The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication.

It has successfully completed SAEs peer review process under the supervision of
the session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
ISSN 0148-7191
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of
the paper.
SAE Customer Service: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA
ABSTRACT
ADA Technologies, Inc. has designed and built a
microgravity-tolerant portable fire extinguisher prototype
for use in manned spacecraft and planetary habitats.
This device employs Fine Water Mist (FWM) as the fire
extinguishing agent, and is refillable from standard stores
on long-duration missions. The design uses a single
storage tank for minimal mass and volume. The
prototype employs a dual-fluid atomizer concept where
the pressurant gas (nitrogen) also enhances the water
atomization process to generate a droplet size
distribution in the optimum diameter range of 10 to 50
micrometers. The expanding discharge gas plume
carries the mist to the immediate vicinity of the fire where
its extensive surface area promotes high heat transfer
rates. A series of 80 fire suppression tests was recently
completed to evaluate design options for the hardware
and validate performance on three representative fire
scenarios. Test fires were conducted in two different
spaces representative of the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle (CEV) environment. The test matrix explored the
effects of charge pressure and gas-to-liquid ratio on the
amount of agent required to extinguish test fires. In the
optimum configuration for the prototype, fires were
extinguished with an average quantity of agent of well
under one pound.
INTRODUCTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) is implementing its Constellation Program, a new
spacecraft system that will replace the Space Shuttle and
will also provide human transportation to the Moon and
Mars. As part of the overall effort to provide all new
subsystems to the Orion crew capsule, the agency is
reevaluating all elements of its current onboard fire-
protection methodology and technologies. Currently,
NASA uses carbon dioxide (CO
2
) for fire suppression on
the International Space Station (ISS) and Halon chemical
extinguishers on the Space Shuttle. While both of these
technologies are effective, they also have drawbacks,
such as: toxicity associated with high levels of carbon
dioxide, damaging effects of Halon on the spacecrafts
Environmental Control and Life Support System
(ECLSS), protocol to de-orbit a spacecraft after
discharge of current agents, and inability to refill the
extinguishers on-board the spacecraft once discharged.
In a recent paper, NASA researchers suggested that
water mist technology offered advantages that merit
consideration for use in future manned spacecraft [1].
ADA Technologies, Inc. and project team member
Colorado School of Mines have designed, tested, and
improved a Fine Water Mist fire extinguisher prototype
suitable for use in future manned spacecraft and
planetary habitats. This unit has been developed with
funds provided by NASA under a Small Business
Innovations Research (SBIR) Phase II grant. As
explained in detail on the paper presented at the 38th
SAE ICES [2], there are multiple reasons for selecting
water over other suppressant agents. Among them are
its excellent suppression effectiveness on a per-unit-
mass basis, its lack of toxicity and corrosion effects,
ease of clean-up, and the ability to recycle the agent and
refill the extinguisher on long-duration missions. The
prototype microgravity FWM hand-held extinguisher has
several key features:
2009-01-2510
Advances in Development of a Fine Water Mist Portable Fire Extinguisher
James R. Butz
ADA Technologies, Inc.
Angel Abbud-Madrid
Colorado School of Mines
Copyright 2009 SAE International
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
1. Physical separation of the gas and water in a single
storage tank to allow operation under any gravity
condition;
2. Use of water and nitrogen as the fire suppression
fluids, which makes the unit refillable during an
extended mission;
3. Simple, hand-held operation with a manual valve for
rapid discharge; and
4. A design easily modified for use as a mounted
system to protect instrument racks with the addition
of an automatic fire detection module.
The current prototype microgravity FWM hand-held fire
extinguisher has been shown to be efficient and effective
in suppressing and extinguishing fires in an open-room
test scenario as well as in a rack-scale cell in three
different pertinent spacecraft fire situations with
ventilation flow on, as well as off [2]. The investigation
described here focused on the evaluation of operational
parameters on the prototype units fire extinguishing
performance under fire scenarios representative of
conditions on the Orion CEV. The results presented
were obtained from a comprehensive series of 80 fire
suppression tests conducted in the summer and fall of
2008 to characterize the performance of the latest
prototype FWM extinguisher. Parameters incorporated
in the test matrix included the effect on suppression
efficacy of: gas-to-liquid ratio, extinguisher operating
pressure, test fixture, fire scenario, extinguisher
discharge technique, and the extinguisher orientation.
Once configured with the optimum parameters for
maximum fire suppression performance, three prototype
units were turned over to NASA as part of the final
package of deliverables of the SBIR Phase II project.
PROTOTYPE EXTINGUISHER DEVELOPMENT:
OVERVIEW
The ADA FWM hand-held extinguisher features the use
of a physical barrier (bladder) between the gas and liquid
phases within the single storage tank to permit proper
discharge with a gravity vector from any direction, or the
virtual lack of gravity in a microgravity environment. Gas
and liquid are blended in the valve manifold block
fastened to the tank outlet. A single valve controls flow of
both gas and liquid, and a check valve is incorporated
into the design to prevent backflow of water into the
annular gas storage space of the extinguisher tank.
The evolution of the prototype FWM extinguisher
followed a pattern where prototype hardware was
subjected to discharge and fire suppression tests, then
modified to improve performance and tested again. A
proof-of-concept design had been built in an earlier
project, and was used as the basis for functionality in the
successive generations of Phase II prototypes.
The overall functionality was well-captured in the alpha-
prototype [2], where a new valve block was designed and
fabricated that incorporated multiple functions, including
quick-connect ports for fill of pressurization/atomization
gas and water, blending of the gas and water discharge
in an aspirating venturi, and a single control valve to start
and stop the flow from the unit. Testing of the alpha and
beta prototypes focused on two hardware issues: the
design of the discharge nozzle, and the dimensions of
the aspirating venturi, which control the rate of discharge
of the extinguisher. Both of these hardware components
had a significant impact on fire suppression performance
against representative fire hazards.
One additional property of the prototypes also affected
fire suppression performance, and was investigated
extensively. This is the gas-to-liquid ratio of the
suppression agent stored in the extinguisher. In the ADA
design, the gas serves multiple functions, expelling the
water from the storage tank, assisting in the atomization
of the water in the discharge nozzle to generate the fine
water mist, propelling the generated mist droplets to the
vicinity of the fire, and contributing to the fire suppression
capability in that the gas itself is an extinguishing agent.
The relative amounts of water and gas in the
extinguisher affect the mist generation process as well
as the total storage volume needed in the unit.
Early in the project ADA engineers designed a compact
and efficient valve block assembly that incorporated all
the functions mentioned above. The design was laid out
such that the aspirating venturi could be quickly changed
in order to allow easy investigation of the impact of orifice
dimensional changes on discharge times and mist
quality. This subassembly design was retained in the
beta prototype as it functioned well in alpha prototype
testing.
Another key attribute of the Phase II prototype designs
retained from the proof-of-concept unit is that the
suppressant agent flow to the discharge nozzle is a two-
phase stream, containing atomization gas dispersed in
the water. As this flow exits the nozzle, the small gas
bubbles expand dramatically due to the sudden pressure
drop, releasing energy to disintegrate the water jet into a
cloud of fine water mist droplets, a phenomenon
described in the literature as effervescent atomization
[3]. The expanding gas then serves an additional
function in entraining and propelling the mist droplets in
an expanding plume toward the fire being extinguished.
BETA PROTOTYPE CONFIGURATION
The beta prototype configuration used throughout the
testing reported here consists of a 200-in
3
commercial
DOT-rated pressure vessel coupled to the ADA custom-
designed valve manifold, elastomer bladder, and nozzle
assembly (Figure 1). Typical discharge time of the beta
prototype is around 90 seconds. This is maintained for
different gas-to-liquid ratios by changing out the
aspirating venturi installed in the valve manifold block.
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
Figure 1. Beta Prototype ADA FWM Extinguisher
A standard protocol is employed to fill the beta prototype
where the cylinder is located on a scale while filling the
water to monitor the quantity loaded into the storage
tank. The pressurization/atomization gas is then added
to the unit, until the prescribed storage pressure is
achieved. The filled cylinder is then weighed to document
the quantity of agent present.
TEST FIRE SCENARIOS
Fire tests were conducted in two facilities installed at the
Colorado School of Mines: a 0.6 m X 0.6 m X 1.5 m
enclosure representative of a 19-in rack (the Rack Cell)
and a 3-m Cube test room. Both of these facilities have
been described in a previous publication [2].
Three different fire scenarios (replicating plausible fires
on a spacecraft) were included in the test matrix, using
two different fuel materials. These cases are modified
versions of the type of fires previously reported [2]. One
fire scenario employed a 7-wire bundle, where the wire
polyethylene insulation provided the fuel when a high
electrical current (35 amps) on the center wire (AWG 20)
raised its temperature to the point of sustaining a flame
that propagated through the entire bundle (Figure 2, left).
The other two fire scenarios featured 13-in X 15-in cotton
rags as the fuel source (Figure 2, right). Both scenarios
consisted of concentric rags, wrapped on 15-in tall
vertical cylinders with a 0.25 annular gap between them.
In one case, only the inner rag was ignited, so that the
outer rag served to shield the fire from direct impact by
the extinguisher plume, while in the other case the two
rags burned simultaneously.
Figure 2. Fuel Sources for Representative Fires
(Left: Wire Bundle; Right: Concentric Cotton Rags)
In addition to these three fire scenarios, a few fire
suppression tests were conducted to evaluate the
performance of the beta prototype extinguisher against
another hazards of interest to NASA. The use of
personal computers has become widespread during
space flight missions, and there is a concern over the fire
hazard presented by the liquid crystal display (LCD)
screens of these machines. For these tests, ADA
acquired failed LCD panels from a computer repair
facility and ignited them to evaluate performance of the
FWM prototype extinguisher against this fire hazard. An
LCD panel from a laptop computer was attached to a
fixture that suspended the panel approximately 3 feet
above the floor of the 10-foot cube fire test room at the
Colorado School of Mines. This test setup is shown in
Figure 3 below. For the test, the LCD panel was ignited
with a propane torch at the bottom left corner of the
panel. This ignition process took between 1-2 minutes for
the panel to sustain a flame. The fire on the panel was
then allowed to propagate for an additional 1-2 minutes
before the extinguisher was discharged. The
extinguisher was fixed at a location 4 feet away from the
LCD display. The extinguisher was positioned to
discharge either directly at the flame or such that the
panel shielded the flame from the fine water mist plume.
A standard protocol was used to conduct the tests. All
test fires were recorded on videotape to document the
events. Each test fire was ignited with a propane torch
and allowed to burn for 30 to 60 seconds to assure that
the test fire was fully developed before the extinguisher
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
was discharged. For the wire bundle tests typical flame
height was 6 to 8 inches, and for the cotton rag tests the
flames were 12 to 18 inches in height.
FIRE TEST OBJECTIVES
Four specific objectives were identified for the testing
conducted in the summer and fall of 2008. These
included:
1. Evaluate the performance of the beta prototype
extinguisher against likely spacecraft fire hazards;
2. Characterize effects of key operating parameters
(gas-to-liquid ratio in the agent fill and fill pressure)
on the efficiency of fire extinguishment;
3. Investigate impact of a human operator on quantity
of agent needed to extinguish test fires; and
4. Develop recommendations for extinguisher capacity
based on fire test performance.
These objectives were addressed in the fire hazards
defined for use in the testing, and in the test matrix. The
approach was to conduct a broad range of tests where
extinguisher properties were changed as well as test
fires. The full data set was then analyzed to reveal the
effects of the multiple variables on extinguisher
performance. The overall goal was to determine the
best-performing configuration, and to collect data on the
amount of agent needed to provide adequate fire
protection for the next generation of manned spacecraft.
FIRE TEST MATRIX
The fire test matrix addressed several parameters, two
of which were associated with operation of the fire
extinguisher and four associated with the test fire
scenario. These parameters are summarized below:
Extinguisher gas-to-liquid ratio: the prototype
extinguisher was operated at two different gas-to-liquid
ratios (N
2
/water) in the testing, 0.1 and 0.2 (mass/mass).
This was done to investigate the effect of G/L ratio on the
fire suppression performance of the prototype.
Experience has shown that higher G/L ratios result in a
finer mist droplet size distribution generated by the
nozzle. The instantaneous G/L ratio during discharge will
vary somewhat as the pressure in the storage container
decreases; the values cited here are bulk data calculated
from the loaded quantities of water and nitrogen.
Extinguisher charge pressure: the prototype
extinguisher was tested at two different initial pressures-
1,000 psig and 1,500 psig. An increase in the charge
pressure affected two aspects of the extinguisher- how
much agent can be stored (at higher pressure the gas
phase occupied less volume and therefore allowed
additional water and gas to be loaded into the storage
bottle), and the time duration of the discharge, as the
mass flow rate increased at the higher pressure. Again,
the impact of this parameter on fire suppression
performance was of interest.
Fire Test Facilities: two fire test facilities were
employed in the testing, differing in their volume. One
was the CSM Rack-scale Cell with a relatively small
volume of less than 0.6 m
3
(simulating a spacecraft
instrument rack), and the other was the 3-m Cube Test
Facility, a much larger space of approximately 27 m
3
(approaching the volume of the Orion capsule).
Fire Test Type: The three different fire scenarios
described in a previous section (7-wire bundle and
concentric cotton-rags) were included.
Extinguisher Discharge Technique: two discharge
techniques were evaluated, one where the prototype
extinguisher was mounted in a fixed position at a
distance of 4 ft from the fire (to simulate a fire fighting
scenario at the maximum practical discharge distance
inside the Orion CEV) and an active discharge technique
where an operator was allowed to move the extinguisher
around the fire, discharging the unit in different locations
and at various distances in the best possible way to
quickly and effectively put out the fire.
Extinguisher Orientation: multiple orientations for the
prototype extinguisher during discharge were evaluated
to demonstrate performance at the two extreme cases of
gravity-force influence (one- and minus one-g). Tests
were conducted with the extinguisher in a vertical (right-
side-up) orientation (representing normal gravity) and
also in an inverted (upside-down) orientation (simulating
a minus-one g situation). The objective of these tests
was to demonstrate effective generation of fine water
mist by the extinguisher when the gravity vector was at
Figure 3. LCD Panel Test Setup in 3-m Cube
Facility
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
an arbitrary angle with respect to the extinguisher
discharge.
Each combination of the various parameters on the
above test matrix was repeated a minimum of three
times to demonstrate consistency and provide statistical
significance to the results. Distribution of the tests among
the test parameters included in the analysis discussion is
presented in Table 1 below. A total of 80 tests were
completed in this matrix between June 15 and October
31 of 2008.
Table 1. Test Matrix Distribution
Parameter # of Test Fires # of Test Fires
Total tests 80
Gas-to-Liquid
(mass) ratio
0.1 = 57 0.2 = 23
Charge
Pressure
1,000 psig = 54 1,500 psig = 26
Test Fixture 3-m Cube = 64 Rack Cell = 16
Discharge
Technique
Fixed @ 4 ft. =
66
Hand-Operated =
14
Fire Type Wire Bundle =
21
Cloth (Inner fire
only) = 21
Cloth (all on fire)
=38
To provide a reference for all tests addressing the
various parameters of the matrix, the mass of agent
needed to extinguish the test fire was selected as a
measure of performance. This was determined by
correlating the time to extinguish each test fire with the
discharge curve (mass as a function of time) at a fixed
charge pressure. From the known quantity of agent for
successful fire suppression in each test, an average was
calculated for the entire test data set for use as a
standard for comparison. It was then possible to show
the impact of each of the parameters cited above on the
quantity of agent required to extinguish the test fires.
FIRE TEST RESULTS
A standard test protocol was developed for use in the
testing to assure that all events were conducted on a
comparable basis. Testing was completed in facilities at
the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) by technical staff of
ADA and CSM. All tests were recorded on video for later
analysis in a master test spreadsheet.
As previously noted, the tests were compared on the
basis of the quantity of agent (water plus nitrogen)
required to extinguish the test fires. An overall average
amount of agent to extinguish test fires was computed
for the entire 80-test data set. This reference appears in
all of the following plots as a red bar at the left of the
graph. The overall average was 0.64 lb of agent to
extinguish the test fires.
The first graph of results in Figure 4 below explores the
effect of the test fixture on the average amount of agent
required to extinguish tests. There is less than 10%
difference from the average in the two test facilities,
which indicated that the prototype extinguisher was
equally effective in either volume.
Test Fixture Comparison
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Overall
Average
3-m Cube Rack Cell
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
Figure 4. Effect of Test Fixture on Required Agent
The gas-to-liquid ratio of the agent charge in the
prototype extinguisher was also a parameter of interest.
Recall that an increase in the gas to liquid ratio results in
the generation of a finer droplet size distribution in the
mist, and also reduces the amount of water that can be
stored in the container because the gas is less dense
and requires more volume. Tests were conducted at two
different gas-to-liquid ratios, 0.1 and 0.2 (mass to mass).
Results for the two G/L ratios are plotted in Figure 5
below. A dramatic improvement in the average amount
of agent required to extinguish the test fires is seen with
the higher G/L ratio of 0.2. A 40% reduction in the
average amount of agent to extinguish test fires is
realized in the tests of the higher G/L condition.
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
Gas-to-Liquid Ratio Comparison
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Overall
Average
0.1 G/L 0.2 G/L
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
Figure 5. Impact of G/L on Required Agent
The location of the extinguisher with respect to the test
fire was also investigated in the test matrix. One
condition was to mount the extinguisher in a fixed
position approximately four feet from the test fire. For the
alternate approach, an operator was allowed to move
around the fire and sweep the FWM plume over the
flames to extinguish the fire in the most efficient manner.
Results for these two options are reported in Figure 6
below. Here it is quickly seen that movement of the
extinguisher by an operator results in dramatically
reduced quantity of agent to extinguish the test fires,
about 1/3 less than the overall average.
Extinguisher Location Comparison
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Overall
Average
4 ft. from
flame
Hand-
Operated
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
Figure 6. Effect of Location on Required Agent
As described earlier, three different fire scenarios were
investigated in the 80-test matrix. Results for the three
are presented in Figure 7. The ease with which the wire
bundle fire was extinguished under all conditions is
reflected in the very low quantity of agent for average
extinguishment. At the other end of the spectrum the
cotton rag bundle with only the inner rag burning proved
to be the most challenging of the representative fires. On
average, these required 75% more agent than the overall
average to extinguish. While the fire itself was larger
when both rags were ignited, the fire was easier to
extinguish because of the direct exposure of the fire to
the Fine Water Mist of the extinguisher discharge plume.
Fire Scenario Comparison
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Overall
Average
Cotton
Rags
Inner
Only Fire
Cotton
Rags-
Both
Wire
Bundle
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
Figure 7. Fire Scenario Effect on Required Agent
In an effort to determine the most effective combination
of Gas-to-Liquid ratio and charge pressure, the data set
was sorted by these two parameters and plotted in
Figure 8. The impact of Gas-to-Liquid ratio is seen to be
greater than the charge pressure, with both
configurations at 0.2 G/l showing dramatic reductions in
required agent compared to the 0.1 G/L cases. Overall,
the combination of 0.2 G/L and 1000 psig charge
pressure was seen to provide the best performance
against the full matrix of representative fires.
Prototype Configuration Comparison
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Overall
Average
0.2 G/L
1000 psi
0.2 G/L
1500 psi
0.1 G/L
1500
psi
0.1 G/L
1000 psi
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
Figure 8. Effect of Prototype Configuration on
Required Agent
The extensive size of the fire suppression data set offers
an opportunity to compare the average amount of agent
required to extinguish fires to the content of the prototype
unit. This is done in Figure 9. The overall average agent
is only 25% of the total fill and the optimum 0.2 G/L
condition showed an average agent to extinguish of only
17% of the contents of the prototype extinguisher.
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
However, these numbers are averages, and a more
complex analysis was run to explore the detail compiled
in the full fire test matrix data base.
Extinguisher Capacity vs. Average
Agent Discharged
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Current
Capacity @
0.2 G/L
Overall
Average
Discharge
0.2 G/L
Discharge
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
Figure 9. Extinguisher Capacity Compared to
Average Agent Required to Extinguish Test Fires
To facilitate additional analysis, the entire 80-test data
base was plotted using the agent required for fire
extinguishment as the dependent variable. The series
was ordered by increasing agent quantity to include each
test with identification of the fire type in a single plot. This
graph is presented in Figure 10. The data is color-coded
as to the fire source for each test. The data on the left
side of the plot are tests where the fire hazards were
extinguished relatively quickly, and are seen to be
primarily the wire bundles. The next-easiest fires to
extinguish were the cotton rag bundles where both rags
were ignited before extinguisher discharge. The
obstructed fires where only the inner cotton rag was
ignited proved to be most challenging and comprise most
of the data on the right-hand side of the graph (most
agent consumed).
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Test Number
A
g
e
n
t

t
o

E
x
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h

(
l
b
s
)
_
Wire Bundle
Rag Bundle (Inner Only Fire)
Rag Bundle (Inner and Outer Fire)
Rag Bundle (No Outer Cloth)
90%; 1.46 lb Agent
80%; 1.16 lb Agent
Figure 10. Cumulative Plot of Required Agent with
Type of Fire Identified
In the cumulative plot of Figure 10, two identifiers were
included. The red box marked the point at which 90% of
the test fire population was extinguished, at 1.46 lb of
agent. In other words, 90% of the test fires were
extinguished with 1.46 lb of agent or less. A second
(green) box was also inserted, marking the 80%
extinguishment level, seen to be 1.16 lb of agent. These
markers are useful in quantifying the amount of agent
required to provide protection against representative fires
in addition to the averages shown earlier.
A similar cumulative plot was prepared to show the
relative rankings of the tests conducted at the optimum
0.2 Gas-to-Liquid ratio and 1000 psig charge pressure.
Results are plotted in Figure 11, where the optimum
extinguisher condition tests are plotted in magenta
among the blue cases that mark the remainder of the
tests. It is immediately seen that in all 16 tests run at the
optimum condition the fire was extinguished with 1.24 lb
of agent or less. The agent amounts where 90% and
80% of the fires at the optimum extinguisher condition
were again noted in red and green boxes. The 90% level
was seen to be 0.81 lb of agent, and the 80% level was
at 0.63 lb of agent. These data provide further evidence
that an extinguisher to provide substantial protection
against fires in a manned spacecraft could be smaller in
size and agent load than the ADA beta prototype.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 20 40 60 80
Test Number
A
g
e
n
t

t
o

E
x
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h

(
l
b
s
)
_
All Other Tests 0.2 G/L 1000psi
90%; 0.81 lb Agent
80%; 0.63 lb Agent
Figure 11. Cumulative Plot of Entire Fire Test
Population Showing Optimum Fire Tests
In the course of conducting the 80-test series ADA
discovered the availability of a commercial Water Mist
extinguisher. This unit is larger than the ADA beta
prototype, and features a single-fluid nozzle design. It is
not intended for operation in a microgravity environment,
but was tested nonetheless to provide a baseline of
commercial hardware against which to measure the ADA
FWM prototype. Available data on the nozzle used in the
commercial unit indicated that the average droplet size
generated in the water mist was around 200
micrometers, almost an order of magnitude larger than
the fine mist of the ADA beta prototype.
Figure 12 shows the comparison of the performance
between the ADA FWM prototype extinguisher and the
commercial unit. The overall average of agent
discharged by the ADA extinguisher includes all the
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
cases tested using the full matrix of nozzles, operating
pressures, test facilities, fire types, extinguisher
orientation, and discharge techniques. The commercial
unit overall average included a total of 19 tests under
multiple conditions with the exception of the extinguisher
orientation parameter, since the commercial unit was
incapable of operating in the inverted position. There
were also three tests with the commercial unit in which
the test fire was not extinguished. For these cases,
the entire mass of water loaded into the extinguisher
(14.6 lbs) was used in the average computation. The
inability of the commercial extinguisher to operate in an
inverted mode (which disqualifies it for use under micro-
gravity conditions), in addition to its excessive use of
water (almost six times more than the ADA extinguisher),
accentuates the superior performance of the ADA beta
prototype to extinguish the representative spacecraft
fires employed in this study.
Alternate Technology Comparison
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Overall
Average
Comm'l
Average
0.1 G/L 0.2 G/L
A
g
e
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d

(
l
b
s
)
_
Figure 12. Comparison of Commercial Water Mist
Unit Performance to ADA Beta Prototype FWM
Extinguisher
As described earlier, another fire hazard consisting of a
liquid crystal display panel from a laptop computer was
evaluated in a series of fire tests in the 3-m cube room
facility. Three separate LCD panels were burned and
extinguished in this series. The beta prototype
extinguisher agent fill conditions for these experiments
were fixed at a G/L ratio of 0.2 and a charge pressure of
1000 psig. These conditions were determined to be the
optimal through earlier testing. The fire on the LCD panel
was seen to propagate primarily on the back side of the
panel for all three tests, with the flames typically reaching
5 to 6 inches in height. The panels for tests 1 and 3
were positioned with the front (viewing screen side)
facing the extinguisher and in test 2 the LCD panel was
positioned with the back facing the extinguisher.
From the data of Table 2 it is seen that the ADA
prototype extinguisher quickly and consistently
extinguished the burning LCD panels in less than three
seconds. Even when the flames were mostly obstructed
(on the back side of the panel in reference to the mist
discharge in Tests 1 and 3), the fire was efficiently
extinguished. This is a strong indication that this
particular hazard is not severe and is easily addressed
with the beta prototype configuration.
Table 2. LCD Panel Fire Test Results
LCD Panel Fire Test
Test #
Time to Extinguish
(sec)
1 2.2
2 1.5
3 2.6
CONCLUSIONS
With funding from NASA under the Small Business
Innovation Research program ADA Technologies, Inc.
has developed and tested a prototype Fine Water Mist
fire extinguisher for use in microgravity environments.
The beta prototype weighs nine pounds (empty) and
carries a charge of water and propellant/atomization gas
totaling 2.4 to 3.5 lbs, depending on storage conditions.
In the second half of 2008, a comprehensive series of
fire tests was conducted to characterize the performance
of the beta prototype against representative fire hazards.
Multiple parameters were incorporated in the fire test
matrix, including fire type, extinguisher storage
conditions, extinguisher location with respect to the fire,
and size of the space in which the fires were burned.
To analyze the results, the quantity of agent (water plus
propellant/atomization gas) needed to extinguish the test
fire was determined for each event. An average was
calculated and used as a basis for comparison to assess
the impact of the multiple test variables. The full data set
was also plotted in order of increasing quantity of agent
required for extinguishment, which allowed additional
insight to the results and the impact on design of the
prototype FWM extinguisher.
The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis of
results:
The beta prototype FWM portable extinguisher
proved to be a mechanically sound and reliable
configuration.
The beta prototype was able to extinguish all of the
representative fire hazards consistently.
The average quantity of agent required to extinguish
the test fires was 0.64 lb, about one-quarter of the
capacity of the beta prototype.
The volume of the fire test fixture had minimal
impact on the average quantity of agent needed to
extinguish test fires.
The ratio of Gas to Liquid for the agents loaded into
the extinguisher had a significant effect on outcome,
with the 0.2 G/L condition resulting in a 40%
reduction in the required average amount of agent to
extinguish. This is believed due to the generation of
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014
a smaller droplet size distribution with the greater
quantity of gas at the higher G/L ratio.
When an operator was allowed to move the beta
prototype extinguisher relative to the test fire, the
average quantity of agent needed to extinguish
dropped by about 1/3 from the overall average.
The Wire Bundle test fire was very quickly
extinguished under all test conditions.
The most difficult fire scenario to extinguish was the
concentric cotton rags when only the inner (hidden)
rag was ignited. These fires required about 80%
more agent than the overall average to extinguish.
In contrast, when both the inner and outer cotton
rags were ignited, only 15% more agent than the
overall average was required.
When the data set was separated by prototype
storage configuration (G/L ratio plus charge
pressure), the 0.2 G/L and 1000 psig charge
pressure condition was seen to be best-performing,
reducing the average agent required to extinguish by
1/3 from the overall average.
For the entire data set, it was shown that 90% of the
fires were extinguished by 1.46 lb of agent or less;
80% of the fires by 1.16 lb of agent or less.
When only the best-case operating condition of 0.2
G/L and 1000 psig charge pressure were included,
the quantities of agent to extinguish 80% and 90% of
the fires were dramatically reduced: 80% were
extinguished by 0.63 lb of agent or less, and 90% by
0.81 lb or less.
These results provide strong evidence that the beta
prototype may be oversized, at least for the fire
hazards investigated in this test matrix.
The ADA beta prototype was shown to perform
much better than a commercial water mist
extinguisher against the test fire hazards.
In demonstration tests against Liquid Crystal Display
panel fires, the ADA beta prototype extinguished all
three fires in less than three seconds.
The ADA beta prototype FWM extinguisher has been
shown to be effective and efficient in fire suppression
tests against hazards believed to be representative
of those in a manned spacecraft.
Next steps include review of the beta prototype design to
identify components that may be problematic for manned
space flight and operational testing in a representative
gravitational environment (microgravity) and typical
spacecraft atmosphere of elevated oxygen concentration
and reduced total pressure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported here was funded by NASA under
SBIR Contract NNC07CA18C (COTR: Suleyman
Gokoglu, NASA GRC). NASA funding does not imply any
endorsement of the technology described herein.
REFERENCES
1. Dietrich, D.L., Ruff, G.A., and Urban, D.L. (2008).
Fundamentals of Fire Suppression in Reduced
Gravity Environments Paper 2008-01-2087, 38
th
International Conference on Environmental Systems,
Society of Automotive Engineers, San Francisco, CA
2. Butz, J.R. and Abbud-Madrid, A. (2008). Handheld
Fine Water Mist Extinguisher for Spacecraft, Paper
2008-01-2040, 38
th
International Conference on
Environmental Systems, Society of Automotive
Engineers, San Francisco, CA
3. Lefebvre, A. H., (1988). Atomization and Sprays,
Hemisphere Publishing, New York.
CONTACTS
James Butz is Vice President of Operations at ADA
Technologies, Inc. 8100 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 130,
Littleton, CO 80127. He can be reached at (303) 874-
8276 E-mail: james.butz@adatech.com.
Angel Abbud-Madrid is Director of the Center for Space
Resources at the Colorado School of Mines, 1310 Maple
St. Golden, CO 80401. He can be reached at (303) 384-
2300. E-mail: aabbudma@mines.edu.
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
ADA: ADA Technologies, Inc.
AWG: American Wire Gauge
CEV: Crew Exploration Vehicle
CSM: Colorado School of Mines
ECLSS: Environmental Control and Life Support System
FWM: Fine Water Mist
G/L: Gas-to-Liquid ratio (mass/mass)
ICES: International Conference on Environmental
Systems
ISS: International Space Station
LCD: Liquid Crystal Display
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers
SBIR: Small Business Innovative Research
Downloaded from SAE International by Brunel University, Thursday, October 09, 2014