Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By firepundit

Thread: Pump and Roll for Class B Fires pros/cons

  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ma
    Posts
    2

    Default Pump and Roll for Class B Fires pros/cons

    I work for a department that is in the process of purchasing a new engine. They would like to equip it with Class B foam because we have several major highways running through. Does anyone have any thoughts on pump and roll capabilities, pros/cons, for fighting class B fires? Some thoughts are that the guys would be safer in the cab making a quick attack on the fire. The bid is going to be for an engine with 750 gallons of water and 100 gallons of foam. Any experiences or comments would greatly be appreciated. Thanks !!!!

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    When I sold rigs, folks much smarter than I suggested that even 100 gallons of Class B on board is not enough for a serious Class B fire. I'd recommend contacting folks like Dave Burns from TFT, and others about Class B foam systems, how much foam you'd need, etc.

    Pump and rolling with 750 gallons up to a large Class B fire isn't going to accomplish a whole lot in my opinion. Especially since you won't have a water supply to continue suppression efforts attached... I assume you'd be looking for a bumper turret then as well?
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    630

    Default

    What kind of application rate are you looking at? It will make a major difference in price. Since you are talking class B, the worst case scenario would be using alcohol resistant foam at 6%. The 100 gallon foam tank would easily accommodate that 750 gallon tank (twice) so that won't be a problem.

    If you plan on a single handline in the 95 GPM range, the foam system won't be too painfully expensive. However, if you are planning to supply a bumper turret at 350 GPM or 500 GPM you will need to find a system that can pump foam at a rate of 21 to 30 GPM respectively. Those systems get expensive and also require a PTO port on the transmission.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Frankly, I wuld look at frequency of incidents that required, or would have required, this type of set-up. While it is true that 100 gallons of foam is more than enough to supply 750 gallons of water at 6% that isn't really the issue is it? How big of an incident will you cover with that amount of foam is more the issue as well as resupplying the engine with water to be able to utilize the other 55 gallons of foam left.

    I would seriously evaluate what your intentions are for this rig, how often you might use it, the lifespan of Class B foam once the pails are opened and it is dumped in the tank, and the initial cost of the system and maintenance costs. My career FD which has stretches on 2 interstate highways has not utilized class B foam in the 15 years I have been a member. We tossed more class B foam than we ever used because it went bad in the tank. We now carry FireAide in our foam tanks and dial the percentage up or down depending on need.

    I am not trying to talk you out of anything, just pointing out my experiences. I am a former civilian ARFF/CFR firefighter with the WiANG and the smallest foam rig we had was the P-19 with 1000 gallons of water, 130 gallons of class B foam, and a 950 GPM at 200 psi fire pump. This was rated as a rapid intervention vehicle and was usually backed up by a heavy ARFF rig.

    Having said all that, post pictures of your rig when it is built.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    I'd echo what's been said above, and add that other than ARFF and wildland/forestry/grass applications, there's really not much need for pump and roll on most engines. And just because you have several major highways in your area doesn't mean you need class B. Unless you have a lot of refineries or chemical plants that ship a lot of flammable liquids, you're not that likely to need that much. Our front line engine on my POC dept. has a 25 gal class A tank and a 35 gal. class B tank inside the 1000 tank, plus we carry 5 extra buckets of each on top of the truck. I think that gives us more versatility than just class B.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ma
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Thanks for the responses. The plan is to go with a foam pro 12 which will allow 400 GPM at 3%. But my real concern is that some members want the pump and roll because they think it might be safer to attack a fire and try to make a quick knockdown from the cab. Does anyone have any experience with pump and rolls on their department?

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fire.medic17 View Post
    Thanks for the responses. The plan is to go with a foam pro 12 which will allow 400 GPM at 3%. But my real concern is that some members want the pump and roll because they think it might be safer to attack a fire and try to make a quick knockdown from the cab. Does anyone have any experience with pump and rolls on their department?
    You would be spending a lot of money because they "think" it may be safer. To effectively utilize pump and roll this way will require a lot of dual controls between the cab and the pump panel. This will effectively double the initial costs and double the complexity. Future cost of repairs and such will also be higher. They are the ones who should be putting some facts on the table. Why should the department and taxpayers fund this? Is there really a need? Are they expecting flammable liquid spills that are 1/4 mile long or something?

    Proper foam application on a flammable liquid spill requires a bit of dexterity. Any part of a liquid spill that does not get covered can quickly erode a foam blanket as it burns and the liquid below the blanket will feed the burning area. Sure, the ARFF rigs can do it, they operate on relatively flat ground. I am not so sure about roadsides with culverts, guardrails, ditches, etc.. A firefighter on the end of a hose (preferably two firefighters and two hoses), would have a much better chance of getting total coverage during application.

    Class A would be a much different story. Pump and roll with Class A has proven to be effective and is a heck of a lot simpler due to the low eduction rates, lower flow rates and a generally less complex system. Wild fires also have the annoying habit of moving constantly which greatly justifies its use.
    RangerJake72 likes this.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    590

    Default

    If you look at the available data on AR-AFFF, you will note that the viscosity on the concentrate is higher than either Class A concentrate or the old Class B concentrate. From this you should consider that a 3% setting on the eductor might NOT be enough to properly mix in 3% concentrate. The real needed setting might be closer to 4.5%. The viscosity also changes with agitation, and agitation might not be possible with the onboard tank. AR-AFFF also needs to have a significant contact time with the flammible liquid to form the protective film on the surface of the fuel. A flowing flammible fuel will destroy the foam blanket in the area where the film can not form.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,687

    Default

    Are the guys looking to do this simply to keep them from having to exit the truck on the highway?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    636

    Default

    I can't add anything personally, but you might want to contact this department:

    http://my.firefighternation.com/prof...ward-county-md

    Looks like one of their units is geared for the same type thing you're talking about.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATFDFF View Post
    I can't add anything personally, but you might want to contact this department:

    http://my.firefighternation.com/prof...ward-county-md

    Looks like one of their units is geared for the same type thing you're talking about.
    Those sure are sweet looking trucks. However, they don't look all that well suited to the OP's situation.

    When I read the article you linked to I found this quote:

    "HCDFRS has dealt with Pierce Manufacturing since 2000. 'We decided to continue the tradition and go with them on this project,' "

    Tradition? Really?

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firepundit View Post
    Those sure are sweet looking trucks. However, they don't look all that well suited to the OP's situation.

    When I read the article you linked to I found this quote:

    "HCDFRS has dealt with Pierce Manufacturing since 2000. 'We decided to continue the tradition and go with them on this project,' "

    Tradition? Really?
    No, I agree. Not exactly what he was looking for, but I was just thinking about this post when I read:

    "The tankers were designed for water supply and foam capabilities—Class A and B as well as Purple-K. They both have pump-and-roll capabilities, with a TFT front-bumper-mounted nozzle that can direct a 1,000-gpm stream. The pump is driven by a separate engine, and the trucks can be controlled from the cab. They have 1–3 percent foam capabilities, 100 gallons of Class A foam, 400 gallons of Class B foam, 3,000 gallons of water and 350 lbs. of Purple-K Twin Agent. The Class A foam cell can be used to supply CAFS units in the county, if needed."

    And about the Pierce purchasing....just judging from the article....they have some really backwards ordering/speccing procedures.

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default

    You might try looking at the Pierce "PUC" model pumper. True pump and roll capabilities and the Husky foam system has either 3, 15 or 30 GPM ratings. With the Husky 30, you can regulate each discharge port foam capable at a different foam percentage.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Default

    The PUC (and similar engines with pump and roll) is a sound idea because it takes nothing away from the structural capabilities. However, there are a few points to consider regarding AFFF application.

    An apparatus mounted device is for a rapid knock down, not complete extinguishment. ARFF vehicles typically flow foam solution (foam and water) from 1000 to 2000 GPM depending on the truck. In most cases if properly applied they will only flow this amount for 20-30 seconds. Then it's time for the handlines to complete extinguishment and protect rescue crews. Keep in mind that these ARFF rigs are designed to flow max GPM for only 1-2 minutes. That's a long time but PROPER APPLICATION is the key.

    Even with handlines a rapid knockdown can be accomplished with a relatively small amount of foam. We carry 20 gallons and I am comfortable with that quantity. I know that I can put out a lot of gasoline with 20 gallons of AFFF at 3% properly applied through the proper nozzle at the proper pressure. Also understand that ethanol blends are more difficult to extinguish so you also have to have the proper foam.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    88

    Default

    I think you have the cart before the horse. CET Pumps make a nice compact stand alone CAFs system that could be easily retrofited to a water tender to provide a decent initial attack option with 20 gallons of Class B foam. Foam has a shelf life and it also is a maintenance issue on a daily basis. Foam also requires special training and the proper decontamination of the system. A pair of 1-1/2" hand-lines with a air aspirating nozzle will give better performance to the foam then a bumper mounted system. Also if your doing class B fires how many sets of proper PPE do you plan to own,standard structure PPE will fail quickly?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pros and Cons to LDH..
    By Smokeshowing in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 12:21 PM
  2. pros/cons
    By dazeoff10 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 07:20 PM
  3. Pros and Cons of......
    By fyrbreathrEMT in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2002, 01:46 PM
  4. Pros and Cons
    By nsfirechap in forum Thermal Imaging Cameras
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-21-2001, 03:07 AM
  5. KME pros and cons
    By ultrafire in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-27-2000, 12:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register