Fire Test Summary #018/C1&C3MS/APR02

Page 1 of 4

HI-FOG MT3 systems for total compartment protection of shipboard Class

1, 2 and 3 machinery spaces of category A and cargo pump rooms.

HI-FOG

Product SPU&MAU

04 Sep 2002

Fire test summary HI-FOG MT3 systems for total compartment protection of shipboard Class 1, 2 and 3
machinery spaces of category A and cargo pump rooms.
Test standard

IMO MSC/Circ. 668/728 Interim test method for fire testing equivalent water-based fireextinguishing systems for machinery spaces of Category A and cargo pump rooms.

Summary

Twenty machinery space fire extinguishing tests were conducted according to nine different
scenarios in enclosures corresponding to Class 1 (500 m3) and Class 3 (>3000 m3) engine rooms.
The fire scenarios included both exposed and obstructed spray fires, cascade fires, pool fires and
class A fires and their combinations. All the fires were extinguished within the acceptable time of
15 min.

Conclusions

The HI-FOG MT3 fire protection system with the principal installation criteria below was shown to
be applicable as an alternative fixed fire extinguishing system as required by Regulation II-2/7 of
the SOLAS convention in Class 1, 2 and 3 machinery spaces of Category A and cargo pump
rooms.
Water distribution network

Class 1

Class 2&3

Spray head
configuration

4S 1MC 8MB 1000

1.9
25 m2
125 m3
5m
80 bar

5S 1MC 8MC 1000

3.9
22 m2
206 m3
11 m
70 / 13 bar

Gas & twin fluid distribution network

Class 1

Class 2&3

Spray head
configuration

4S 1MC 8MB 1000

4S 300 9MF 10G0
4S 1MD 8MD 1000
20 m2
38 m2
3
100 m
370 m3
N2 / 50 l / 200 bar
typical 6 for 500 m3
typical 25 for 1000 m3

Gas cylinder
unit

Type
K factor
Max coverage area
Max coverage volume
Max ceiling height
Min water pressure

Type
Max coverage area
Max coverage volume
Cylinder type
Number of cylinders

Marioff Corporation Oy reserves the right to revise and improve its products and recommended system configurations as it deems necessary without notification. The information contained herein
is intended to describe the state of Hi-fog products and system configurations at the time of its publication and may not reflect the product and/or system configurations at all times in the future.

HI-FOG

Fire Test Summary #018/C1&C3MS/APR02

Page 2 of 4

1. Introduction
International Maritime Organization (IMO) has provided guidelines for alternative arrangements for halon fireextinguishing systems, which were prohibited to be installed on board ships after October 1 1994. The fire test procedures
described MSC/Circ.668/728 are intended for evaluating the effectiveness of water-based total flooding fire-extinguishing
systems as alternative arrangements in machinery spaces and cargo pump rooms as defined in SOLAS II-2/7.
Twenty fire extinguishing tests in accordance with MSC/Circ.668/728 were conducted for the HI-FOG MT3 system.
2. Test arrangement
The Class 1 test enclosure was constructed in the big test hall of the fire technology laboratory of VTT, the
Technical Research Centre of Finland.
A schematic view of the enclosure with a diesel engine mock-up at the centre of it is shown in Figure 1. The dimensions
of the 500 m3 enclosure were 10 m x 10 m x 5 m high. There was a 2 m x 2 m opening at one of the walls.
The Class 3 test enclosure was formed by the large test facility of Marioff Corporation Oy at Lohja, Finland. Figure 1
also shows a schematic view of the Class 3 test enclosure. The square-shaped enclosure had a 18.5 m x 18.5 m flat
floor and a maximum height of 11.0 m equaling a total volume of 3300 m3. A 2 m x 2 m opening was constructed at the
middle of one of the walls.
Test fires were arranged at and on the engine mock-up as shown in Figure 1. The fuel used was either low flash point
heptane, which resembles regular gasoline except for its lower toxicity, or high flash point light diesel oil. The fire
scenarios above the bilge are summarized in Table I. In each test the fire was first ignited and after a preburn time of
5 s 2 min the HI-FOG system was manually activated. To pass the tests, the fires must be extinguished within 15 min
after starting the suppression and no re-ignition may occur.

Twin fluid nozzles (red)

Water nozzles (blue)

max. 11,0 m

Figure 1. A schematic view of

the test enclosures with test
engine mock-up.

Gas/twin fluid nozzles (red)

Water nozzles (blue)

Test #2
(Class 3 enclosure)

m
18,5
max. 5,0 m

18,5
m

Test #9
(Class 1 enclosure)

10,0
m

m
10,0

Fire Test Summary #018/C1&C3MS/APR02

HI-FOG
Test

Page 3 of 4

Fire scenario

Test fuel

Heat release
rate (MW)

Low pressure horizontal spray on top of the engine

Diesel oil

Low pressure spray on top of the engine aligned 45 upward

striking a 12-15 mm diameter rod

Diesel oil

Low pressure concealed horizontal spray fire on one side of the engine

Diesel oil

High pressure horizontal spray fire on top of the engine

Diesel oil

Low pressure, low flow concealed spray fire + 0.1 m pool fire
on the side of the engine

Diesel oil

0.5 m2 pool fire on top of bilge under the exhaust plate

Heptane

10

Flowing fire (0.25 kg/s) from the top of the engine

Heptane

12

11

A wood crib in a 2 m pool fire on the side of the engine

Heptane

12

Low pressure, low flow spray striking a 350 C steel plate

on top of the engine

Heptane

3. HI-FOG system
The HI-FOG MT3 system discharges both water mist and nitrogen. The system consists of two separate pipeworks,
one for plain water and one for gas or water/gas mixture. All the nozzles are mounted on the ceiling level, pointing
downward.
The objective is to have a homogeneous mixture of water mist and gas throughout the space, and due to the different
ceiling heights and enclosure sizes the objective is achieved by different nozzle and water discharge configurations.
In Class 1 tests the water discharge network consists of four spray heads of type 4S 1MC 8MB 1000. The water
system was operated by electric pumps, and the line pressure was 80 bar. The twin-fluid line involved 6 N2 cylinders,
an optional water accumulator unit (applicable also as redundant means) and five spray heads of type 4S 1MC 8MB
1000 in the plain gas application or 4S 1MD 8MD 1000 in the twin fluid application. Positioning of the sprayheads is
shown in Figure 1.
To achieve a proper mixing of the water mist in Class 3 tests, the water line was divided into two sections that were
operated at different pressures. A pressure unbalance was hence created in the enclosure, which ensured the best
possible distribution of the mist droplets, appropriate cooling and full mixing of the enclosure gas volume. Both sections
were equipped with 8 spray heads of type 5S 1MC 8MC 1000, and the pressure in the sections was alternated
periodically so that one line was always operated at a low pressure (13 bar) and the other one at a high pressure (70
bar). The twin-fluid line was operated with up to 110 N2 cylinders, six water accumulator units and nine double spray
heads of type 4S 300 9MF 10G0. Positioning of the spray heads is shown in Figure 1.
In each case, the plain water line is capable of extinguishing all the big fires (relative to the enclosure size) and in any
case it provides cooling for the enclosure and protects the equipment and structure. In Class 1 tests the water discharge
alone extinguished all the fires except for the test # 9. In Class 3 tests the plain water discharge extinguished the test
fires #1, #2, #3, and #5. The maximum number of gas cylinders was applied only in tests #6 and #9.
A full test set-up for the Class 3 tests is shown in Figure 2.

HI-FOG

Fire Test Summary #018/C1&C3MS/APR02

Page 4 of 4

Figure 2. Full test arrangement

for Class 3 tests.

4. Results
All the tests were passed: the fires were extinguished in less than 13 min after starting the suppression and no reignition
occurred.
Scaling rules to any volumes, based on the experimental results in the two volumes and theoretical approach, were
generated. The rules are based on plain and simple physical facts of inerting the enclosure atmosphere by water
vapour and nitrogen, the relative weight of water vapour being higher in smaller enclosures and approaching a constant,
low concentration in larger enclosures.

NOTE: The tests described form the basis for the relevant type approvals.
A complete description of the tests and their results are given in the
Test Report No. RTE583/02, VTT Building and Transport, April 2002

Marioff Corporation Oy, P.O. Box 86, Virnatie 3, FIN-01301 Vantaa, Finland,
tel +358 9 870 851, fax +358 9 8708 5399, e-mail info@marioff.fi, www.hi-fog.com