exposed to a pool fire exposure within a 14 ft x 14 ft x 30-in. high
steel pan. The mineral oil pool was ignited in a corner of the test pan. The fire grew until it
exposed the test array, and actuated sprinklers thirty feet above the floor.
A summary of the test results are shown in Table 1. Damage as used in Table 1 refers to
holing of the interior poly bottle.
Test 1 was performed with 286°F standard response sprinklers discharging at 0.60 gpm/sq ft.
Three minutes after ignition (self-sustained burning of the pool), sprinklers operated. At that
time, flames involved about one half of the test pan. A total of four sprinklers operated. The
pool fire growth was arrested and was ultimately suppressed. A fire within the flue space
persisted throughout the test. There appeared to be some liquid discharging from containers, and
fuel vapor contribution from the stored liquid. The test was terminated eleven minutes after
ignition. Post-test inspection indicated that the four units closest to the ignition source were
breached, and essentially all liquid had discharged from these containers.
2
Table 1 — Summary of Test Phase I Results
Parameter/Event Observation Test 1
AS Density
AS Temperature (°F)
AS Rating
Foam (%)
Water Depth (in.)
Fuel Depth (in.)
Bottom of Pallet to Top of
Fuel (in.)
Time to Ignite (min:sec)
Ignition to First AS (min:sec)
AS Operated
Ignition to Extinguish (min:sec)
Ignition to Terminate (min:sec)
Damage N1
Damage N2
Damage E1
Damage E2
Damage S1
Damage S2 (Empty)
Damage W1
Damage W2
Max Air Temp (°F/Time)
Max Beam Temp (°F/Time)
0.60
286
SR
N/A
2
1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
0.45
155
SR
3%
2
1
0.45
286
SR
3%
2
1
0.45
286
SR
3%
2
1
1 – 1.5
~5
~5
~5
11:29
3:54
5:14
0:36
3:08
1:43
2:34
3:00
4
6
5
3
N/A*
3:32
N/A***
N/A
~11:11
7:24
8:35
~9:45
Y
Y****
ND
Y
Y
N**
ND
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
ND
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
ND
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
450/3:05 257/1:43 446/2:33 433/2:54
175/3:12 121/2:39 209/2:34 200/6:11
AS – Automatic sprinkler
N/A – Not applicable; ND – Not determined; Y – Yes; N – No
* Manual suppression; pool fire essentially suppressed; continued burning in flue/array
** Dimple
*** AFFF pump failure ~1 min. after AS operation – test aborted
**** Container remained essentially full during and after the test
In an effort to provide more rapid sprinkler operation and positive suppression effects, the
parameters were changed for Test 2. AFFF, discharging through 155°F standard response
sprinklers at 0.45 gpm/sq ft, was used. Six sprinklers actuated, and the fire was controlled and
extinguished. One container had very small holes as a result of the fire exposure, but there was
no substantial liquid oil loss from the container. No other containers were breached, and only
slight deformation of the bottle wall was observed on two units closest to the ignition source.
To determine if response time of the sprinklers was the key parameter for these positive
results, Test 2 was repeated in Test 3 using 286°F sprinklers. There was a failure of the AFFF
pump in Test 3; Test 4 was conducted as a repeat of Test 3. Only three sprinklers operated in
this test, two of which were well away from the pan area. Because of insufficient AFFF
discharge to the pool fire area, there was a persistent flue fire and breach of four of the oil-filled
containers. Ambient wind may have affected this test.
3
It was concluded that:
1. The IBC tested can be generically described for purposes of referencing it in a fire
safety code such as NFPA 30.
2. It appears that non-listed IBCs of the type tested, storing high flash point liquids, can
be protected in accordance with NFPA Annex E criteria using AFFF provided:
a. Low temperature rated sprinklers are used; and
b. There is an allowance to permit minor breaching of the container, provided there
is no significant liquid loss. This is consistent with the current NFPA 30
ANNEX E criteria.
3. 286°F water sprinklers discharging at 0.60 gpm/sq ft. extinguished the confined pool
fire, but not the well-established flue/pallet fire where discharging oil apparently
contributed to the fire. It is unknown whether faster sprinkler operation (using
155/165°F sprinklers, or 286°F quick response sprinklers) would improve the water
only suppression performance in this scenario.
4. Additional testing is required to:
a. Validate the AFFF performance in a full scale, unbounded array; and
b. More definitively identify and bound the sprinkler temperature rating
characteristics for this scenario.
3.0
PLANNING FOR PHASE II AND PHASE II OBJECTIVES
The project sponsors, project Technical Advisory Committee, and other interested parties,
reviewed the Phase I data and provided comments related to a path forward:
1. Foam protection is the least viable method for retrofitting warehouses.
2. Ordinary temperature (155/165˚F) sprinklers would be difficult to retrofit because:
a. The inherent cost of physically replacing sprinklers; and
b. The existing sprinkler design operating area may be insufficient to supply an area
protected by ordinary temperature sprinklers (the use of high temperature
sprinklers typically results in a lower required design area of application,
compared to the use of ordinary temperature rated sprinklers). Hydraulically, the
water demand in a retrofit situation may exceed the available supply.
3. Quick response (QR), 286˚F temperature rated sprinklers are a viable retrofit option,
which would likely result in a quicker operating time. This was shown to be
important in Phase I.
4. There is a perception that the Listed IBC currently available on the market is
essentially the same as the non-Listed unit tested in Phase I, in terms of resistance to
fire. Some believe the performance of the Listed unit would be similar to that
observed in Phase I with non-listed units.
5. Except for limited scenarios in the original NFPRF IBC testing conducted in
1996–1998, this is the first public domain sprinkler testing of IBCs with hydrocarbon
liquid lading. Most of the original IBC testing used water to simulate the
4
flammable/combustible liquid lading. Heptane was floated on top of the water
ladening to provide a flammable liquid ignition source should the container breach at
the ullage space. A report published by the UK Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL)
[11] indicated potential differences in failure time when lading is varied in plastic
containers. Plastics containing oils failed more rapidly when exposed in a small-scale
burner fire test (non-sprinklered) compared to plastics with water lading. It was
unclear whether this affects the current Listing procedure published by UL and
recognized by NFPA 30.
Based on this analysis, discussion, and input, the objectives of the Phase II tests were
established to provide replicate tests for two situations:
1. Phase I, Test 1, using Listed IBCs instead of non-Listed units used in Phase I – the
intent was to demonstrate any performance difference when 0.60 gpm/sq ft water
sprinklers protected a 14-ft x 14-ft pan fire with mineral seal oil-filled IBCs.
2. The difference in fire resistive performance between water-ladened and combustible
liquid-filled IBCs, to address the differences observed at the bench scale level [11].
Associated with these two issues were performance differences between pan fire tests
conducted in Phase I, and the large-scale fire performance test specified in Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL) Standard Fire Exposure Testing of Intermediate Bulk Containers for
Flammable and Combustible Liquids, UL 2368[7]. The water-ladened and combustible
liquid-filled comparison was conducted using the UL 2368 large-scale method.
4.0
MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE
These tests are intended to provide data on the performance of IBCs under different fire
threats and protection variables. The following performance parameters should be considered in
evaluating the data.
4.1
NFPA 30
As described in NFPA 30 Annex E, the evaluation measures for determining the performance
of a fire protection system on a flammable/combustible liquid storage fire are characterized as
follows:
1. Prevent pressure buildup in containers or actual violent ruptures – while this is not
generally expected to occur in composite IBCs, there is data that suggest that units
might “pop” and rupture when exposed to a small fire which locally heats the
contents for a prolonged period [11].
2. Prevent loss of liquid from a container – in this case, holing might be permitted (e.g.,
in the ullage area) if liquid is not discharged from the container.
3. Limit the number of sprinklers operating – the number of sprinklers operating should
be significantly less than a reasonable design demand area for a typical warehouse.
5
4. Prevent ignition of adjacent target array or failure to control a fire in an adjacent
target array – this was not explicitly determined in these tests since a single pallet
array was evaluated.
5. Limit temperature of structural or rack steel – e.g., overhead steel temperature should
not exceed 1000°F for more than a minute.
6. Control sustained ceiling gas temperatures – related to measure 5, do not expose the
building to excessive temperatures.
7. Prevent collapse of the stored containers or arrays.
4.2
Pan Fire Test
The 14-ft x 14-ft pan fire test is intended to provide scoping data for IBC evaluation. No
protection criteria per se, beyond the generalized criteria in Section 4.1, have been established.
Limitations of the pan methodology were identified in previous IBC testing [5] and in the current
Phase I tests. In particular, assessing sprinkler cooling/suppression is problematic.
4.3
UL 2368
UL will “Classify” a product which they have determined has demonstrated the ability to
comply with requirements for a specific risk and conditions, and which may be recognized in
regulatory codes such as NFPA 30. The product is tested as a component in a system (in this
case, warehouse storage with specific sprinkler protection). There is a follow-up service. IBCs
are currently Classified by UL when tested in accordance with UL 2368. Classification as used
by UL meets the NFPA definition of Listed and Labeled. For this report, the NFPA definitions
are used, and IBCs that have passed the UL test are termed “Listed”.
For Classification purposes, UL 2368 has two basic criteria for both the reduced and largescale tests. There must be no evidence of leakage (liquid loss at a location below the full liquid
level). Structural integrity of the IBCs must be maintained (no toppling of units, or leaning more
than six inches or five degrees from the vertical).
4.4
Potential Variations on Performance Criteria
Currently, the failure criterion for large, liquid-filled containers in NFPA 30, Annex E is loss
of a substantial amount of liquid from a container other than the initiating container. In large
container fire testing, it is generally assumed that a container breach has occurred, and this
provides the initiating or “threat” fuel source. Ignition of this threat could be from a spark/flame
or from an adjacent, radiating Class IV commodity fire.
A revised philosophy for Class IIIB liquids may be appropriate, as described in the Phase I
report [9]. Multiple container breaches (holing of the container) may be acceptable, provided:
1. A “catastrophic” or “significant” discharge is prevented; and/or
2. “Adequate” protection is provided, e.g., the fire is suppressed, the number of
sprinklers operating is reasonable/acceptable, pallet stability is maintained (no
personnel/firefighting hazard), and ceiling temperatures remain below critical values.
6
A key aspect to these potential revised criteria would be to define a “catastrophic” or
“significant” discharge, and the appropriate level of protection. In this case, catastrophic failure
is defined as a container which has lost all of its liquid contents. If a fire is nearly or totally
suppressed, and all other criteria are met as far as protection, then multiple container breaching
may be acceptable.
5.0
TEST FACILITY
The fire tests were conducted in Underwriters Laboratories large-scale fire test facility
located in Northbrook, Illinois. The large-scale fire test building used for this investigation
houses four fire test areas that are used to develop data on the fire growth and fire suppression
characteristics of commodities, as well as the fire suppression characteristics of automatic water
sprinkler systems. A schematic of the test facility is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — Test Facility
The fire tests were conducted in a 120 by 120 by 54-ft. high room fitted with a 100 by 100-ft.
adjustable height ceiling set to a height of 30 feet.
The test room was equipped with an exhaust system through a regenerative, thermal
oxidizing smoke abatement system. Make-up air was provided through four inlet ducts
positioned along the walls of the test facility.
The floor of the test facility was smooth, flat and surrounded with a grated drainage trench to
insure adequate drainage from the test area. The water runoff from the suppression system drain
was collected through an 180,000-gallon water treatment system.
7
6.0
EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND INSTRUMENTATION
6.1
Intermediate Bulk Containers
A single type of 275-gallon capacity composite intermediate bulk container (IBC) was
utilized for this test work. The container was a Schutz Intermediate Bulk Container bearing the
UN designation UN31HA1/Y/MMYY/D/USA/+AA2388/3356/1753/1041/8kg/100kPa. It was
constructed using a blow molded high-density polyethylene bottle fit inside a ceramic fiber
insulated steel container on a steel pallet frame. The ceramic fiber insulation was also termed
ceramic “paper” by the vendor. These terms are used interchangeably in this report. These units
were the UL Classified IBCs, identified as Model SX-UL. The bottle has an average thickness
of 80 mils (0.08 in.).
There is an approximate 2-in. diameter discharge valve and outlet at the bottom of one side
of the IBC. This discharge outlet area is recessed within the outer steel container in an area
commonly called a “doghouse.” The doghouse area was protected by a steel cover. The units
measured 38 inches (doghouse side) by 46 inches by 40 inches high. An integral steel pallet was
attached to the bottom, measuring 4.5 inches high. The pallet had a solid metal base at the
bottom of the bottle enclosure. The top fill opening consisted of an approximate 6-inch diameter
plastic screw-on cap having an integral 3-inch diameter snap-on cap. The caps, which reportedly
provide some degree of fire resistance, were removed for these tests. This was the only area of
the IBC where plastic was exposed. There were no view-hole openings in the outer steel
enclosure.
Post-test evaluation of the containers indicated that there was no overlap of fiber material at
the corners or edges of these IBCs, which created small seam areas on the plastic bottle that were
not protected by insulation. Also, in the units used in Tests 1 and 2, perforated cut-outs for the
doghouse valve area face and bottom were missing. A field repair was made to correct this.
Section 9.1 provides a more detailed discussion of the IBC construction.
6.2
Stored Liquid Commodity
For the first and third fire test, the IBCs used in the test array were filled with a petroleum
distillate commonly known as mineral seal oil. For the second fire test, the IBCs were filled with
water and then 1 gallon of heptane was floated on the top of the water surface.
A sample of the Mineral Seal Oil was subjected to the flash point test for a liquid in
accordance with the Standard for Test For Comparative Flammability of Liquids, Part 6.3 in UL
340 (Fourth Edition) using the Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed
Cup Tester (ASTM D 93-02a). The results of the testing are presented below in Table 2; the
results are corrected for a barometric pressure of 747 mm Hg. The results indicate that the
mineral seal oil is an IIIB combustible liquid per NFPA 30.
8
Table 2 — Flash Point Results
Sample
Test No.
Time,
Minutes
Observed Flash Point,
°F(°C)
1
0
Started at 73°F
53
250°F
0
Started at 73°F
51
255°F
256°F (124.4°C)
Average of 2
254°F(123.3°C)
2
6.3
Corrected Flash Point,
°F(°C)
251°F (121.7°C)
Ceiling Sprinkler Systems
The fire testing utilized a water sprinkler system designed with K- 11.2 (gpm/psi½) pendent
standard spray sprinklers provided by the Viking Corporation. They had a 286° F temperature
rating with a standard response heat activated element. A nominal discharge density of
0.60 gpm/ft2 was provided to protect the storage arrangements of Intermediate Bulk Containers.
The test was conducted under a 30-ft ceiling with thirty-six (36) sprinklers installed on 10 by
10-ft. spacing. The distance from the sprinkler deflector to the ceiling was 12 inches.
6.4
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used in the testing as shown in Figure 2 consisted of the following
devices:
1. 1/16-in. diameter, Type K inconel-sheathed thermocouples were located below the
ceiling adjacent to each sprinkler to record ceiling temperatures for fire tests
conducted in the120 by 120-ft test cell.
2. A 1/16-in. diameter, Type K inconel-sheathed thermocouple was located 6-in. below
the ceiling above the ignition location.
3. Five 1/16-in. diameter, Type K inconel-sheathed thermocouples were embedded in a
50.5-in. long steel beam attached to the bottom of the ceiling directly above the fire.
4. Bristol Babcock Model 250815B pressure transducers in a 0–300 (psi) range were
used to measure the water pressure in the sprinkler system.
5. Fischer Porter model X3311SFD20 – 12-inch magnetic flow meter with a
0–3200 gallons per minute (gpm) range were used to measure the water flow rate.
6. Stopwatches and timing devices located within the data acquisition system were used
to monitor and record significant events during the fire tests.
7. Video cameras were used to capture and record images of the fire test.
9
6.5
Steel Containment Pan
A 14 x 14 x 1 ft. containment pan was used in Test 1 as shown in Figure 3. It was fabricated
from 7-gauge steel with 2-in. drainage/leveling pipes and fittings positioned on the lower third of
the sideboards on two sides.
6.6
Heptane Delivery System
A system of flexible and hard 1-inch diameter pipe was used to deliver a 2 gpm flow of
heptane from the test cell’s storage and pumping facility (Figure 4). It supplied an upturned
elbow positioned within the IBC storage array in Tests 2 and 3.
Figure 2 — Locations of Ceiling Thermocouples and Associated Sprinkler Designations
10
Figure 3 — Test 1 Set Up
Figure 4 — Test 2 and Test 3 Set Up Showing Heptane Fuel Supply
11
7.0
TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES
All tests were performed using a 2-unit wide by 2-unit long by 2-unit high (2 x 2 x 2) storage
array with 6-inch flue spaces. All units were positions so that the doghouses (discharge valve
area) faced to the east in the array. A standard unit designation scheme was used: North (N),
South (S), East (E), West (W), Lower (1), Upper (2). For example, the upper north unit was
designated N2. The designations are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
All units were filled to 98% full volume capacity (within one inch of the top of the container,
which was within 2.5 inches of edge of top of the threaded fill opening).
7.1
Test 1
The steel pan was positioned on the floor in the center of the test cell under four sprinklers as
shown in Figure 5. Concrete blocks were positioned in the test pan to support the IBC. Eight (8)
oil filled SX UL IBCs were positioned in a 2 x 2 x 2 storage array, on concrete blocks in the test
pan. A total 110 gallons of mineral seal oil was then pumped into the test pan. Water was added
to the test pan and the liquid leveling fitting on the side of the test pan was adjusted until the
liquid level was even with the tops of the concrete blocks. The center of an 8-in. diameter
natural gas ring burner used for ignition was positioned 24-in. in both directions from the
southeast corner of the test pan. The burner was operated at 10 psig.
With the test commodity in place, the sprinkler system charged, and data acquisition systems
operating, the ring burner was lit. When a self-sustaining fire was achieved, the ring burner was
secured and removed. This was considered as test time 0:00. During the test, time, temperature,
and flow information were gathered using high speed data acquisition equipment. Video images
were captured and recorded. The test was scheduled to run for 20 minutes, recognizing that it
was likely to be a more severe fire than the UL large-scale test method used in Tests 2 and 3.
7.2
Tests 2 and 3
Eight (8) SX-UL IBCs were positioned on the cement floor in a 2 x 2 x 2 array, with 6-in flue
spaces, with the center located below four sprinklers as shown in Figure 6. In Test 2, the units
were filled with water, with one gallon of heptane floated on the top as designated in UL2368.
Mineral oil filled units were used in Test 3. A one-inch pipe used to supply the fuel for the three
dimensional heptane fire was positioned within the storage array (Figure 7). The piping was
arranged to provide the spill location approximately 6 inches above the base of the uppermost
unit through an upturned elbow at the center intersection of the longitudinal and transverse flue
space. The spill fire fuel loading utilized a 2-gallon spill of heptane over eight plastic bags each
filled with 1gallon of heptane positioned in the longitudinal and transverse flue spaces
(Figure 8).
12
The tests were conducted in accordance with UL 2368. With the test commodity in place, the
sprinkler system was charged and data acquisition systems started, the fueling system was
activated for one minute to discharge two gallons of fuel at the array. The fueling system was
then secured and the heptane ignited using a torch (test time 0:00). At the operation of the first
sprinkler, the fuel system was turned on to provide 2 gpm of heptane through the fuel delivery
system. During the test, time, temperature, and flow information were gathered using high speed
data acquisition equipment. Video images were captured and recorded. The test duration was
30 minutes.
Figure 5 — Test 1 Plan View
13
Figure 6 — Test 2 and Test 3 Plan View
14
Figure 7 — Fuel Pipe for Tests 2 and 3
Figure 8 — Heptane Filled Bags for Ignition in Tests 2 and 3
15
8.0
TEST RESULTS
A summary of the test results is presented in Table 3. Appendix A provides detailed
graphical temperature, pressure and flow data. The following sections describe individual test
results. The nomenclature for the times used in the descriptions uses the minute:second format.
For example 1:30 indicates 1 minute, 30 seconds.
Tests were conducted April 10–12, 2007.
8.1
Test 1
The objective of Test 1 was to repeat Test 1 of Phase I, replacing a non-Listed IBC with a
Listed unit. Prior to the test, it was observed that there was no interior ceramic insulation
protecting the doghouse (valve) area of the IBCs. The vendor representative indicated that
there should be protection in this area. An ad hoc repair was made to each unit using available
0.6-inch thick Unifrax® insulating material (see Section 9.1).
The ring burner was ignited and the impinging fire ignited the mineral oil. The mineral oil
started to ignite about one minute after exposure by the ring burner. At 1:40 after the initial ring
burner ignition, the burner was removed since there was clearly self-sustained ignition in the
Southeast corner of the test pan. As in the Phase I pan tests, this time is considered test time 0:00
for analysis purposes.
The fire spread such that the Southeast triangular area was involved with fire at 0:17. By
0:40, there was a full fire involving the Southeast face of the IBC array, and flames extended
10–15 feet above the pan. By 1:10, flames were 15–20 feet above the pan and the pan area was
approximately 50% involved (Figure 9). The first sprinkler over the Southeast corner operated at
1:22 (Figure 10). A flue fire was well established in the array. The pool surface fire started to be
pushed to the Northeast corner of the pan. Between 2:42 and 2:56, the three other sprinklers
over the test pan operated. Some knockdown of the flue and Northeast face fire were evident
about one–two minutes after these sprinklers operated. There was a persistent fire at the
Northeast face of the array.
In the 6–7 minute range, there appeared to be some fire at or under both the N2 and E2 IBCs.
At 14:00, there was an obvious rise of the liquid level in the test pan, and the drain discharge
pipe valve was opened. At 16:20, spill-over of the liquid was observed, and there was oil
burning outside the pan. The floor fire was knocked down with an AFFF handline at 17:10, and
again at 18:00. It appeared that the N2 and E2 units were spilling liquid. At 20:25, a foam
handline was brought in and the pan fire totally extinguished. A total of four sprinklers operated
during the test. The maximum steel temperature was 185ºF.
16
Table 3 — Phase II Test Parameters and Results
Fire Test Number
1
2
3
14 x 14-ft. Pan Fire
UL2368 Spill Fire
UL2368 Spill Fire
Mineral Seal Oil
Heptane
Heptane
Oil filled
Water Filled
Oil Filled
UL Classified IBC
UL Classified IBC
UL Classified IBC
30
30
30
Between 4
Between 4
Between 4
Pendent
Pendent
Pendent
286
286
286
Standard
Standard
Standard
12
12
12
10 by 10
10 by 10
10 by 10
11.2
11.2
11.2
0.60
0.60
0.60
22:00
30:00
30:00
1:22
0:43
0:28
2:56
0:45
3:10
4
2
4
767
990
1144
552
797
831
185
194
191
175
187
182
138
145
Parameters
Initiator
Initiating Fuel
Commodity Loading
Commodity Type
Nominal Ceiling Height, ft
Centered Location
Sprinkler Orientation
Temperature Rating, °F
Response Type
Deflector to Ceiling, in
Sprinkler Spacing, ft x ft
Nominal Sprinkler Discharge
Coefficient K, gpm/psi ½
Nominal Discharge Density, gpm/ft2
Results
Length of Test, min:s
First Ceiling Sprinkler Operation,
min:s
Last Ceiling Sprinkler Operation,
min:s
Number of Operated Sprinklers
Peak Gas Temperature at Ceiling
Above Ignition, °F
Maximum 1 Minute Average Gas
Temperature at Ceiling Above
Ignition,°F
Maximum Steel
Temperature, º F
Maximum 1 Minute Average Steel
Temperature Above Ignition, °F
Steel Temperature at
End of Test, °F
IBC Leakage
Damage
155 (before pan
spillover, which
occurred at 16:19)
129 (at conclusion)
Yes
5 units – catastrophic
failure*(S1, N1, E1,
W1, N2)
Yes
1 w/slit leak (N1, fail**)
1 w/ullage holing (W1,
borderline – not known if
any liquid leaked)
1 Leaking (E2)
1 w/top cap burned off
(S1, pass of UL criteria)
* Catastrophic failure is defined as total loss of ladening by the end of the test.
** Fail by UL test criteria of hole where liquid discharges.
17
Yes
1 w/valve outlet leak
plus doghouse leak
(W2, fail)
1 w/face leak (W1
bottom joint, fail)
Figure 9 — Test 1, Prior to Sprinkler Actuation
The post-test inspection of the array indicated that five units (S1, N1, E1, and N2) had failed
totally or catastrophically, that is, the bottles had collapsed, and all liquid contents had been
discharged. Figure 11 shows the post-test array, with the North units bulging out. Failure was
generally attributed to hot branding action where there was fire exposure (i.e., face fire or
persistent blue fire). As the units expanded due to heat, the interior face insulation appeared to
pull away from the bottle, and exposed plastic was branded from hot metal or directly holed from
heat. The doghouse valve areas were generally in good condition, although there were signs on
several units of softening and the potential onset of leaking. Figure 12 shows an example of the
interior, a totally collapsed unit, with sprinkler water on top of the bottle.
Additionally, the E2 unit was leaking at the bottom. This was the result of cracking along the
edge of two sides exposed to the interior flue fire.
18
Figure 10 — Test 1, Sprinkler Operation Times
19
Figure 11 — Test 1, Post-test Bulging of North Side of the Array
20
Figure 12 — Test 1, Bottle Collapse
8.2
Test 2
The objective of Test 2 was to conduct a confirming test of the UL 2368 methodology. The
large-scale method was used, and the units were water-filled with one gallon of heptane floated
on top. The Listed IBCs were used. As in Test 1, the doghouse was not completely protected,
and the ad hoc repair was performed to protect the valve area.
The fire was ignited, and two sprinklers operated at 0:43 and 0:45 respectively as shown in
Figure 13. This activation time was consistent with prior tests; generally, a minimum of four
sprinklers operate. At the time of sprinkler operation, the flame height was about 15 feet above
the array (Figure 14). By 2:00, after the 2 gpm heptane fuel flow had been initiated, the flame
from the flue extended to the ceiling. At 5:00, the fire was in essentially steady-state condition,
with the flue flame extending nearly to the ceiling, and fire burning under the S2 pallet
(Figure 15). In the 7–10 minute range, the floor fire was pushed to the North side. Since there
was no sprinkler operating at the Northwest corner of the array, an array face fire became
established in this area. It did not appear that any significant water was penetrating the flue fire
plume. By 19 minutes, there was some bulging of the N1 unit. At 23 minutes, there was some
burning evident between the S1 and S2 units. The fire continued to burn in a relatively steadystate manner (Figure 16). The floor fire shifted around at various times, but was most persistent
at the North face. The test was terminated at 30:00 by securing the fuel flow, and totally
extinguished at 30:34. The maximum steel temperature was 194ºF.
21
Figure 13 — Test 2, Sprinkler Operation Times
22
Figure 14 — Test 2, Fire at Sprinkler Operation
Figure 15 — Test 2, Fire in Steady-state Conditions
23
Figure 16 — Test 2, Burning at Unit S1 Fill Cap, Exposing Underside of Unit S2
There was some minor bulging of units N1 and N2 at the conclusion of the test. The bulging
of IBCs was not as great as in Test 1. The array itself was structurally sound, with no sign of
potential collapse of the array. A post-test inspection of the liquid contents indicated that all
units were essentially full. There was no leakage or holes in five of the units. The S1 unit had
the fill cap burned off. Since no liquid leaked or discharged from the unit, it would be
considered as passing the UL test. The top of unit N1 had some melting evident (bottle
depressed, Figure 17) and the top fill cap had a burn hole (Figure 18). Approximately three
inches of liquid had been lost at the conclusion of the test. There was leakage evident from the
West (flue) side, which resulted from branding from an exterior vertical support bar (Figure 19).
This created a “slit” leak at this pressure point. The unit would be considered to have failed the
UL test.
A third unit was considered borderline in terms of leakage/failure. Unit W1 had some holing
in the ullage area and there was a crack at the Southwest (flue) top corner. It was not clear
whether any liquid had leaked from the container. No significant loss of liquid was observed.
The top units in the array were essentially undamaged.
24
Figure 17 — Test 2, Post-test Condition of Unit N1 Ullage Area
Figure 18 — Test 2, Post-test Holing of Unit N1 Top Fill Cap
25
Figure 19 — Test 2, Post-test Condition of Unit N1 Bottle Showing Stress Crack
from Vertical Bar Branding
26
8.3
Test 3
Test 3 was a repeat of Test 2. The variable changed was the IBC contents. Mineral oil was
the liquid loading in Test 3.
Because of the questions raised about the lack of doghouse protection in the delivered IBCs,
the vendor representative had a new shipment of Listed IBCs delivered for Test 3. These units
had ceramic fiber installed in the doghouse valve area. It was part of the continuous sheet from
the side, and from the sheet on the bottom of the container.
Sprinkler operation in this test was quicker than in Test 2 (Figure 20). The first sprinkler
operated at 0:28. All four sprinklers centered over the test array operated, with three operating in
the 0:28–0:38 time range. The final sprinkler operated at 3:10. At 1:00, flames from the flue
extended to the ceiling. At 1:40, some die down of the floor fire was observed. At 5:00, all fire
was contained within the array (Figure 21), but this was variable during the test. At 6:30–9:00,
there was a floor fire at the North face of the array, in addition to the persistent flue fire. At
13:00, some observers believed they saw flaming oil in a line on the floor. At 13:00–14:30, a
fairly persistent fire became established on the Northwest and West sides of the array
(Figure 22). This floor fire had a tendency to move about the array. The heptane fuel flow was
secured at 30:00, and at 31:15 the fire was totally extinguished. The maximum steel temperature
was 191ºF.
There was some question whether a significant amount of oil leaked from any container and
became involved with fire. One observer reported seeing an oil sheen on the floor at
9–10 minutes after ignition. Floor fire “rivulets” were observed in the 13–23 minute time frame,
suggesting potential mineral oil involvement. However, the shifting nature of the floor fire was
also a characteristic of the heptane running fuel fire observed in the original IBC tests [4,5].
No significant bulging was observed in the array, as was observed in Test 1, and to a lesser
extent, Test 2. It should be noted that the total weight of each of these units was less than in
Test 2, because of the lower density of the mineral oil. The array was structurally sound.
The top units were essentially undamaged from the fire exposure. Two bottom units were
observed post-test to have leaks (failed UL criteria). Unit W2 had a 1-in. long oblong hole in
the ullage space interface with the liquid. Some liquid may have leaked out from this hole. The
doghouse was severely damaged, but no hole was immediately obvious. Sixty minutes after the
test, about half of the contents were still in the unit. Examination after removal of the outer
steel shell revealed a hole at the bottom crease of the bottle, near the corner of the container
(Figure 23). This was where two sections of the inner insulation met in a butt-type arrangement
and where a vertical steel outer cage bar pressed against the inner bottle.
27
Figure 20 — Test 3, Sprinkler Operation Times
28
Figure 21 — Test 3, Fire after Sprinkler Operation
Figure 22 — Test 3, Fire at Northwest Corner of the Array
29
Figure 23 — Test 3, Leak in Unit W2
Unit W1 also had a leak. Most of the liquid appeared to remain within the unit. There was a
large (about 2 in x 4 in) hole in the top ullage area (Figure 24), and the top of the bottle was
slumped down in this area. This was the corner of the unit exposed to the flue fire. The top cap
was severely melted. It is not clear if any liquid leaked out of this area; some liquid leakage is
likely to have occurred. There was also a leak out of the cap attached to the ball valve in the
doghouse discharge outlet (Figure 25).
The N1 unit had some damage, with the top cap melted out. There was no apparent leakage
from this unit.
Any liquid leaking from units in this test was either insufficient to create a large pool fire, or
was cooled sufficiently by the overhead water to prevent any significant fire involvement.
30
Figure 24 — Test 3, Ullage Hole in Unit W1
Figure 25 — Test 3, Leak from Unit W1 Doghouse Valve Cap
31
9.0
DISCUSSION
9.1
Construction of Listed IBC
There were several issues with the construction of the Listed IBCs supplied for the project.
As noted in Section 4.3, the units supplied were Classified by UL. They would meet the
NFPA 30 definition of “Listed.”
The units supplied and used in Tests 1 and 2 had ceramic paper insulation between the outer
steel and inner bottle. The paper is evidently supplied in standardized sheet sections matching
the dimensions of the sides, top, and bottom of the IBC. Each insulation section had perforation
cut-outs for the top fill hole, and the face and bottom of the doghouse area. The top fill hole
ceramic is normally cut out, and the unit shipped with the fill cap unprotected. There is a plastic
dust cover, which was not installed during these tests. The ceramic at the face and under the
doghouse is intended to stay in place. The face piece is cut out when the unit is delivered from
storage to a user for field use. All units in Tests 1 and 2 were supplied with the valve area face
and bottom ceramic already cut out. A field repair was made for Test 1 and 2 units as described
in Section 8.1. Care was taken to protect both the valve area and bottom joint interfaces,
particularly the edge between the side and bottom of the doghouse area (Figure 26).
Given the lack of doghouse protection, a new shipment of Listed IBCs was provided for
Test 3. These units did include the ceramic around the doghouse area. Closer inspection of the
units revealed other apparent differences between the delivered units and construction details
reportedly included in the manufacturer’s UL Classification report. The ceramic blanket in the
delivered units (Figure 27) consisted of three pieces: a piece laid on the bottom; a single
continuous piece which was fitted around the sides of the unit, with the seam butted-together (no
overlap); and a piece laid on the top. Figure 27 shows the bottom doghouse insulation section
pulled back. The intersection between top, bottom, and side pieces were essentially butt seams,
with no overlap of material. In the original UL Classification design, additional 20-in. wide
strips of ceramic blanket were reportedly placed at the corner joints, extending down into the
bottom of the unit. This provided an overlap of insulation paper at joints. The limitation of the
lack of overlapped paper at the joints and bottom protection of the doghouse was evident in Tests
2 and 3. Failure points occurred where the blanket had separated at a vertical joint (Test 2,
Unit N1) and at the bottom joint (Test 3, Unit W3, Figure 23). There also was apparent
weakness where the ceramic sheets met at the bottom of the doghouse; ceramic paper in the units
for Test 3 had a gap in front of the doghouse valve. This apparently contributed to the valve leak
in Test 3 (Unit W1, Figure 25). The ad hoc insulation repair provided better protection (Figure
26).
32
Figure 26 — Field Repair of IBC Doghouse for Tests 1 and 2
Figure 27 — Construction Details of the Listed IBC Supplied for Test 3
33
This report is not intended to be critical of the UL Classification system, follow-up service,
or vendor manufacturing techniques. It is understandable that the manufacturing technique
might have changed. The vendor anticipated significant demand, which would allow for
production consistency and standardization. The lack of demand has resulted in “one-off”
production, i.e., there is no regular demand for production of the unit. The overall lack of
demand is evidenced by the production termination of the only other previously Listed IBC.
Increased production, careful follow up service, and appropriate management/approval of design
changes by UL would likely solve these problems.
Several units technically “failed” the UL test and Classification criteria in Tests 2 and 3.
Two points, however, are germane to the overall test results and analysis:
1. The failures in Tests 2 and 3 were small holes caused by heating/melting of the bottle
at weak points in the construction and insulation. Many units, particularly the bottom
units exposed to the severe flue fire, passed (with some damage evident). This
contrasts with Test 1, where there was catastrophic failure involving bottle collapse
and total discharge of the liquid contents after less exposure time. This clearly
suggests a difference in test methods represented by Test 1 and Tests 2/3.
2. The construction differences indicate the protection used in a “Listed” IBC is a key
factor. For these types of units, insulation/protection of the entire bottle containing
liquid level is important. This point was emphasized in prior IBC tests: a
combination of IBC design/protection and water cooling from overhead sprinklers
contributed to successful performance in the UL large-scale test method. For these
types of units exposed to the UL test, Listed IBCs are expected to perform better than
non-Listed units.
9.2
Comparison of Fire Test Methodologies
Test 1 was conducted as a one-to-one comparison of a Listed IBC with the Phase I, Test 1
non-Listed IBC. Both involved the 14 ft x 14 ft test pan fire exposure. The results of the tests
were similar. In Phase I, Test 1, there was total collapse and loss of liquid within 11–13 minutes,
when the test was terminated. A stream of liquid was reportedly seen just before sprinkler
operation, at about 3 minutes. Failure time in Phase II, Test 1, cannot be accurately determined.
The test was conducted for 22 minutes; a rapid rise in liquid level was observed at 14 minutes.
The Listed IBC likely provided some greater time before failure, but the difference cannot be
exactly quantified from these tests.
The pan fire test was adopted in Phase I for two reasons. It was theorized that the
combustible liquid would be suppressed by cooling from the water sprinklers. Also, FM Global
was conducting IBC tests using a 14 ft x 14 ft pan. Having potential comparative data was
thought to be useful.
The Phase I testing indicated that, while there appeared to be some suppression action of the
pool fire by the water sprinklers, there was a persistent flue fire. Similar results were observed in
Phase II, Test 1, with the pool fire being perhaps more persistent. The goal of accomplishing a
high degree of suppression or total extinguishment has not been achieved in the pan fire test
34
scenario. Since total or nearly total fire suppression for this specific scenario has not been
achieved, the limitations of a pan fire test as identified in earlier IBC testing [5] remain. In the
original IBC standardized testing program, two fire test methods were developed. Large array
testing (used in Phase II, Tests 2 and 3) was based on a full-scale array, with target arrays, full
ceiling height, actual sprinklers, and the 2 gpm fuel spill scenario [4]. The 2 gpm spill scenario
was developed during drum testing [12]. It was believed that a small-scale test would be more
economical, so the reduced scale pan fire test was developed [5]. During this development, it
was recognized that the pan (50 ft2 in this case, for a single unit array) fire test scenario was
challenging. For IBCs which leaked in less than 30 minutes in both the large and reduced size
tests, the data indicated that the units leaked in about one-half the time in the smaller test than in
the larger test. This was attributed to: the pan confinement; thicker established flame front at the
IBC face; and reduced cooling effectiveness from sprinklers where the pressure was reduced to
avoid fire “splaying” and to keep the flame front attached to the pool fire surface. Figure 28,
from Reference 5, demonstrates the performance difference between large- and reduced-scale
tests. No correlation was established between test methods when all-plastic IBCs were used.
Figure 28 — Comparison of Large Array and Pan Fire Test Results,
Class IB Fire Exposure, From Previous IBC Testing [5]
35
The results of these tests correlate with the prior tests: a pan fire scenario is more severe
than a floor fire scenario. To date, the NFPA 30 technical committee has considered the floor
fire/2 gpm spill as a reasonable fire threat for adopting protection criteria for large (≥ 55 gal)
containers. NFPA 30 outlines the risks and limitations with fire testing/protection of large
containers (Annex A.6.8, Annex E.2.3).
9.3
Impact of Liquid Ladening
Tests 2 and 3 were conducted to identify the impact of liquid ladening. While failure times
per se were not identified, the failure mechanisms and degree of failure (ullage holing, small
holes/cracks at thermally/structurally weak locations such as seam interfaces) were similar.
There was no apparent difference in performance for the two ladening conditions in this test
scenario (insulated container).
Based on testing data provided by the UK Health & Safety Laboratory (11) that demonstrate
accelerated failure times and different failure modes for polyethylene exposed to hydrocarbon
ladening (when compared to water) at various heat fluxes, it is further believed that the container
insulation significantly reduced the heat flux imposed on the IBC’s polyethylene bottle during
the Test 3.
10.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The supplied IBCs apparently differed in construction compared to units used in the
original Listing (Classification) test. Specifically, the reported original use of 20-in.
wide ceramic paper strips included overlapping of the paper at all 6 of the bottle
corners that would be exposed to liquid ladening. Many failures and areas of
melting/degradation in Tests 2 and 3 were attributable to probable separation of the
ceramic paper at the joints.
The IBC design used in these tests could be improved by:
a. Improved/reinforced corner design of the insulating paper;
b. Inclusion of paper over all potential exposed surfaces, particularly the doghouse.
2. Differences in failure times between non-Listed (Phase I, Test 1) and Listed IBCs
(Phase II, Test 1) in the pan fire test scenario cannot be exactly quantified. Listed
IBCs in the pan fire tests failed in less than 20 minutes compared to 11–13 minutes in
Phase I, Test 1. In both cases, failure likely occurred in much less time. The Listed
IBC likely provided some greater degree of protection, but the magnitude cannot be
quantified. The failure results (collapse of bottles, discharge of the entire liquid
contents) were similar in both tests.
3. The 14-ft x 14-ft pan test is not equivalent to the UL large-scale fire test for assessing
fire performance of composite IBCs. This is consistent with the findings of the
original composite IBC scaling tests, where a smaller pan fire (5-ft x 5-ft platform
within a 7-ft x 7-ft pan) was found to be a more severe challenge to IBCs compared to
unconfined two- and three-dimensional spill fires.
36
4. Comparing Tests 2 and 3, where the liquid ladening was the significant variable in a
comparison using the UL large-scale IBC fire test:
a. Neither test passed the UL leakage criteria, which requires prevention of liquid
loss below the IBC full liquid level.
b. The Listed IBCs supplied for these tests apparently differed in construction details
compared to the units which were originally tested. This may have contributed to
the breaches observed in these tests.
c. Both tests passed the UL criteria for IBC structural integrity and the NFPA
Annex E recommended criteria for prevention of container pressure build-up,
limiting the number of operating sprinklers, limiting steel/ceiling air temperature
rise, and preventing collapse of the array. Prevention of ignition of adjacent
target arrays was not explicitly determined in these tests since a single 2 x 2 array
was used. Given the pool fire containment observed in these tests and previous
tests with target arrays [5], it is likely that adjacent arrays would have remained
unignited.
d. No significant differences in failure modes were observed.
e. The number of units damaged and the extent of damage were similar.
f. The exact time of breaching is unknown.
g. No significant differences were observed in the performance between water
ladened and oil filled containers. Based on testing data provided by the UK
Health & Safety Laboratory (11) that demonstrate accelerated failure times and
different failure modes for polyethylene exposed to hydrocarbon ladening (when
compared to water) at various heat fluxes, it is further believed that the container
insulation significantly reduced the heat flux imposed on the polyethylene bottle
during this test.
5. Test 3 Mineral Oil-ladened IBC Performance – there were small breaches during the
test as indicated in the post test observation and inspection of the units (Table 3). The
time of these breaches is unknown, but an oil sheen was noticed by some observers in
the 10–15 minute timeframe. Development of a large, growing pool fire was
prevented. This is attributable to either a low amount of leaking oil (likely a function
of the inherent fire resistivity of the unit tested) and/or the effectiveness of the water
sprinkler system.
a. Since all parameters, with the exception of minor liquid leakage, for
successful fire testing in accordance with NFPA 30 Appendix E were
demonstrated in Test 3, it may be valuable to consider revised criteria for
protection of composite IBCs storing Class IIIB liquids to include:
i. A “catastrophic” or “significant” discharge is prevented; and
ii. “Adequate” protection is provided, e.g., the fire is suppressed, the
number of sprinklers operating is reasonable/acceptable, pallet stability
is maintained (no personnel/firefighting hazard), and ceiling
temperatures remain below critical values.
37
b. While it is generally believed that Test 3 demonstrated the superior fire
resistance of Listed composite IBCs storing Class IIIB liquids over non-Listed
composite IBCs, a future test structured identically to Test 3 using non-Listed
composite IBCs would confirm this conclusion.
6. The observation of the oil sheen in Test 3 suggests some suppression effectiveness of
the sprinklers. However, the sprinklers were unable to suppress the Test 1 pan oil
fire. Because of differences in test configurations (unconfined running fuel fire with
leaking IBCs vs. confined pan with relatively thick fuel substrate plus leaking fuel
from IBCs), quantitative conclusions on suppression effectiveness per sec cannot be
made. As observed in the original IBC tests, successful performance is likely a
combination of IBC fire hardening (resistively to thermal threat) and water sprinkler
cooling.
11.0
REFERENCES
1.
NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2003 Edition, National Fire
Protection Association Report, Quincy, MA.
2.
Scheffey, J.L., “International Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test Project – Scoping
Tests,” National Fire Protection Research Foundation Report, Quincy, MA,
September 1996.
3.
Scheffey, J.L., Sheppard, D., and Steppan, D., “International Intermediate Bulk Container
Fire Test Project – Suppression Scoping Tests,” National Fire Protection Research
Foundation Report, Quincy, MA, April 9, 1997.
4.
Scheffey, J.L., Pabich, M., and Sheppard, D., “Fire Testing of Intermediate Bulk
Containers – Phase IIA Evaluation of Large Arrays,” National Fire Protection Research
Foundation Report, Quincy, MA, April 1998.
5.
Scheffey, J.L., Pabich, M., and Sheppard, D., “Fire Testing of Intermediate Bulk
Containers – Phase IIB Verification Tests and Development of a Standardized Evaluation
Methodology,” National Fire Protection Research Foundation Report, Quincy, MA,
April 1998.
6.
Scheffey, J. L. and Pabich, M., “International Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test
Project – Phase III: Rack Storage Fire Tests,” Fire Protection Research Foundation
Report, Quincy, MA, January 15, 2000.
7.
UL 2368, Standard Fire Exposure Testing of Intermediate Bulk Containers for
Flammable and Combustible Liquids, Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, IL, 2001.
8.
Garabedian, A., “Performance Testing of Automatic Sprinkler Protection of Palletized,
275-Gal “Bag-In-Box” Intermediate Bulk Container Storage of Motor Oil,” Southwest
Research Institute Technical Report No. 01.10513.01.001c, San Antonio, TX,
November 2004.
38
9.
Scheffey, J.L., “Protection of Combustible Liquids Stored in Composite Intermediate
Bulk Containers (IBCs) Research Project – Summary Document,” The Fire Protection
Research Foundation, Quincy, MA, October, 2006.
(http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/IBCReport.pdf)
10.
Huczek, J.P., “Performance Testing of An Automatic Sprinkler System in the Protection
of Stacked, Free-Standing, 275-Gal Capacity, Composite Intermediate Bulk Containers
(IBCs) Containing Mineral Seal Oil (Class IIB Liquid),” Southwest Research Laboratory
Report No. 01.12513 for the Fire Protection Research Foundation, San Antonio, TX,
November 15, 2005. (http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/IBCFinal.pdf)
11.
Atkinson, G., “Fire Performance of Composite IBCs,” Health and Safety Laboratory
Report FR/05/09, Derbyshire, UK, October 30, 2005.
12.
Newman, R.M., Fitzgerald, P.M., and Young, J.R., “Fire Protection of Drum Storage
Using ‘Light Water’ Brand AFFF in a Closed-Head Sprinkler System,” Factory Mutual
Research Corporation Report FMRC Ser. No. 22464, RC75-T-16, Northwood, MA,
March 1975.
39
APPENDIX A — TESTS 1, 2 AND 3 RESULTS
A-1
TEST 1
Page
Gas Temperatures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.1 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 23–28.........................................................................A-3
1.2 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 33–38.........................................................................A-3
1.3 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 43–48.........................................................................A-4
1.4 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 53–58.........................................................................A-4
1.5 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 63–68.........................................................................A-5
1.6 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 73–78.........................................................................A-5
1.8 – Temperature Above Ignition………………………………………………….....A-6
Other Data
Figure 1.7 – Steel Temperature………………………………………………………………...A-6
Figure 1.9 – Pressure…………………………………………………………………………...A-7
Figure 1.10 – Flow……………………………………………………………………………..A-7
Notes to data acquisition time:
The data graphs are not corrected to Ignition = 0:00. They represent the time data acquisition
started.
Test 1 – Ninety seconds elapsed between start of the data acquisition and “ignition,” which was
when the ring burner was removed. The first sprinkler actuation was at 2:53 data acquisition
time, minus 90 seconds, equals 1:33.
A-2
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler Temperatures
140
120
100
(Deg C)
Spk.023
Spk.024
80
Spk.025
Spk.026
60
Spk.027
Spk.028
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 1.1 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 23–28
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler Temperatures
160
140
120
(Deg C)
100
Spk.033
Spk.034
Spk.035
80
Spk.036
Spk.037
Spk.038
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
Time (Min)
Figure 1.2 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 33–38
A-3
25
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler Temperatures
300
250
200
(Deg C)
Spk.043
Spk.044
Spk.045
150
Spk.046
Spk.047
Spk.048
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 1.3 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 43–48
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler Temperatures
250
200
Spk.053
150
(Deg C)
Spk.054
Spk.055
Spk.056
Spk.057
100
Spk.058
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Time (Min)
Figure 1.4 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 53–58
A-4
25
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler Temperatures
160
140
120
Spk.063
Spk.064
Spk.065
80
Spk.066
Spk.067
Spk.068
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 1.5 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 63–68
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler Temperatures
140
120
100
Spk.073
(Deg C)
(Deg C)
100
Spk.074
80
Spk.075
Spk.076
60
Spk.077
Spk.078
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
Time (Min)
Figure 1.6 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 73–78
A-5
25
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Steel Temperatures Above Ignition
90
80
70
(Deg C)
60
AMB01
50
AMB02
AMB03
40
AMB04
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 1.7 – Steel Temperature
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Air Temperatures Above Ignition
450
400
350
(Deg C)
300
250
AMB06
AMB07
AMB08
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Time (Min)
Figure 1.8 – Temperature Above Ignition
A-6
25
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler System Pressure
35
30
25
20
(psi)
P9INSLOP
P10OUTLOP
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 1.9 – Pressure
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 1
Sprinkler System Flow
600
500
(gpm)
400
300
F2_36
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
Time (Min)
Figure 1.10 – Flow
A-7
20
25
TEST 2
Page
Gas Temperatures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
2.1 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 23–28.........................................................................A-9
2.2 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 33–38.........................................................................A-9
2.3 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 43–48.......................................................................A-10
2.4 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 53–58.......................................................................A-10
2.5 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 63–68.......................................................................A-11
2.6 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 73–78.......................................................................A-11
2.8 – Temperature Above Ignition…………………………………………………...A-12
Other Data
Figure 2.7 – Steel Temperature……………………………………………………………….A-12
Figure 2.9 – Pressure………………………………………………………………………….A-13
Figure 2.10 – Flow……………………………………………………………………………A-13
Notes to data acquisition time:
The data graphs are not corrected to Ignition = 0:00. They represent the time data acquisition
started.
Test 2 –The data acquisition system was started on the 2 gpm heptane fuel flow to the test array
before ignition. In this test, this was ≈ 1:45 before fire ignition.
A-8
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler Temperatures
140
120
100
(Deg C)
Spk.023
Spk.024
80
Spk.025
Spk.026
60
Spk.027
Spk.028
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (Min)
Figure 2.1 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 23–28
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler Temperatures
160
140
120
(Deg C)
100
Spk.033
Spk.034
Spk.035
80
Spk.036
Spk.037
Spk.038
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 2.2 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 33–38
A-9
35
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler Temperatures
300
250
200
(Deg C)
Spk.043
Spk.044
Spk.045
150
Spk.046
Spk.047
Spk.048
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (Min)
Figure 2.3 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 43–48
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler Temperatures
300
250
200
(Deg C)
Spk.053
Spk.054
Spk.055
150
Spk.056
Spk.057
Spk.058
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 2.4 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 53–58
A-10
35
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler Temperatures
180
160
140
120
(Deg C)
Spk.063
Spk.064
100
Spk.065
Spk.066
80
Spk.067
Spk.068
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (Min)
Figure 2.5 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 63–68
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler Temperatures
140
120
100
(Deg C)
Spk.073
Spk.074
80
Spk.075
Spk.076
60
Spk.077
Spk.078
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 2.6 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 73–78
A-11
35
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Steel Temperatures Above Ignition
100
90
80
70
AMB01
AMB02
50
AMB03
AMB04
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (Min)
Figure 2.7 – Steel Temperature
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Air Temperatures Above Ignition
600
500
400
(Deg C)
(Deg C)
60
AMB06
300
AMB07
AMB08
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 2.8 – Temperature Above Ignition
A-12
30
35
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler System Pressure
35
30
25
20
(psi)
P9INSLOP
P10OUTLOP
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (Min)
Figure 2.9 – Pressure
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 2
Sprinkler System Flow
500
450
400
350
(gpm)
300
250
F2_36
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Time (Min)
Figure 2.10 – Flow
A-13
25
30
35
TEST 3
Page
Gas Temperatures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
3.1 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 23–28.......................................................................A-15
3.2 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 33–38.......................................................................A-15
3.3 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 43–48.......................................................................A-16
3.4 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 53–58.......................................................................A-16
3.5 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 63–68.......................................................................A-17
3.6 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 73–78.......................................................................A-17
3.8 – Temperature Above Ignition…………………………………………………...A-18
Other Data
Figure 3.7 – Steel Temperature……………………………………………………………….A-18
Figure 3.9 – Pressure………………………………………………………………………….A-19
Figure 3.10 – Flow……………………………………………………………………………A-19
Notes to data acquisition time:
The data graphs are not corrected to Ignition = 0:00. They represent the time data acquisition
started.
Test 3 –The data acquisition system was started on the 2 gpm heptane fuel flow to the test array
before ignition. In this test, this was ≈ 1:15 before fire ignition.
A-14
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler Temperatures
160
140
120
(Deg C)
100
Spk.023
Spk.024
Spk.025
80
Spk.026
Spk.027
Spk.028
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 3.1 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 23–28
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler Temperatures
200
180
160
140
Spk.033
(Deg C)
120
Spk.034
Spk.035
100
Spk.036
Spk.037
80
Spk.038
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 3.2 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 33–38
A-15
30
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler Temperatures
350
300
250
Spk.043
Spk.044
(Deg C)
200
Spk.045
Spk.046
Spk.047
150
Spk.048
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 3.3 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 43–48
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler Temperatures
350
300
250
(Deg C)
Spk.053
Spk.054
200
Spk.055
Spk.056
150
Spk.057
Spk.058
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 3.4 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 53–58
A-16
30
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler Temperatures
250
200
Spk.063
150
(Deg C)
Spk.064
Spk.065
Spk.066
Spk.067
100
Spk.068
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 3.5 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 63–68
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler Temperatures
200
180
160
140
Spk.073
(Deg C)
120
Spk.074
Spk.075
100
Spk.076
Spk.077
80
Spk.078
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 3.6 – Temperatures at Sprinklers 73–78
A-17
30
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Steel Temperatures Above Ignition
100
90
80
70
(Deg C)
60
AMB01
AMB02
50
AMB03
AMB04
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 3.7 – Steel Temperature
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Air Temperatures Above Ignition
700
600
(Deg C)
500
400
AMB06
AMB07
AMB08
300
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (Min)
Figure 3.8 – Temperature Above Ignition
A-18
30
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler System Pressure
35
30
25
20
(psi)
P9INSLOP
P10OUTLOP
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (Min)
Figure 3.9 – Pressure
Fire Protection Research Foundation
Intermediate Bulk Container Fire Test No. 3
Sprinkler System Flow
600
500
(gpm)
400
300
F2_36
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
Time (Min)
Figure 3.10 – Flow
A-19
25
30