Thread: high pressure

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    48

    Default high pressure

    While cruising around the net looking at different rigs I came across a pumper in Malta Ridge. Could somebody explain to me the benefits of a pump like this one has. I think my eyes saw 4 stage pump. I believe it has to do with the foam system on the unit. I did some more digging and I found some more (not many mind you) rigs with high pressure pumps and foam. I then went to the Rosenbauer site and found a little about high psi, low volume with foam, fire attacks. Any opinions? Is it a competitor to CAFS? Better, worse? I was not really around for the whole high pressure fog thing way back when. I am not advocating any system just looking for some answers, thanks.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Willington F.D., CT
    Posts
    141

    Default

    We briefly looked at the Rosenbauer high pressure/foam pump system. It requires a special booster hoseline that will handle the high pressure - usually with only one discharge on a truck.

    Our department elected to go with a 'conventional' CAFS system.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    South St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    95

    Default

    High Pressure Delivery (HPD) is something that is currently used in other countries. I have an article explaining a comparison that was done by the University of Canterbury for the New Zealand Fire Service. There was little difference in the suppression effectiveness. CAFS appeared to have better penetration into the fire compartment which allowed the firefighters to knockdown the fire from outside the building without spreading the fire into other parts of the structure. CAFS also showed a improved visibility. They both use the same premise of increasing the surface area to mass ratio of the water.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Originally posted by Stuart
    We briefly looked at the Rosenbauer high pressure/foam pump system. It requires a special booster hoseline that will handle the high pressure - usually with only one discharge on a truck.

    Our department elected to go with a 'conventional' CAFS system.



    BOOSTER LINE?????



    Do they still make these and put them on pumpers? I would have a trash line on the pumper instead of a booster line. Booster lines belong on brush units. The only thing other than brush fires a booster is good for is to take in a hose and p*** off the fire and get your self burnt!!


    You guys going back to the John Beam High Pressure Pumps?



    Move up to a larger hose line and leave the booster lines on the brush trucks!
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Madison, WI USA
    Posts
    38

    Default

    When we purchased our rosenbauer pumper, the salesman was talking about the high pressure pumps and how they were so effective in Europe. They had done alot of testing, and decided that the high pressure/low volume pump and line was the way to go. Now, what I've learned through my schooling is that if you hit a big fire with a fog nozzle, it will go out by nature of the steam conversion. The problem is, if there are any firefighters or civilians in the room that the steam is building up in, they are now in the same situation as a lobster in a cooking pot. Many firefighters learned this the hard way. This is why the High pressure Bean pump with fog nozzles and using a 30 degree fog pattern to attack a fire has gone to the wayside for an aggressive interior attack in favor of a straight stream or smooth bore nozzle.

    I was wondering why we had so many issues with the high pressure/low volume fog nozzle attack, but Europe was doing so well and not having issue with "steam cooking" firefighters. I found my answer in a firefighter that was in the fire service for 14 years in Europe and then moved over here.

    The big difference is building construction. Over in Europe, a room and contents fire typically doesn't get much bigger than a room and contents fire. This is because the buildings are typically Stone, concrete or some combination thereof. They don't have alot of buildings with wood in the structure. This means the structure isn't part of the fire load, and won't break through near as quickly. In this respect, the high pressure fog is shot into a room, and the door is closed. The firefighters stay outside the room after the fog is shot in. This enables the steam to do its job, w/o hurting the firefighters.

    In the US, our building construction methods make it so that compartmentation of the fire is much more difficult. The room compartmentation doesn't hold up near as long, and the structure can actually be part of the fire load. In this respect, it renders the fog more of an issue because the firefighters cant isolate themselves from the area of steam they just produced by squirting a high pressure fog nozzle in there. The firefighters can now be exposed to the steam and burned.

    I know Europe is having alot of success with it, but I don't see it working out as well here in the US.

  6. #6
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    19

    Default

    We use the same techniques as the English here in Australia, it is very effective, in regards to the post above, I still don't see why the technique we use is not effective, I am sure your rooms are still well sealed so the compartment method is still effective?? I am not sure we may need to discuss this in another area.

    Darren

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    SamsonFCDES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    I agree with the analysis of why HP foam is so effective in Europe.

    It is also interesting to note that it is common practus to pull 1" hard booster line into structure fires in the UK and in many other parts of the world with brick and mortar construction.

    I do envy thier old world construction, I love brick buildings, there are very very few in my area.

    I have attacked structure fires with 1" booster line and combi nozzle, 65gpm tops out of neccessity. It will work, but its not a instant knock down like a large diameter hose can provide.
    -Brotherhood: I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
    -Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of you life is to serve as a warning to others.

    -Adversity: That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.

    -Despair: Its always darkest before it goes Pitch Black.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    A few years back I got to visit Bermuda and chatted with an engine company there. When I first saw their rig I thought it was a small wildland interface rig. As I would shortly find out it was one of the largest trucks on the whole island. It had a high pressure pump with booster reels and two 1.75" preconnects on the back. There was some 2.5" in the hose bed. As flmslayr2 noted, the contruction typically does not allow the fire to go beyond the room of origin (and they told me the vast majority of fires started as matress fires, mostly due to cigarettes, occationally attempted murder). The 1.75 hose was for "big water" commercial occupancy, the 2.5 was feeder. The whole thing blew me away, I've seen brush trucks with more capacity that that thing.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    We're looking very hard at this HP pump and foam system. I think it offers much promise, as long as your intent is not to use the high pressure end of it on interior attacks. I think the system would work, but the steam issue is always present.

    CAFS is expensive and complicated, we all know that. Rosenbauer's pump and foam injection system is relatively cheap, and the foam system is quite simple. For wildland applications, Rosenbauer's system does very well producing a "CAFS-like" foam for little cost beyond what your pump alone would run. For us, the foam system would be used on "wildlands" incidents, car fires and such. My department's SOGs are strictly 1-3/4 and 2-1/2's with smooth bores on all interior attacks, and we won't be changing anytime soon. Even with CAFS (which I think is incredible, don't get me wrong) - a lot of folks argue that while it indeed provides a fantastic knock-down capability, it doesn't do as much to reduce the heat in a room as copious amounts of water. Yes proper ventilation can help this, but I think this is one of the biggest obstacles with regards to CAFS ever being accepted in many department, including mine. There are departments who have tried CAFS and didn't like it. Madison, WI is one that I know of, and I believe they still have some units equipped with CAFS on the street.

    My understanding is that the Rosenbauer system still allows you to inject foam into your typical lines (low pressure if you want to call it that), you just won't have the quality of foam provided by the high pressure and resulting agitation of the mixture. I'm sure this is what I was told by a Rosenbauer rep, but I need to clarify this with him.

    Also, the high pressure side of the pump can feed discharges simultaneoulsy along with the lower pressure discharge side of the pump. In effect, you could have crews interior with a conventional line while foaming an exposure with a high pressure booster line.

    There's some novel ideas and concepts with the Rosenbauer pump. It'll be interesting to see if they all work, if and when we order one on our next unit.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Madison, WI USA
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Well, I know what your saying about the whole CAFS system. I cant say as I've owned a truck that had it, but from the info I've gotten, the depts haveing the most problem with CAFS not cooling down a room is depts that run with improper foam solution/air ratio and aren't putting enough water on to cool. There is nothing saying that you cant wash down the walls with a watery CAFS stream. My opinion is that if you get the fire put out that much quicker, that stabilizes the situation and deals with a majority of your problems at that point. Madison did have CAFS, and the biggest problems they had with it were poorly designed systems on the trucks and not enough training for the operators. There are alot of people around the area that are jaded by Madison's experience, and dont understand the problems. I wont dive into it anymore because thats not this subject.

    As far as the High Pressure with the foam, I guess I'm going to have to look into it more. I am not real fond of the high pressure fog streams due to past lessons of steaming the firefighters if improperly used.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    If you want "CAFS-Like" foam on the cheap run a Vindicator nozzle on a regular 1.75" line with Class A foam.

    Yes CAFS trucks can be complicated, I am an engineer on one such truck. The truck is amazing as I can fine tune the type of foam being produced from slightly sudsy water to beer head foam to shaving cream, but it can be overwhelming to a novice pump operator. Our 2nd CAFS truck is much simpler (4 steps to CAFS vs 10) by design. You loose a little flexability to make the "exact" type of foam you want, but I can still make dry, normal, or wet CAFS, I can still run plain Class A or straight water. Its all in how you spec the truck.

    As for cooling ability of CAFS, we've not seen any problems for interior attack. Now CAFS is not appropriate for cooling a fuel tank or for use in a surround and drown, but for interior work or exposure protection its amazing. We typically knock down room and content fires with 40 gallons. The first time I pumped a live fire attack I didn't even notice the team had flowed water until I checked the flow meter total. The difference between a CAFS attack and a larger volume of water attack is that there is no water running out the door with CAFS. CAFS makes your water much more effective (some say 4 or more times) so you don't need an excess of water to put the fire out. Certianly if you run too dry CAFS you might run into problems, but 2:1 or 3:1 H2O to Air works great (we normally run 2:1)

    Got CAFS?
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  12. #12
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Originally posted by npfd801

    There's some novel ideas and concepts with the Rosenbauer pump.
    Such as?

    Seems like same-old high pressure to me. I didn't see anything novel in the propaganda, at least.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but could anyone else's high pressure pump feed both high and low pressure discharges at the same time? I thought this was unique to the Rosenbauer pump, if not - I was wrong.

    I still think given the right set of circumstances, the high pressure side could have some unique advantages. We will not have a CAFS equipped unit in the near future with the current administation's philosphy. If I can push to add an option that maybe opens some eyes to the use of class A foam in certain applications, I'll do it.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Right Here
    Posts
    7

    Default

    From what I have seen of CAFS is that it can handle a room and contents fire but when you start adding a long stretch down a hall with 2 or more rooms involved you begin to overrun the ability of the less than 50 gpms of water to suppress the btus being given off. In my experience with CAFS, which I must admit is limited, once you introduced the large amount of fire, a standard handline was required to properly cool and extinguish the fire. This is all my theory but most of the huge cafs proponents that I have spoken with may actually be seeing the benefits of the smooth bore nozzle which they would not drag in there before without the "foam". I also believe that if you have water running out the door of a room and contents job, you need alot more than a CAFS line to limit the damage! I just feel that in training evolutions we seem to train on our bread and butter jobs which require low flows to extinguish which in turn increases our comfort zone allowing us the belief that low flows can handle all jobs. Sorry i'm rambling! Just my 2 cents. And the "Got CAFS?" picture sure does show the reduction in damage due to more foam and less water use!!


  15. #15
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    Originally posted by AFDEngine3
    And the "Got CAFS?" picture sure does show the reduction in damage due to more foam and less water use!!
    The picture you are referring to was of an acquired structure where we conducted RIT training, and later, fire attack evolutions.

    You're seeing mop-up after numerous burn evolutions... On that day we had heavy fire in the attic that was extinguished with 2 1.75" lines, and a minimal amount of water. The fire was well beyond "incipient" when attack was commenced. This picture is after extensive overhaul so we wouldn't have to come back for a rekindle. If I recall correctly, the area of ceiling pulled closer to the camera is under a trench cut on the roof.

    CAF works and it works well. But like I've said, it would be foolish for any of us to say that it magically quenches infernos. If you're responding with fully staffed rigs, have hydrants everywhere, and great response times... many of the benefits of CAF will probably be outweighed by cost.

    I dunno though, I think I'd still want it.
    Last edited by Resq14; 12-25-2004 at 01:27 AM.
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    You memory is correct 14, that was under the trench.

    AFDEngine3, if you're only getting 50gpm you're running your foam way too dry (at least according the training we got). Our typical attack flow is 45cfm of air and 90gpm of water for a 1:2 ratio. If I open up the line a little more we get 40/120 for 1:3. What comes out is not shaving cream like in the "Got CAFS" photo, its soapy water, but its amazingly good at absorbing those BTU's.

    To be sure you hit the nail on the head which some of our officers have a hard time understanding, it still takes a fixed quantity of water to absorb a fixed quantity of BTU's, the difference is that CAFS is more efficient at absorbing (much as water mist is more efficient than a solid stream). Our instructor told us not to bother with CAFS on defensive operations, big fire still needs big water, but if you're going in you can handle it with properly made CAFS.

    Dry 1:1 (45cfm/45gpm) foam is good for exposure and overhaul as it sticks where you put it and it does not creat a lot of water damage but lacks the ability to absorbe massive BTU's.
    Last edited by Fire304; 12-31-2004 at 06:03 PM.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default Further musing

    I should also add that when speaking of the increased efficiency of CAFS various text and instructors claim that CAFS is anywhere from 3 to 5 times better at absorbing heat from the fire into your water stream (which why it is so effective). Therefore a 90gpm CAFS line is equvilant to a 270-450gpm blitz attack. Even if the CAFS only doubles the effectivness of the water that 90gpm is compairable to a 180gpm line, which is pretty close to standard flow for a 1.75" plain water line.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8

    Default

    As a side note, If the interior team decides for whatever reason it would like a non-aspirated stream during it's attack all our operator has to do is switch off the air to that attack line. Then they get all the water they can handle with the benifit of the Class A still getting proportioned in.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Londerzeel, Belgium
    Posts
    16

    Default

    In the USA I don't see many advantages in using a high pressure system. As allready writen by someone, there is a big difference in the construction of houses between the US and Europe.

    High pressure systems are very effective in Europe. High pressure is used mostly as premier attack at a fire. Mostly, the fire is nearly extinguished when the low pressure lines are connected and so those are mainly used for the afterwork.


    Besides the HP systems more and more CAFS are entering service in Belgium. Fire Department Zaventem was one of the first departments in Belgium who buyed a CAFS pumper. They have 2 CAFS pumpers and almost every fire is extinguished with the CAFS. The CAFS are really reliable but there is still one big disadvantage: the cost is really high and the pumps are mostly computeroperated.

    Ziegler and Rosenbauer are 2 of the biggest European manufacturers of the pumps. Rosenbauer is distributed in the USA by Rosenbauer America (Central Fire) http://www.centralfire.com . Ziegler is not distributed in the USA but you can find the site at http://www.ziegler.de/index_en.php

    For the US I can not find any advantages of a HP system.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    I'll diasgree. We're buying a rear-mounted Rosenbauer pump equipped unit, and for the minimal cost of adding a foam system and some plumbing, we'll have "CAFS-like" foam for exposure protection, automobile fires, and wildland use. Is CAFS better for the U.S.? Very likely. Will my department spend the increased cost (quite a bit) for such a system in the near future? Not likely. We get a 1000 gpm PTO pump, already equipped with the high pressure third stage, all we needed to do was pay to have the high pressure stage plumbed and the foam system installed, which will be a very simple setup.

    We won't be pulling high pressure foam lines into houses on initial attack, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a great overhaul tool. For the added price to try it, we would be have been fools not to at least experiment with it. Is it the ultimate solution? No. I think we're content at this point pulling lines with smoothbores for the big fire.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default There is a place for it but I am not sure where

    Ok so lets get a few acts straight and please do correct me as I am new to this
    So you have
    A normal pressure which is up to 300 PSI
    B High pressure from 300 to 800 PSI and
    C Ultra high pressure 800-2200 PSI
    Now with the high PSI you want to use lower water
    S0 90 GPM and higher for A
    40-100 GPM for B
    And 20-5 GPM for C

    Ok all that said we have all the tools for A – hose and nozzles
    On the rosenbauer your deck gun will only do 100 PSI and 60 GPM , TFT or Akron
    The booster hose will do 300 PSI and more but you will need a special nozzle to get the true 300 and up PSI out of it
    And the rest of your truck will not do 300 psi out of standard hose , well it can but no one will ( I hope )
    So where are we using High pressure again

    Ok another side to this
    They want to use this truck booster hose and deck gun to fight Bush fires
    Problem one $300K truck in ditches???? please explain
    One more 1000 G of water at lets say 100-40 GPM Pump and roll 10 min brush fire best case 25 min with $300K truck
    Ultra high pressure 300 G @ 40-5 GPM pump and roll 15 min to 60 min on a $10,000 foam system , on a $30,000 truck
    Last edited by canaidan08; 06-12-2009 at 09:35 AM. Reason: spelling

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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