Full-Scale Pier Fire Tests Include Use of Water-Fog
Sponsors Find it More Difficult to Start a Fire Than to Extinguish it!
JUST how effective will water-fog prove in fighting fire out-of-doors, on piers and wharves?
That is a question that has beeen asked by many municipal fire chiefs, particularly those who have had experience in extinguishing such fires.
They have also posed the question, what sort of a job will water-fog do on open as well as enclosed type pier structures and how will fog compare with the use of straight streams, distributors and other portable under-pier fire-fighting appliances?
These are questions that have bothered members of the New York Fire Department, and others concerned with safeguarding that city’s 500 and more miles of waterfront, with its hundreds of piers, from fire.
During the war fire protection forces, including the Coast Guard, and Port Security authorities, did an excellent job in holding fire losses in this type of hazard to the minimum. With the passing of Coast Guard and other emergency Port protection services from the picture—and with no appreciable letup in the Port’s maritime activities, the fire department, still far from its normal strength, is faced with almost the sole responsibility of waterfront protection.
Although the New York Fire Department has not placed its “official blessing” on water-fog, or fog nozzles and related devices as has the Navy, Coast Guard and a number of the country’s large and small municipal fire departments, many of its officials have displayed a lively interest in this development and some chief officers of the department are reported to have secured fog tips and nozzles on their own initiative, which they have been using with considerable success. Although Commissioner and Chief of Department Patrick Walsh says that the department “has been playing around with fog nozzles for many years” fog has thus far remained what its name implies to the vast majority of the officers and men of the world’s greatest fire department.
The growing nationwide emphasis on water-fog as an effective fire extinguishing agent, and the fact that its development has been spear-headed by many former members and memberson-military-leave of the New York Fire Department, together with an acute awareness of the department’s postwar protection responsibilities, undoubtedly contributed to bring about what are believed to be the first attempted largescale pier fire-fighting tests thus far held in this country.
The experiments, which were conducted October 17 at an abandoned cityowned pier at the foot of 157th street. North River Drive, were cooperatively sponsored by the following groups: New York City Fire Department, New York City Department of Marine and Aviation, U. S. Coast Guard Port Security Branch and Mayor’s Business Advisory Committee (New York City),
Pier of Open Type
The pier chosen, the only one available for experiments on the scale desired, could not be said to present the maximum difficulties to be found on piers such as are encountered in other sections of the Port and which have in the past given New York City and New Jersey fire services such strenuous work. However, in many respects it duplicates the construction to be found in scores of existing pier structures in the area.
The pier was built in 1910 and its overall measurements were: Length, north side, 201:48 ft.; south side, 218:55 ft.; width, 60:22 feet. It was located 207:45 ft. from similar structures, north and south of it.
Construction was of solid deck type, with deck laid on 12 x 12-inch timbers supported in turn by heavy oak piles. Of the original substructure, many crossmembers had disappeared and others had rotted over the years. Some of the piles, likewise had practically disappeared.
For the test, the Department of Marine and Aviation installed extra wood sheathing on the pier deck to provide a complete deck surface. Kindling and waste combustibles were placed under the deck to further the burning. Neither piles nor any part of the substructure had previously been treated with creosote. This part of the North River being generally free of floating oil. the piles were coated at waterlevels with only a slimy scum deposit which tended to retard rather than intensify the burning.
Also for purposes of the test, the pier was compartmented laterally into four compartments, or bays, by temporary light wooden bulkheads. In two of these bays, scuttles or ports were cut for the introduction of distributors and other below-deck fire fighting appliances.
Actual fire fighting operations were conducted by Coast Guard personnel under the direction of Lt. Commander Arthur Pfeister, USNR (retired NYFD chief), Lt. J. C. Healy and CPO Nicholas J. Cappola. They had for their operations Coast Guard fireboats CG 64024 F and 57016 F, each having 2.000 GPM capacity, and Hanley boat 30120 F having 3,000 GPM capacity.
New York Fire Department Photo
New York Fire Department Photo
New York Firemen Stood Fast
In order to provide protection against possible extension of the test fires to exposures, the New York Fire Department deployed a full alarm assignment at the scene, including the fireboat Harvey, Engine Companies 67, 76 and 19 and Ladder Company 22.
Fortunately their services were not needed. Instead of the fire even attempting to get out-of-bounds it took the concerted efforts of all-hands to make it burn!
The New York fire services were represented by Commissioner and Chief Patrick Walsh; Asst. Chief Conway; Dep. Chiefs Heaney and Hurton, the latter acting in command of the Marine Division; Batt. Chief Rooney. 16th Baft.; Chief Jones of the Fire Department Shops; Capt. Irwin, Supervising Engineer; Chief Kidney, head of the Fire Prevention Bureau, and Captain Morris and Inspector McCabe of that organization; Inspectors Callahan, Maddox, and Walters; Dep. Chief Gunn, representing the Bureau of Standards and Appeals; and Charles Wilson, Administrative Officer of the Department, in charge of the operational details.
A large crowd of notables observed actions from the pilot boat “New Jersey” (Commander Adamson) which was located in the river, off the pier. Among the spectators better known to the fire service, were: Commander Harold Burke, Bureau of Ships, Navy Department, Washington: Commander Lloyd Layman, Coast Guard Fire Defense School, Baltimore; Commander H. K. Hughes, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington; Lieuts. Cox and Stahl, Navy Department; Lieuts. Bartlett and Riley, and Edward Zeltncr, Coast Guard; Chief Paul Heinz, Dep. Chief Collins and Mr. Keenan, New Haven, Conn. Fire Department: Chief F. F. Wevil, Weehawken, N. J., Fire Department; Chief Ernest Beckert, West New York Fire Department; Messrs. Steffens, Wager and Hughes, New York Central Railroad; former New York City Chief and Commissioner John J. McEliigott, now head of fire protection, Todd Shipbuilding Company; Lt. Col. Bingham, Fire Marshal, Capt. Grecset, Asst. Fire Marshal, Capt. Butterfield. Chief Kistenberger and others of the Port of Embarkation; High McNair, Director of Fire Protection, General Aniline and Film Corporation; numerous representatives of manufacturers of fire-fighting equipment and Roi Woolley, Assistant Editor, FIRE ENGINEERING, recorder of the tests.
Mr. Joseph Boylan, Asst. Commissioner, Department of Marine and Aviation. represented that organization, in charge of pier and water side details, while Mr. C. R. Beardslee, Chairman. Mayor’s Advisory Committee, was general chairman of the committee managing entire affair.
At the time of the first test, the temperature was 68 deg. F.: humidity about 60 per cent.; barometer, 30.10; wind, light NW and shifty; tide, dead low.
The first test was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of fire department when distributors were applied through openings in the pier deck to control substructure and deck fire. No fog streams were to be used. This fire was set in the center bay of the pier, measuring approximately 60 by 40ft. Timbers and beams and part of the underside of deck were primed with light oil and some kerosene.
The torch was lit at 11:12 A.M. and applied to the sub-structure. Considerable difficulty was encountered in inducing satisfactory ignition. At 12:00 P.M. fire involved only about one-half the width of the pier in this section. Some smoke and a little fire was emitting through planking and sheathing. At 12:12 P.M. some fire was burning through part of deck covering, where temporary sheathing had been laid. Inspection from the water-level showed some flames rolling under the deck but very litle penetration of timbers and piles; little radiated heat below deck. At this time additional oil primer was applied.
In readiness to fight the fire were 2. 2 1/2-in. lines stretched over the pier from Coast Guard fireboat, 57016F located at the river end of north side of pier. Each line was 100 ft. to which was attached a regulation fire department Bresnan distributor. These were lowered about 3 1/2-ft. below pier deck.
At 12:44 P.M. first line was charged. At 12:45 both distributors were operating. Pressures 100 PSI. These distributors had little immediate, appreciable effect on the fire.
At 12:49 P.M. a floating monitor was placed in service by the Coast Guard, the distributors being left in operation as before. The monitor on two lengths of 2 1/2-in. line, operating at 100 PSI, was directed under the pier and its spray was effective, within its limited range. Due to the necessity of operating it at right angles from the fireboat some difficulty was experienced in handling its guide-lines.
At 12:51 P.M. the riverward distributor was shut down. The monitor was being used at this time to kill the fire in the edges and crown of pier. The fire at this stage was not severe smoke not thick; being blown by a variable wind.
New York Fire Department Photo
At 12:55 P.M. the monitor had practically extinguished fire along the north rim of the river. At 12:59 P.M., water was started in a 1 1/2in. line using a fog nozzle straight stream to wash the deck. A few shots of fog alternated but both stream and fog had little effect on fire below the deck surface. Pressure was 80 PST. One distributor still operating.
At 1:00 P.M. monitor was discontinued and at 1:01 P.M. the l 1/2-in. line was shut down while an extra length was added, after which the straight stream was again directed over deck surface.
At 1:04 ineffectual efforts were made to extinguish remaining fire on rim of South side of pier with a straight stream. At 1:07 P.M. the second distributor was shut down, and at 1:15 P.M. men ceased overhauling to prepare for the second test fire, allowing the small residual fires to continue.
The only conclusions to be drawn from this test were that it failed to demonstrate anything except the effectiveness of the floating monitor, when and where this could be brought to bear on the fire.
Second Test
The second test was conducted in the shoreward compartment or bay and intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of straight streams.
The fire was lighted at 2:08 P.M., after the substructure had been primed with 20 gal. of diesel oil and 5 gal. of kerosene. The weather was clear; humidity low; wind variable SW to NW and W, puffy and light.
Smoke at the outset was heavy, due to priming. At 2:20 P.M. some flame was observed through center of pier. By 2:30 the fire had extended well across the pier. At 3:42 P.M. the Hanley fireboat moved to the south side of the pier, stretched 6, 1 1/2-in. hand lines, each 100 ft. fitted with navy type fog nozzles. Only the straight stream, however, was used in these tests.
At 3:10 P.M. the first line was charged, pressure 80 PSI. This was operated from a raft at water level, onto the pier substructure. At 3:03 P.M. the second line was started, directed on the underside of deck. At. 3:09 P.M. other lines were operated on the deck surface. At this time there was some fire emitting between deck beams and in sheathing.
At 3:22 P.M. all lines were shut-down and at 3:03 P.M. a turret pipe on the boat, with 1 1/2-in. tip was used to wet down the deck surface. Pressure 80 PSI. This was discontinued at 3:08 P.M.
Fire still remained in bulkhead and crown girders after this test. No attempt was made to overhaul (no planking removed) to get at seat of the remaining fire. No fog streams used.
The only conclusions to be drawn from this test were what firemen have always observed, i.e., straight streams are ineffective in fighting this type of fire unless they can be made to reach the seat of fire. Water directed on the surface of the pier deck has little or no effect on a sub-structure fire.
The third and concluding test in which fog nozzles were to be operated was held in the outer section. Additional kindling was provided and about 35 gal. of diesel oil and 5 gal. of gasoline were used for primer. By this time the tide had risen and the wind freshened. Weather was still clear; barometer holding up; humidity down.
For this test two new type fog nozzles, one delivering 550 GPM. the other 500 GPM, were installed on two turret pipes of the little fireboat.
At 3:44 the section was lighted. The fire progressed more rapidly than the first two, heavy smoke being emitted. At 4:08 P.M. coastguardsmen on the Hanley fireboat were notified to be ready.
The Hanley type of boat is jet-propelled and steers from the rear cockpit and has a low freeboard. It was selected for the operation because the high tide would make it impossible for streams from any other type fireboat turret to reach the substructure of the pier.
At 4:40 P.M. the boat moved to the attack. Pump pressures were 110 PSI. Both upper and lower turrets were operated. The 550 GPM fog nozzle gave off more of an umbrella type fog pattern than the 500 GPM nozzle which, however, bad the longer range.
Great difficulty was experienced in maneuvering the craft so as to bring both the turrets to bear on the fire. Back-pressure turned the boat off its course and it was impossible to bold its prow to the dock until a snubbitig-line was made fast to the pier. The fog patterns and the pressures were varied by the boat operator.
Location of the turrets, one partially below the pier deck, the other about level with it, resulted in the loss of fully fifty per cent of the discharge pattern of the two turrets.
Where the fog particles hit the fire, there was an appreciable quenching effect. However, it was noticed that air currents, developed by the turret streams, projected beyond them and had the effect of fanning the fire. When one turret was shut down temporarily, the draft effect lessened appreciably and later, when both turrets were momentarily discontinued, flame which had been emitting through the deck structure, faded and only smoke appeared. When one of the turrets was replaced in operation, the blast of air was at once apparent, and the fire flamed anew above the pier deck, and out the opposite (north) side.
Although the patterns could not be measured, it was evident that effective reach of the best situated of the two fog nozzles was not more than half the width of the pier or about 30 ft.
At 4:46 P.M. the lower turret only (fitted with 500 GPM nozzle) was operating; pressure at about 100 PSI. The tip was only a few feet from the north side of the pier, but only about sixty per cent of its pattern was reaching below the pier stringers. It was believed at this stage that the same nozzle, on a 2 1/2-in. hand-line, operated from a raft, would have materially reduced the fire in the substructure.
At 5:00 P.M. this turret shut down, and at 5:01 a straight stream was operated from a boat deck-gun on the surface of the pier deck which was still afire in several places. Fire was also brisk in the north pier side bulkhead and planking which had been beyond the range of the fog patterns. This straight stream had no appreciable effect and was shortly discontinued.
At 5:10 P.M. there remained some fire emitting through deck, and out from below the substructure on the north side. A hot fire persisted in the cribbing bordering the north edge of the pier.
At 5:20 the test was considered culminated, and the coastguardsmen were given the task of overhauling.
Few definite conclusions are to be drawn from these tests, the chief one being that further tests are advisable if any comprehensive comparisons are to be readied between the effectiveness of the several methods of extinguishment employed.
(Continued on page 886)
New York Fire Department Photo
(Continued from page 837)
Although the tests were inconclusive, they did illustrate these facts:
- There is a difference in the use of water fog when applied to open structures, out-of-doors, and where used in confined spaces, as would be the case in an enclosed pier structure.
- There is a place for each of the methods employed, i.e.: use of straight streams, distributors and fog, in fighting pier fires of all types. The effectiveness of each will depend upon the technique employed, as well as the appliances used
- The picture might have been different had parts of the substructure been creosoted, or thoroughly coated with oil, as is characteristic of piers in other parts of the Port. It was noticed that the hotter the fire when the fog hit it, the more complete and quick the extinguishment.
- The tests indicated there are certain limitations to the range and volume of fog streams when used on open pier structures, even where weather conditions were most favorable. Had there been higher wind and rougher water the results might have been even less conclusive.
- The type of fireboat used (jet propulsion) was unsuited for the tests in question, but in view of the fact that it was the only means available for operating turret fog nozzles, and the fact that the crewmen were totally new to their use, it is considered that an excellent job was done by the Coast Guard.
- The use of fog applicators, with low velocity and high velocity heads might have proved interesting. It is reported that later, during overhaul operations, the Coast Guard used applicators with splendid success to kill understructure fires.
- It is problematical what two fireboats would have accomplished, each using a 500 GPM fog nozzle, one attacking from leeward. In an actual fire this two-way attack would have been the procedure, if boats, or rafts or punts were available.
- The test indicated definite air currents are produced by these large type fog nozzles operating at 100 PSI or over, which apparently carry beyond the limit of reach of the water-fog pattern. Although this might not be so serious in fighting enclosed fires, where proper ventilation is accomplished, the test indicates that these possible air drafts may stimulate the fire beyond the reach of the water fog particles. Care should be taken to anticipate this.
