Behavior of Bromotrifluoropropene 

and Pentafluoroethane When 

Subjected to a Simulated Aerosol 

Can Explosion 

John W. Reinhardt 

May 2004 

DOT/FAA/AR-TN04/4 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

o

t

e t

e

c

h

n

i

c

a

l n

o

t

e t

e

c

h

n

i

c

a

ote technical note technic

a
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use 

thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. This 

document does not constitute FAA certification policy. Consult your local 

FAA aircraft certification office as to its use. 

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AR-TN04/4 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

BEHAVIOR OF BROMOTRIFLUOROPROPENE AND PENTAFLUOROETHANE 

5. Report Date

May 2004

WHEN SUBJECTED TO A SIMULATED AEROSOL CAN EXPLOSION 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

John W. Reinhardt 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Federal Aviation Administration 

William J. Hughes Technical Center 

Airport and Aircraft Safety 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Research and Development Division 

Fire Safety Research and Development Branch 

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical Note 

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, DC 20591 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

ANM-100 

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This technical note presents the data from simulated aerosol can explosion tests while using bromotrifluoropropene (BTP) and 

pentafluoroethane (HFC-125) as fire suppression agents for aircraft cargo compartments. These explosion tests were conducted at 

below inert volumetric concentrations to determine the agent’s explosion attenuation performance. The tests were conducted 

inside a 402-ft3

 pressure vessel. The collected data showed that BTP and HFC-125, at these below inert concentrations, enhanced 

the explosion (acted as fuel) instead of mitigating it. 

17. Key Words

Simulated aerosol can explosion; MPS; 

Bromotrifluoropropene, BTP; Pentafluoroethane, HFC-125; 

Propane explosion 

18. Distribution Statement

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages

26 

22. Price

Form DOT F1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v 

INTRODUCTION 1

Agent 1 

Environmental 1

Toxicology 1

Technical Approach 1 

Pressure Vessel 1 

Instrumentation 2

Test Procedure 2 

RESULTS 3 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 5 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 

1 Plan View of Pressure Vessel Setup 6 

2 Comparison of Agent Explosion Suppression Capability at Below Inert 

Concentrations 6

3 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 2 7 

4 The BTP Pressure Pulse at 2.5% (Test 2) 7 

5 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 3 8 

6 No Agent Pressure Pulse (Test 3) 8 

7 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 4 9 

8 No Agent Pressure Pulse (Test 4) 9 

9 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 5 10 

10 The BTP Pressure Pulse at 3.0% (Test 5) 10 

iii
11 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 6 11 

12 The BTP Pressure Pulse at 4.0% (Test 6) 11 

13 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 9 12 

14 The BTP Pressure Pulse at 5.0% (Test 9) 12 

15 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 13 13 

16 The BTP Pressure Pulse at 6.0% (Test 13) 13 

17 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 16 14 

18 The Halon 1301 Pressure Pulse at 2.5% (Test 16) 14 

19 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 17 15 

20 The HFC-125 Pressure Pulse at 8.9% (Test 17) 15 

21 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 19 16 

22 The HFC-125 Pressure Pulse at 11.0% (Test 19) 16 

23 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 23 17 

24 The HFC-125 Pressure Pulse at 6.2% (Test 23) 17 

25 Gas and Temperature Traces for Test 25 18 

26 The HFC-125 (Po=15 psig) Pressure Pulse at 11.3% (Test 25) 18 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 Summary of Test Results 19

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This technical note presents the results of simulated aerosol can explosion tests conducted to 

evaluate the explosion suppression performance of bromotrifluoropropene (BTP) and 

pentafluoroethane (HFC-125). BTP was selected by members of the International Aircraft 

Systems Fire Protection Working Group as a possible candidate to replace Halon 1301 as the 

suppression agent used in an aircraft cargo compartment. Since HFC-125 is an acceptable halon 

replacement agent for some applications, the explosion suppression performance of this agent 

was also investigated. 

The simulated aerosol can explosion test is one of four fire test scenarios required by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA’s) Minimum Performance Standard for Aircraft Cargo

Compartment Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems (DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/6). Before

running this particular minimum performance standard (MPS) test with BTP in the required 2000 

ft3

 aircraft cargo compartment, a preliminary test series was conducted at the FAA William J. 

Hughes Technical Center Pressure Fire Modeling Facility. The objective of this test series was 

to determine if BTP had any unusual behavior before proceeding to conduct the required MPS 

tests inside the FAA’s 2000 ft3

 aircraft cargo compartment. 

Baseline tests were conducted to establish a comparison benchmark. These baseline tests were 

conducted by letting the simulated aerosol can explode without the presence of a suppression 

agent. The results showed overpressures between 23 and 25 psig. A second benchmark test was 

conducted using 2.5% volumetric concentration Halon 1301, which is below its inerting 

concentration. At this volumetric concentration, a subdued explosion event occurred, resulting 

in an overpressure of 4 psig. 

The reported inert concentration of BTP, when evaluated against propane, is 8.5% volumetric 

concentration. It was decided by the testing team that the initial agent volumetric concentrations

should be below this reported number to determine if BTP would be as effective as Halon 1301 

in this particular test scenario. Testing at the FAA Technical Center has shown that Halon 1301 

is capable of suppressing this particular propane explosion with as little as 3.1% volumetric 

concentration (The published inert concentration value for Halon 1301 is 6.7% at stoichiometric 

fuel (propane) to air ratio). The initial volumetric concentration selected for the first explosion

test was 2.5% BTP. This first explosion test resulted in an estimated overpressure of 49.3 psig

(pressure transducer was saturated). After replacing the pressure transducer, other tests were

conducted that included 3%, 4%, 5%, and 6% volumetric concentrations. Their associated 

overpressures were 63, 63, 100, 93 psig, respectively. Thus, BTP enhanced the explosion event 

(as much as 4 times greater pressures than the unsuppressed event and 23 times greater than the 

Halon 1301 benchmark concentration). 

After experiencing the BTP explosion events, HFC-125 was evaluated to determine if it would 

behave in the same fashion. HFC-125 also enhanced the explosion event when it was below its 

inert concentration (15.6%). The agent produced explosion overpressures of 53 psig, at 9% and 

11%, respectively. When the pressure vessel was pressurized with air to 15 psig and sustained a 

volumetric concentration of 11.3% HFC-125, a reduced explosion event of 6 psig occurred. 

Prior to activating the simulated aerosol can, the arc-producing electrodes were energized to 

v
determine if an explosive mixture was present at this particular vessel pressure and HFC-125 

concentration. The results were negative. This type of test was repeated at an internal vessel 

pressure of 20 psig and a volumetric concentration of 6.3%; once again, the results were negative 

(no event). Another test was conducted with 13.5% of HFC-125 at ambient pressure, but there 

was no explosion event after the simulated aerosol can was activated. Thus, HFC-125 prevented 

the blast at 13.5%, even though its reported inert concentration for a propane explosion is 15.6% 

(at a stoichiometric fuel-to-air ratio). 

In summary, at concentrations below the inerting level, both BTP and HFC-125 enhanced 

explosions by creating higher overpressures than measured in air alone. In contrast, Halon 1301, 

the currently used aircraft cargo compartment fire suppression agent, mitigated the explosion,

even though it was below its inert concentration. It reduced the overpressure of the event. Since 

aircraft cargo compartment suppression agents may be present at subinerting design 

concentrations, because of stratification or larger than normal leakage, it is important that 

replacement agents be selected that do not increase the overpressure caused by an exploding 

aerosol can at concentrations below the inerting value. 

Aircraft cargo compartment fire suppression agents may be present at subinerting concentrations 

due to leakage of agent from the bottle or delivery tubing, or stratification, or larger than normal

air leakage in the compartment. Therefore, it is important that replacement agents be selected 

that do not increase the overpressure caused by an exploding aerosol can at concentrations below

the inerting value. Unless a means can be found to avoid the problem of subinerting 

concentrations of extinguishing agent, BTP and HFC-125 would not be suitable candidates for 

halon replacement extinguishing agents in the cargo compartment. 

vi
INTRODUCTION

The objective of this project was to determine the explosion suppression performance of 

bromotrifluoropropene (BTP) and pentafluoroethane (HFC-125) at concentrations below the 

inerting level when challenged against the simulated aerosol can explosion test. 

AGENT.

The agents used during the tests were BTP and HFC-125. According to the BTP Material Safety 

Data Sheet (MSDS), this chemically acting agent is a colorless volatile liquid that has a slight

ether-like odor. It has a boiling point of 93°F, a liquid density of 99.9 lb/ft3

 (1.60 kg/l) at 77°F, 

and a molecular weight of 174.95. The HFC-125 MSDS describes this agent as clear, colorless, 

having a boiling point of -55°F, a liquid density of 77.9 lbm/ft3

 (1.248 g/cc) at 68°F, and a

molecular weight of 120.

ENVIRONMENTAL. 

At the time of this testing, bromotrifluoropropene (CH2CBrCF3) was not on the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Clean Air Act, Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, 

or other international governmental-approving program list as a Halon 1301 replacement.

However, laboratory work has been conducted to determine the primary environmental 

characteristics of this new agent. For example, it was determine that the agent has an ozone 

depletion potential (ODP) of 0.0028, no global warming potential (GWP) reported yet, and has 

an atmospheric lifetime (ALT) of 0.008 year, or 2.9 days. As a reference, the values for Halon 

1301 (CF3Br) are 16 ODP, 5800 GWP, and 100 years ALT. On the other hand, HFC-125 

(CF3CHF2) is on the EPA SNAP list. It has an ODP of 0, a GWP of 3800, and an ALT of 32.6 

years. 

TOXICOLOGY. 

The only toxicology data reported in the BTP MSDS was its lethal concentration or LC50. The 

LC50 is determined by exposing (inhalation) rats to the agent for 4 hours. The LC50 reported, for 

a 4-hour exposure, was estimated to be within the range of 5.1% to 9.7% volume. The fire 

suppression concentration of BTP is also within that range. For HFC-125, the MSDS indicates 

the LC50 as 709,000 ppm for 4 hours. The lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) 

reported was 100,000 ppm, and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 50,000 ppm. 

TECHNICAL APPROACH. 

PRESSURE VESSEL. The tests were conducted with an exploding aerosol can simulator that 

was developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to simulate the worst-case effects

of an exploding aerosol can in a repeatable manner. The simulator was housed in a pressure 

vessel located in the Pressure Fire Modeling Facility at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical

Center. The pressure vessel has a volume of 402 ft3

 and a maximum working pressure rating of 

600 psig (see figure 1). The pressure vessel was instrumented with thermocouples, pressure 

transducers, gas analyzers, and a video camera. Since the pressure vessel is air tight, the 

1
overpressure associated with the explosive reaction is captured and retained until the pressure 

vessel cools. 

INSTRUMENTATION. Multiple sensors were installed inside the pressure vessel during the 

evaluation, which included thermocouples, gas sampling probes, pressure transducers, and a 

video camera (see figure 1). 

Temperature was measured with two Type K chromel/alumel 22-gauge thermocouples near the 

arcing electrodes and on the surface of the simulator. 

Two gas analyzers, with a continuous real-time display, were used to measure the volumetric 

concentrations of the extinguishing agent (BTP or HFC-125) and oxygen (O2). A comparative 

test between the signal output (concentration reading) of the NDIR and Statham analyzers were 

conducted prior to testing to determine their correlation. The results were excellent; their 

readings match almost exactly (±0.1%). 

• A Rosemount 880A (NDIR) analyzer was used to determine the volumetric concentration 

of BTP and HFC-125. 

• The oxygen concentration was detected with a Rosemount OM11EA gas analyzer. 

The gas-sampling probe was installed 24 inches laterally to the arcing electrode and 36 inches 

forward of the simulator. The sampling probe simultaneously disconnected just before striking 

the arc to protect the analyzing equipment from the overpressures. 

The data-sampling rate for all the temperature measurements and the gas concentrations was 1 

Hz. 

An Omega PX951-200G5V pressure transducer was used to record the overpressure pulses

during the explosions. The pressure transducer’s frequency response was 3000 Hz, and it 

provided a pressure range of 0 to 200 psig. The pressure transducer was mounted on the aft wall 

of the pressure vessel. The pressure data was collected at a sampling rate of 1000 data points per 

second. 

TEST PROCEDURE. The following procedures were used during the simulated aerosol can 

explosion test. 

1. Prior to commencing the test, the analyzers were calibrated against a calibration gas, the

instrumentation was checked for functionality and accuracy, and the support equipment 

was activated to check for normal operation. 

2. To identify the test, a test sign, with the test identification number, was displayed in front 

of the video camera and recorded. 

3. The data acquisition systems were configured and readied. 

2
4. The fire bottle was filled with the required amount of agent, and the aerosol can simulator 

was charged with propane, water, and alcohol. 

5. The pressure vessel door was shut after plumbing the fire bottle to the pressure vessel’s 

discharge lines, after cleaning the discharge nozzles, and after mounting the aerosol can 

simulator inside the vessel. 

6. All the valves on the pressure vessel were closed to seal it, with the gas-sampling probe 

creating the only temporary leak. At this point, the setup was ready for testing. 

7. Before the countdown, the fan inside the pressure vessel was turned on. 

8. After the countdown, the test was initiated by starting the 1-Hz data acquisition system

and discharging the agent. The agent was introduced, either at a low or high rate of 

discharge, in the pressure vessel until the desired volumetric concentration was reached. 

9. Once the desired concentration was reached, the aerosol can simulator was heated to 

increase its pressure to 240 psig, which is the design failure pressure of a DOT-2P aerosol 

can. 

10. When the required pressure was achieved, a second countdown was initiated to activate 

the aerosol can simulator. During the second countdown, the video camera was started, 

the high-speed data acquisition was tripped, the fan was turned off, the arcing electrodes 

were energized, and the aerosol can simulator pneumatic valve was opened. 

11. After the test, the data was saved, all the equipment was turned off (with the exception of 

video camera), and the pressure vessel ventilated and monitored. 

Two tests were conducted to determine if a reaction would occur with the agents under pressure. 

In these tests, the pressure vessel was pressurized to 15 and 20 psig. The pressurization step was 

performed after the agent was discharged. To pressurize the vessel, the air service valve was 

opened until the required pressure was achieved. After that, the same steps were followed as 

described above. 

RESULTS

Table 1 presents a summary of the test results and figure 2 shows a comparison of representative 

data of each agent’s explosion suppression capabilities. A total of 25 tests were conducted in the 

pressure vessel. Out of the 25 tests, 21 were conducted successfully and 4 tests had to be aborted 

due to equipment failure (tests 7, 11, 12, and 18). The explosion event stressed the equipment 

and sometimes destroyed it. 

Test 1 was a pre-explosion test that compared the output of the NDIR and Statham gas analyzers, 

when measuring BTP, using two different methods of creating calibration gas. The agreement 

between the outputs of these two gas-measuring devices and the two calibration gas production 

methods were excellent. Since one of the methods used to produce the calibration gas is 

proprietary information, they are not discussed in this report. 

3
Test 2 was the first simulated aerosol can explosion test, using a concentration of 2.5% BTP in 

the pressure vessel. An explosion event occurred and produced a peak temperature of 368°F 

(figure 3) and an overpressure in excess of 49.3 psig (figure 4). Since the pressure transducer

was saturated, it was replaced with one rated for higher pressures (200 psig). 

Tests 3 and 4 were baseline explosion tests without any extinguishing agent present. Test 3 was 

an explosion event with a peak temperature of 387°F (figure 5) and an overpressure of 25.4 psig 

(figure 6). The explosion of test 4 gave a peak temperatures of 328°F (figure 7) and an 

overpressure of 23.4 psig (figure 8). 

Tests 5 through 13 were simulated aerosol can explosion tests using BTP volumetric

concentrations of 3%, 4%, 5%, and 6%. At these concentrations, the resulting peak pressures 

were 63, 63, 100, and 93 psig, respectively. As observed at 2.5% BTP concentration, the 

overpressures were significantly higher than the overpressure measured in air without the 

presence of an extinguishing agent (23-25 psig). The associated peak temperatures were 1056°, 

1095°, 1251°, and 1467°F, respectively (see figures 9 through 16). Test 12 experienced a partial 

explosion event at 6% BTP. There were some flames near the ceiling area, but no significant 

trace of elevated pressure or temperature. During this test, the arc-producing electrodes were 

placed 2 inches below their required normal position. 

Tests 14 and 15 were studies conducted to determine if the heat gun, used to heat up the aerosol 

can simulator, was influencing the volumetric concentration of the BTP. The heat gun was 

replaced for tests conducted after test 8. On previous tests, it was noticed that when the heat gun 

was turned on to increase the pressure in the aerosol can simulator, the concentration of BTP

dropped. These tests showed that the heat gun did not affect the concentration of the agent after 

running it for 10 and 30 minutes. Nevertheless, it was replaced with heat tape. 

Test 16 used Halon 1301 as the extinguishing agent with a volumetric concentration of 2.5%. 

This low concentration demonstrated that even though the agent was below its inert 

concentration (6.7%), the agent was still able to attenuate the explosion pulse. The pressure 

transducer recorded an overpressure of 4 psig with a temperature of 65°F (see figures 17 and 18). 

Thus, unlike BTP, Halon 1301 reduces the overpressure caused by an exploding aerosol can at 

concentrations below the inerting level. 

Tests 17 through 25 were conducted with HFC-125. In tests 21, 22, 23, and 25, the internal 

pressure of the pressure vessel was increased to determine if the agent was explosive without the 

activation of the aerosol can simulator. The internal pressure of the pressure vessel was 

increased by injecting compressed air. The concentrations tested at ambient pressure were 6.2%, 

8.9%, 11%, and 13.5%. When the internal pressure of the pressure vessel was increased, the 

concentrations were 6.1%, 6.3%, and 11.3%. The internal pressure of the pressure vessel was 

increased to 15 and 20 psig. The explosion event peak pressures recorded, when the pressure

vessel was at ambient pressure, were 52, 53, 52, and 0 psig, respectively, with associated 

temperatures of 1026°, 1227°, 1067°, and 50°F. Thus, concentrations of HFC-125 below the 

inerting level (6.2%, 8.9%, and 11%) also produced overpressures greater than in air alone. No 

explosion occurred when the concentration was 13.5%. During test 24, the internal pressure of 

the pressure vessel was increased to 15 psig. When the concentration of HFC-125 was 11.3%, 

4
the arcing electrodes were energized without the activation of the aerosol can simulator. At this 

time, there was no explosion event, but when the aerosol can simulator was activated, a minor

explosion event occurred with the pressure increase of only 6 psig. The peak temperature during 

this event was 32°F (up from 24°F). When the internal pressure of the pressure vessel was 

increased to 20 psig and the HFC-125 concentrations (6.1%) was below the cup burner 

concentrations (8.8%), energizing the arc-producing electrodes produced no explosions. (Refer

to the charts in figures 19 through 26.) 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The following conclusions can be inferred from the results presented in this report. 

1. The overpressure pulse of the explosion event is enhanced significantly when 

bromotrifluoropropene (BTP) is used at a subinerting concentration of 6% or below. 

2. The overpressure pulse of the explosion event is enhanced significantly when 

pentafluoroethane (HFC-125) is used at a subinerting concentration of 11% or below. 

3. Halon 1301 mitigated the pressure pulse of an aerosol explosion at a concentration of

2.5% which is below its inert value. 

4. Unless a means can be found to avoid the problem of introducing subinerting 

concentrations of extinguishing agent in the cargo compartment, BTP and HFC-125 

would not be suitable candidates for halon replacement extinguishing agents for this 

application in airplanes. 

5. When the internal pressure of the pressure vessel is increased to 15 and 20 psig and HFC125 is present in concentrations of 6.1% and 11.3%, the environment is not explosive 

when an electrical arc is introduced.

6. The agreement between the gas-sampling readout of the NDIR and Statham gas analyzers 

and between the two methods used to produce calibration gas were excellent. 

5
Pressure

Transducer 

Video

Camera (Top View)

11.4 m Pressure

Vessel

Fan 3

Aerosol Can

Simulator

Arcing

Electrodes

Agent Discharge

Port

Gas Analyzer

Probe

Igniter Thermocouple

Heat Gun

Aerosol Can Simulator

Thermocouple

FIGURE 1. PLAN VIEW OF PRESSURE VESSEL SETUP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Time (msec)

Pressure (psig)

BTP (5%)

No Agent

Halon 1301 (2.5%)

HFC-125 (8.9%)

FIGURE 2. COMPARISON OF AGENT EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION 

CAPABILITY AT BELOW INERT CONCENTRATIONS 

6
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 112503T1

Concentration: 2.5% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (Min)

Vol. Conc (%)/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Te

mperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Oxygen (%)

BTP (%)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 3. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 2 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 112503T1

Concentration: 2.5% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 700

Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 4. THE BTP PRESSURE PULSE AT 2.5% (TEST 2) 

7
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 120203T1

Concentration: No Agent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.533.544.5 5

Time (Min)

Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 5. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 3 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 120203T1

Concentration: No Agent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g

Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 6. NO AGENT PRESSURE PULSE (TEST 3) 

8
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 120203T2

Concentration: No Agent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.533.544.5 5

Time (Min)

Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 7. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 4 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 120203T2

Concentration: No Agent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g

Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 8. NO AGENT PRESSURE PULSE (TEST 4) 

9
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 120203T3

Concentration: 3% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (Min)

Vol. Conc (%)/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Oxygen (%)

BTP (%)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 9. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 5 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 120203T3

Concentration: 3% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 10. THE BTP PRESSURE PULSE AT 3.0% (TEST 5) 

10
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 120303T1

Concentration: 4% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (Min)

Vol. Conc (%)/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Oxygen (%)

BTP (%)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 11. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 6 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 120303T1

Concentration: 4% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 12. THE BTP PRESSURE PULSE AT 4.0% (TEST 6) 

11
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 120803T1

Concentration: 5% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time (Min)

Vol. Conc (%)/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Oxygen (%)

BTP (%)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 13. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 9 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 120803T1

Concentration: 5% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 14. THE BTP PRESSURE PULSE AT 5.0% (TEST 9) 

12
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 121103T1

Concentration: 6% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (Min)

Vol. Conc (%)/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Oxygen (%)

BTP (%)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 15. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 13 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 121103T1

Concentration: 6% BTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 16. THE BTP PRESSURE PULSE AT 6.0% (TEST 13) 

13
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 121603T1

Concentration: 2.5% HALON 1301

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (Min)

Vol. Conc (%)/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperatures (degF)

Pressure (psig)

Oxygen (%)

Halon 1301 (%)

Igniter Temp (degF)

FIGURE 17. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 16 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 121603T1

Concentration: 2.5% Halon 1301

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 18. THE HALON 1301 PRESSURE PULSE AT 2.5% (TEST 16) 

14
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 010704T1

Concentration: 8.9% HFC-125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (Min)

Millivolts/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

HFC125 (mV)

Igniter Temp (degF)

Simulator Temp (degF)

8.9% HFC-125

FIGURE 19. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 17 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 010704T1

Concentration: 8.9% HFC-125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 20. THE HFC-125 PRESSURE PULSE AT 8.9% (TEST 17) 

15
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 010904T1

Concentration: 11.0% HFC-125 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (Min)

Millivolts/Pressure (psig)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

HFC125 (mV)

Igniter Temp (degF)

Simulator Temp (degF)

11% HFC-125

FIGURE 21. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 19 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 010904T1

Concentration: 11% HFC-125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 22. THE HFC-125 PRESSURE PULSE AT 11.0% (TEST 19) 

16
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 011304T2

Concentration: 6.2% HFC-125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (Min)

Millivolts/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

HFC-125 (mV)

Igniter Temp (degF)

Simulator Temp (degF)

11.8% HFC-125

6.2% HFC-125

FIGURE 23. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 23 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 011304T2

Concentration: 6.2% HFC-125

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

p g Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 24. THE HFC-125 PRESSURE PULSE AT 6.2% (TEST 23) 

17
AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TESTS 011404T1

Concentration: 11.3% HFC-125 (Pressure Vessel at 15 psig) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (Min)

Millivolts/Pressure (psig)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Temperature (degF)

Pressure (psig)

HFC-125 (mV)

Igniter Temp (degF)

Simulator Temp (degF)

11.3% HFC-125

17.3% HFC-125

FIGURE 25. GAS AND TEMPERATURE TRACES FOR TEST 25 

AEROSOL CAN SIMULATOR EXPLOSION TEST 011404T1

Concentration: 11.3% HFC-125 at Po=15 psig

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Pressure (psig)

Time (msec)

FIGURE 26. THE HFC-125 (Po=15 psig) PRESSURE PULSE AT 11.3% (TEST 25) 

18
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

19/20