Wet Water Credited with Quick Dwelling Fire Stop
Chief Lloyd Layman of Parkersburg, Offers Deductions Based on Recent Personal Experience
A SPECIAL REPORT
Editor’s Note: One of the difficulties in adequately reporting any radical development in the field of fire control is to secure authentic factual information about it direct from the fire ground as well as the laboratory, and to properly interpret that information.
The hard-boiled fire chief likes to reserve judgment on any extinguishing device or agent, or method until he has plenty of facts to support all the theories and claims. More than anything else, he wants “case histories”—records of actual and typical applications of the materials and methods. And the closer these actual cases approach his problems and his needs, the happier he is.
FIRE ENGINEERING was the first to introduce wetting agents (and their makers) to the nation’s fire service. Since then it has attempted faithfully to bring its readers progressive developments in this, as well as in all other fields of extinguishing agents. In so doing it has purposely dwelt more heavily on the practical than on the theoretical applications of wet water. Unfortunately, many accounts of the use of this newest extinguishing medium could not be published for lack of evidence to support statements.
Now comes a “case history” which is not only comprehensive in detail but includes some logical observations and deductions that bear profoundly on the entire broad question of the place of wetting agents in fire control.
What gives this history, and accompanying comments added weight is the fact that they come from a foremost student in the modern techniques of fire control. Fire Chief Lloyd Layman, of Parkersburg, W. Va.—former Commander, USNR, in charge of Coast Guard fire training during World War II.
FIRE ENGINEERING is pleased to publish Chief Layman’s businesslike account of a typical dwelling fire which was handled almost entirely with treated water. The account is offered both as a model of operations reporting, and as a suggestion for students of fire control who see in “wet water” possibilities for improving their own position.
Acknowledgment is made to Chief Lloyd Layman for permission to use his text and illustrations and Mr. Hugh McNair of Carbide, Carbon Chemical Corp. for additional data, and diagram.
AT 7:50 P.M., June 8, 1948, the Parkersburg Fire Department, Parkersburg, W. Va., received an alarm for a fire in a dwelling at 917 Mary Street, that city.
The structure was of one story frame construction (27 ft. x 28 ft.) with gable type, tin-covered roof and clapboard side walls. Front and rear views of this property are shown in the illustrations herewith.
The dwelling included: living room (15 ft. x 13 ft.); two bedrooms (each 7 1/2 ft. x 14 ft.); dining-room, (8 ft. x 17 ft.); kitchen (8 ft. x 10 ft.); small room in rear of dining room 5 ft. x 6 ft.), and bathroom (5 ft. x 11 ft.)
Ceiling heights of living room and bedrooms was 9 ft. 10 in.; of dining room, kitchen, and small rooms, 7 ft.
Living room and bedrooms were finished with plaster on wood lath and wallpaper, the latter having been applied several times, one upon the other without removal of any earlier applications. Dining room, kitchen and small room were wainscotted and painted. Several coats of paint had from time to time been applied without removing previous coat.
Layout and Exposures
The house faced on Mary Street and bad a narrow wooden porch off which a doorway opened into the living room; from this two interior doors opened into two bedrooms. Entrance to the dining room, in the rear of the bedrooms was made through another doorway in the living room, and from the kitchen located in the rear of the living room, but partitioned from it. A rear door led from an angle in the rear elevation of the structure into a small room, from which other openings permitted access to dining and bathroom. The ground floor layout is shown in diagram herewith.
Adjoining the dwelling on the southeast, a distance of 6 ft., was another onestory frame house. On the other side, at a distance of 9 ft. to the northwest there was a two-story brick building having multiple occupancy. Two windows in the fire structure opened toward the brick exposure, and one, from the kitchen, faced the adjoining frame structure. There were also two windows facing Mary Street, and three opening onto the back yard.
At the time of the fire the temperature was 64 deg. F.; the wind 5 miles per hour, west; the humidity, 74 per cent. It was cloudy, but there was no rain.
Cause of Fire Unknown
It appears that the fire started in or near a basket of clothing which had been located on the dining room floor between the Welch cupboard and round table.
The occupants were not at home at the time of discovery, and the first notification of the blaze came from neighbors after hearing what they reported sounded like a mild explosion. Flames were coming from the dining room window when the alarm was transmitted. Upon the arrival of the first firemen, the fire had involved the dining room, kitchen, small room and living room (shaded portion of diagram). Flames from the dining room window had ignited the roof cornice above that window.
Fire Department Response
The alarm brought the following response:
Engine 3; personnel: 2 firemen
Squad Company; personnel: lieutenant and one fireman
Additional personnel: Chief of Department; Fire Department Instructor
Total Department personnel 6. Two units of apparatus.
The actual equipment used in fighting the fire—which incidentally was entirely handled by small lines, included the following: Squad truck—150 ft. 1 1/2-in. hose equipped with 1 1/2-in. shut-off nozzle using as a tip a fog nozzle, booster type. Squad Truck contained 215 gallons of treated water (1% mixture) in booster tank. The fog nozzle was set at 30 deg. fog angle and was not changed from that position during the fire. Nozzle pressure of approximately 100 PSI was used, which provided about 23 GPM.
Engine 3: 200 ft. of 3/4-in. booster hose, equipped with combination booster nozzle. Booster tank contained 30 gallons of plain water. The booster nozzle was used in the fog position throughout the fire. Nozzle pressure of approximately 100 PSI was used, which provided about 20 GPM.
In attacking the fire, Engine 3 laid a 2 1/2-in. supply line from the nearest hydrant to the fire, attached hose clamp to this line which was then charged with water. If additional water had been needed, this supply line could have been connected to the 2 1/2-in. intake on the Squad Truck. Hydrant pressure is sufficient to supply necessary volume for the booster pump through the 2 1/2-in. supply line.
The 1 1/2-in. line from the Squad Truck was laid to the left side of the involved house and treated water was used to knock down the flames in the dining room and kitchen by operating the nozzle through the dining room window. A major part, if not all of the water used in this operation was converted into steam, which cleared these rooms of smoke. There was very little smoke given off by charred materials after the treated water was used. This line was then moved to the front porch where entry to the living room was made through doorway A. Treated water was used to extinguish the fire in the living room.
The booster line from Engine 3 was laid to the rear through the passageway along the southeast side of the house. This line was advanced through the doorway leading into the small room and extinguished the fire in that room, and it then completed extinguishment of the remaining fire in the dining room and kitchen. A small section of the ceiling in the living room was opened to gain access to the attic; it was determined the fire had not penetrated that area.
Respiratory protection was not used by personnel. It was possible to effect extinguishment without serious physical discomfort from either smoke or heat. The smallness of the structure and the locations of the openings permitted ready access to the involved areas.
The nozzle of the line from the Squad Truck was handled by Lieutenant F. C. Grimm, while Fireman H. W. Muhlmann used the nozzle from Engine 3. Other operations were carried out by Department Instructor J. W. Bradford and Firemen V. N. Walters and Gayle Knopp.
Minimum Amounf of Water Used
The total volume of extinguishing agents used was as follows:
Plain water, from booster tank of Engine 3 … 80 gallons
Treated water, from booster tank of Squad Truck … 140 gallons
Total water of all kinds used, 220 gallons. This includes water used in overhauling. After deducting the volume which was required to fill the pumps and hose lines, not more than 200 gallons of water were used in the extinguishing operations.
Chief Layman’s Conclusions
There was no damage from water to either the building or contents. The only water which remained in liquid form on the premises was less than a gallon on the floor of the small room, where plain water was used. The rug on the living room floor was absolutely dry. Although this house was very old, it was in good repair and the contents were of very good quality. The adjusted loss on the building was $1,500.00; on contents, $2,000.00.
All interior doors except those of the bathroom and closet in the living room were open during the fire. The door to the closet in the living-room was slightly ajar and the sleeve of a shirt which was exposed was scorched, But other than the odor of smoke, there was no damage to the other clothing. There was no damage to the contents of the two bedrooms. The two exterior doors, front and rear shown in the diagram were closed.
The panes of the rear window of the kitchen were out. The glass of the window next to the frame exposure was not broken until after the initial attack through the dining room window had been completed.
Fog Used Throughout
The entire volume of water, both plain and treated, was applied in the form of finely divided particles. The major heat producing area was confined to the dining room, where the furniture, ceiling and walls were fully involved. Most of the treated water was used in this room, yet there was no “run-off.” The volume of condensed steam which escaped from the building gave evidence that the water was being applied in an effective manner.
In the words of Chief Layman, this fire removed all doubts from the minds of the department personnel regarding the effectiveness of treated water over that of plain water. All officers and members of the department were given an opportunity to visit the property and make their own personal observations.
Finally in his statement, Chief Layman makes these points: (1) This fire could not have been extinguished as quickly and as easily by using plain water, and a much greater volume would have been required. (2) This fire could not have been extinguished with the same volume of treated water if it had been applied by solid streams.”
Editor’s Conclusions
It will be noted that this “working fire” was handled in its entirety by only six members of the department, including the Chief, Department Instructor, and a lieutenant. Considering the method of attack, using two lines, laying in of supply-line and applying clamp, it must be deduced that (1) the personnel was well trained and efficient (2) the equipment used in the attack operations was most ideally suited to fast action by the limited personnel. The case appears to attest the value of small lines, armed with tog nozzles operating from booster tanks and charged with treated water.
Second, the effectiveness of water fog —particularly that incorporating treated water, in affording personnel protection, permitted rapid advance into the structure without protection of respiratory equipment. Any normal dwelling fire, involving furnishings including overstuffed furniture, is usually accompanied by considerable smoke concentrations. Although the evidence on the effectiveness of treated water-fog in combatting smoke concentrations is as yet incomplete, this case would appear to buttress the contention that fog with treated water is effective in reducing smoke concentration. Chief Layman does not comment at length on this factor, but he has a theory which is worth pursuing further. It is that the large volume of steam generated by the use of wet water (a fact noted by most users of this newest extinguishing agent) displaces much of the smoke in the atmosphere, thereby accelerating ventilation. It is possible that further study of the relation of steam generated by treated water applied to burning material, to the displacement of smoke from that material, will disclose heretofore undiscovered attributes of “wet water.”
A further observation that suggests additional research is prompted by another detail of operation: The repo’t indicates that although only a booster size nozzle operating at 100 PSI was employed, the discharge from this nozzle, through a window on the northwest side of the building was effective in knocking down the fire in the kitchen, located at the other, or southeast side of the dwelling, in order to do this, the extinguishing agent would have to enter the kitchen through a doorway, which was 17 feet beyond the window through which the nozzle was operating, and then would have to continue for another 10 feet in order to reach the extremity of the kitchen.
It is obvious that this kitchen was fully involved. Because of the distance from the point of application to the open doorway, direct contact from the discharge of this nozzle could only have been effected on the very small area of the kitchen that was directly opposite the open door. To have knocked down the fire, therefore in the balance of this room, one of three conditions probably occurred:
- The fog after passing through the doorway must have been distributed throughout the entire room by air currents.
- The knock-down may have been caused by a heavy generation of steam that filled the entire room, or
- A combination of 1 and 2.
It is quite possible that conditions 1 or 3 were most probable. Chief Layman, whose extensive research into the application of convection currents in extinguishing shipboard fires has been widely publicized in this journal, may have thus uncovered in this particular fire a field for further study.