ADVANCED PROPELLANT/ADDITIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR 

FIRE SUPPRESSING GAS GENERATORS: DEVELOPMENT + TEST

Stephen Fallis and Russell Reed 

Research Department, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, 

China Lake, CA 93555 

760/939-1642; 760/939-1617 FAX 

FallisS@navair.navy.mil; reedr@navair.navy.mil 

J.L. McCormick, G.F. Holland

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems 

PO Box 97009; Redmond WA 98073-9709 

425/885-5000; 425/882-5757 FAX 

jennifer.mccormick@red.gd-ots.com; gfh@red.gd-ots.com 

The “Advanced Propellant/Additive Development for Gas Generator” project is a collaborative 

effort between General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS) and the Naval Air 

Warfare Center-Weapons Division (NAWCWD). The objectives of this NGP project are to 

develop new highly efficient, environmentally acceptable, chemically active fire suppressant 

capabilities based upon solid propellant gas generators; and improve understanding of propellant 

and additive effectiveness in fire suppression. 

New propellant formulations, based upon novel high-energy, high-nitrogen fuels, were refined in 

order to reduce overall combustion temperatures while maintaining ballistic robustness. These 

fuels included 5-aminotetrazole and the new high nitrogen compound BTATZ (C4H4N14). The 

fuels were formulated with oxidizers and chemical coolants to reduce combustion temperatures, 

and modified with chemical additives to enhance fire suppression effectiveness. Cooler exhausts 

were also generated using Hybrid Fire Extinguisher systems, which contain combinations of 

solid propellant gas generators and fire suppressing fluids. 

Suppression effectiveness of several propellant and hybrid configurations was tested in the GD 

fire test fixture against a controlled JP-8 fire. These tests compared HFE to SPGG performance, 

evaluated the effect of discharge temperature and the presence of chemically active additives. 

This presentation will summarize results to date of propellant formulations, hybrid 

configurations and fire suppression effectiveness testing, and attempt to correlate effectiveness 

with additives and exhaust temperature. 
Introduction

The utility of solid propellant gas generator (SPGG) technology for fire suppression has been

amply demonstrated on a variety of platforms, from subscale1-, to midscale2-, to full-scale3 and

production platforms. Many of the benefits of SPGG-based fire protection systems, such as their 

ability to deliver large quantities of suppression agents in a rapid, mass- and volume-efficient 

manner, are a direct result of the solid propellant combustion process. 

Conceptually, both SPGGs and pressure-bottle (blowdown) systems deliver agent according to

the same analytical expression, whereby the rate of agent delivery is related to the discharge 

coefficient C

md &

d of the agent, the throat area At and the pressure inside the delivery device Pc, i.e. 

md = Cd* At * Pc & . (1)

In a blowdown system, the initial bottle pressure is given by the sum of agent vapor pressure Pvap

plus the pressure of a pressurant gas (typically nitrogen) Ppressurant: 

Pc = Pvap (agent) + Ppressurant . (2)

Here, Pc is at its maximum in the pre-discharge condition, and both Pc and decrease rapidly

upon initiation of the discharge process. Where the SPGG differs from the blowdown bottle is 

the ability to store agent at zero internal pressure, and then to generate high pressures internally 

by the combustion of the solid propellant to form a blend of inert gases. 

md &

For solid propellants, Pc is directly related to the product of the burning surface area Asurface and 

the rate at which gas is generated from the propellant, typically referred to as the “burn rate,”

(BR, units in/s or cm/s)4

. The BR itself is a function of the system pressure, with log(BR) 

typically increasing linearly with log(pressure) with slope referred to as the pressure exponent n.

The expression relating Pc and BR is given below:

Pc ∝ Asurface * BR1/n . (3) 

According to expression (1) above, this high ballistically-induced internal pressure can translate 

into sustained high rates of agent discharge. 

Inherent to the SPGG process is the fact that the gases generated by propellant combustion are 

hot. Reducing the temperature of the exhaust gases would increase their fire suppression 

effectiveness, since they would then be capable of absorbing more heat from the fire. 

Additionally, cooler exhaust gases would have less impact on the structures and materials with

which they contact during the agent discharge process. 

Maintaining high discharge rates for different propellants, then, requires maintaining a

sufficiently high Pc. According to the above discussion, then, for the desired cooled propellant 

compositions to meet desired rapid discharge requirements, some minimum Pc (and/or BR) must

be maintained. 

This NGP project has developed several means for reducing the exhaust temperatures of SPGG 

devices. Both approaches mix the hot combustion gases with materials that can absorb heat and 

cool the actual exhaust. In one case the coolant is incorporated directly into the solid propellant 

composition, and in the other the propellant gases are mixed with a fluid characterized by a high

2
heat capacity. This latter fluid is referred to as a hybrid fluid and the device is referred to as a 

hybrid fire extinguisher (HFE). 

In addition to cooler propellant approaches, the GD-NAWC effort has explored the effect of 

different approaches to incorporating chemical activity into SPGG and HFE devices. Earlier 

work by GD/NAWC2

 has demonstrated the improvements possible by incorporating chemically 

active precursors into the SPGG event. Work on the subject of Advanced Propellant/Additive 

Development for Fire Suppressing Gas Generators is now in its third phase. Phase I and initial 

Phase II results are presented in previous works2,5

. This present work describes the results from

the latter part of Phase II and the initial part of Phase III. Phase II and Phase III focus on the

benefits achievable by incorporating the chemically active additive directly into the propellant 

and/or hybrid fluid. 

Experimental Techniques 

Propellant Development 

The developmental propellants described here were made up in relatively small batches (50g – 1 

kg). In a typical process, individual ingredients were pulverized and then wet-mixed in an inert 

fluorocarbon medium, where polymeric binder was deposited upon the powder and the mixture 

precipitated. The solid was then collected, dried and compression molded into pellets for burn

rate analysis. Larger batches of propellant were manufactured and pressed on an automated 

rotary press.

Test Fixture Description 

The mid-scale Fire Test Fixture (FTF), developed by General Dynamics, was used to test the 

effectiveness of various agents (Figure 1). The agents were delivered to the fire using the 

following technology: 

• Solid Propellant Gas Generator (SPGG) 

• Hybrid Fire Extinguisher (HFE) 

This same test fixture was used during previous test phases2,5

 and its purpose is to provide a 

platform where fire suppressants can be evaluated under repeatable test conditions. The mass 

flow rate of air through the fixture was set at 450 g/s (1 lbm/s). JP-8 fuel was used with an airfuel ratio of 31 m•air/m•fuel and an equivalence ratio of 0.5. This created a fire with a flame 

temperature of ~1000 K and a ~700 kW intensity. The residence time through the fire zone of the 

fixture was calculated to be 1.2 seconds and the discharge time of the SPGG and HFE units was 

~100-200 milliseconds. Additional details about the FTF, including a facility schematic and a list 

of the major subsystems, have been published previously2

. 

3
Figure 1: GD Fire Test Fixture (FTF) 

Results 

Propellant Development: Cooler Formulations 

Cooler solid propellant compositions were examined by direct incorporation of coolant into the 

propellant blend. In examining a number of solid propellant compositions, we have found that 

the benefits of decreased exhaust temperatures are often offset by a decrease in the burn rate of

the propellant, which in turn relates to a decrease in the rate of suppressant delivery. This is 

illustrated in Figure 2, where ln(burn rate) is plotted as a function of 1/T. The linear relationship

indicates that modeling this relationship as an Arrhenius-type activated process is appropriate. 

4
-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008

ln(BR1000,) (in/s)

1/T

c

, (°K-1)

Figure 2: Plot of ln(burn rate) vs. 1/T 

The GD-NAWC NGP program has utilized the model above for maintaining adequate agent 

delivery rates while reducing propellant exhaust temperatures. We have created some novel 

formulations using compositions that burn at sufficiently rapid rates so they can be modified by 

incorporation of chemical coolants to reduce exhaust temperatures, while maintaining agent 

delivery rates at levels sufficient for rapid flame extinction. The effect of coolant level upon 

calculated adiabatic agent temperature for one family of compositions is shown in Figure 3. 

5
Figure 3: Plot of Adiabatic Agent Temperature and Burn Rate vs. Coolant Level 

Propellant formulations incorporating the new high nitrogen compound BTATZ (C4H4N14), 

provide increased means for reducing propellant combustion temperatures. BTATZ is

structurally similar to 5-aminotetrazole (5AT), the fuel used in GD’s FS01-40 propellant (Figure 

4). The preparation of BTATZ has progressed to the 1 lb scale, with purity ~ 97–99%. 

N N

N N

NH

N

N

N

NH

HN

N

N

N

HN

N

N

N

H

N

NH2

Bis(aminotetrazolyl)tetrazine

(BTATZ)

5-Aminotetrazole

(5AT)

Figure 4: High-nitrogen fuels used in GD-NAWC propellant development 

Scale-up work on the 3 gal. scale has proven successful. The recent acquisition of a 50 gal. 

reactor will allow us to scale up to an extent that the synthesis of intermediates need only be

carried out periodically. Further safety data on BTATZ itself has been obtained. BTATZ shows 

acceptable friction and impact sensitivity but is somewhat sensitive to electrostatic initiation. 

When formulated into a molding powder with poly(ethylacrylate), electrostatic sensitivity is still 

6
a concern, even when 0.5% carbon black is added, however when pressed into pellets or

deposited as a thin layer the material meets the criteria set for routine handling of energetics. 

A number of formulations have been evaluated for their suitability in agent generation devices; 

several formulations are based on BTATZ, although a number of others involve other energetic

fuels such as 5-aminotetrazole (5AT). The results are presented in Table 1 below. These data 

again illustrate the falloff in burn (agent generation) rate with decreased adiabatic combustion

temperature.

Table 1. Propellant Physical Properties 

Descriptors Major Constituents(a) Tc, 

K 

Gas, 

mol/100g

Theoretical Density, 

g/cc 

BR1000, 

in/s 

BTATZ KP 

BTATZ-5AT 

KP 1961 4.12 1.72 1.31

BTSN-00 

BTATZ 

Sr(NO3)2 2774 2.27 2.38 1.09

BTSN-10 

BTATZ 

Sr(NO3)2 2562 2.12 2.43 TBD

BTSN-20 

BTATZ 

Sr(NO3)2 2258 2.00 2.49 0.75(b)

BTSN-30 

BTATZ 

Sr(NO3)2 189 1.89 2.55 TBD

BTSN-40 

BTATZ 

Sr(NO3)2 1503 1.79 2.61 0.35(c)

BTSN-50 BTATZ 

Sr(NO3)2

1444 1.54 2.67 0.15

(a) The balance remaining in each formulation is made up of coolant, binder, opacifier and process aid.

(b) Reported burn rate corresponds to 17% coolant composition.

(c) Reported burn rate corresponds to 34% coolant composition.

Measurements of exhaust temperatures for these compositions were measured at several points

along the exit streamline. These measurements indicate gas temperatures can vary widely, from 

below 200 °C at points ~ 30 cm from the gas generator to nearer 600 °C directly outside the 

generator. 

Additive Development: Active Compositions

Chemical additives were incorporated into formulations wherein the chemically active agent is 

liberated upon combustion of the solid propellant, the exhaust consisting of inert gases plus 

entrained additives. Chemically active additives tested in the course of this project include

various alkali metal salts such as acetates, carbonates and bicarbonates, halides, and

polyhalogenated aromatics (pentabromophenyl ether). These additives (or their precursor) were 

blended directly into the propellant for SPGG (or HFE) delivery, or the additive (or precursor) 

7
was blended directly into the hybrid fluid for HFE delivery. Several compositions were 

developed such that a common composition “family” evolved having different levels of additive. 

We examined a series of compositions that produced potassium carbonate in the exhaust. 

Potassium carbonate was incorporated into the propellant blend either as the additive itself, or as

the precursor potassium nitrate. In the latter case, the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is

sufficient to convert the potassium oxide (gas generation reaction product) to the carbonate: 

KNO3 + Fuel → K2O  +

 

CO

 2→ K2CO3 . 

Processing of these different compositions greatly influenced their reactivity. High levels of

K2CO3 itself tended to slow gas generation rates. Nevertheless, using the strategy outlined above,

concentrations of K2CO3 in the exhaust were varied over a range of 4x, and evaluated for 

suppression effectiveness in the GD Fire Test Fixture as described in the following section. 

Fire Test Fixture Testing: SPGG

The majority of the fire test data presented in this paper were collected during the latter part of 

phase II and the first part of phase III. The results from the first part of phase II were presented in

a previous paper2

, but selected data is included in this paper for comparison. 

Both inert and chemically active propellant can be utilized in SPGG devices, and these devices

are effective fire suppression tools. SPGG technology is able to produce large quantities of inert

gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water, in a very rapid fashion. Along with the inert 

gases, chemically active species are volatilized and delivered to the fire when chemically active 

propellant is incorporated into an SPGG. A typical SPGG device is illustrated in Figure 5 below. 

Figure 5: SPGG 

The inert SPGG device that utilizes GD’s FS01-40 propellant was chosen as a baseline for 

comparison. The relative effectiveness of each SPGG configuration is determined by a 

normalized FSN (FS01-40) value, which is equal to the agent threshold value divided by the

FS01-40 threshold value. GD’s active GD-04 propellant blend was shown to have the greatest 

fire suppression efficiency during Phase II testing2

. The Phase III SPGG test results are

8
summarized in Table 2 (FS01-40 and GD-04 test results are included for comparison). The 

values represent the threshold amount of agent needed to extinguish the fire. The threshold 

amount was typically determined by the following procedure: 

1. Determine initial agent load and conduct a live fire test. 

2. Increase (or decrease) agent load until fire is extinguished (or not extinguished) to

determine threshold value. 

3. Conduct repeated tests at the suspected threshold value. 

4. Define threshold value as amount of agent needed to extinguish the fire at least two 

out of three times. 

Table 2. SPGG FTF Data Summary 

Agent FS01-40 GD-04(a) GD-05(a) GD-06(c)

Active additive - K2CO3 K2CO3 K2CO3

Gas Fraction 50% 50% 50% 50%

MW, g/mole 30 30 30 30

Mole active (K)/100g 0 0.145 0.0724 0.145

GG Load 347 105 157(b) 105

Discharge mass, g 173.5 52.5 78.5 52.5 

Mole active (K) discharged 0 0.152 0.114 0.152

FSN(FS01-40) 1 0.303 0.454 0.303

(a) K2CO3 incorporated into the propellant blend as an additive. 

(b) Anticipated threshold value: only 1 test was conducted using 157 g (fire out), two tests were conducted 

using 105 g (both fires not out), and one test was conducted using 189 g (fire out). (c) KNO3 incorporated into the propellant blend as an additive. 

(d) 

9
Fire Test Fixture Testing: HFE 

Hybrid Fire Extinguishers combine a SPGG with a fire suppressing fluid (referred to as hybrid 

fluid in this document). The exhaust gases from the SPGG are used to pressurize the fluid to a 

specified pressure range and then the fluid is discharged. Figure 6 is shown below and it contains 

an illustration of a HFE. 

Figure 6: HFE 

HFE devices are also able to utilize inert and active agents. The active agents in an HFE can be 

incorporated either into the propellant or the hybrid fluid. This paper includes test results from 

the following agents: 

• Propellant: 

• 

− FS01-40 (inert) 

− GD-02 (chemically active – KI) 

− GD-04 (chemically active – K2CO3) 

Hybrid Fluid: 

− Water (inert) 

− Water:Potassium acetate:Soap solution 48:48:4 by weight (chemically active – 

KC2H3O2) 

− HFC-227 (inert) 

− 3M NovecTM Engineered Fluid HFE-7100 (inert) 

− 3M NovecTM 1230 Fire Protection Fluid (inert) 

− CF3I (chemically active – CF3I) 

Again selected results from the first part of Phase II testing have been included for comparison2

. 

The inert HFE with GD’s FS01-40 propellant and HFC-227 hybrid fluid was used as the baseline 

and a normalized FSN (FS01-40/HFC-227) value is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

other HFE configurations. 

10
The results of HFE testing have been broken into two separate categories: fluorocarbon systems

and aqueous systems. The fluorocarbon test results are listed in Table 3 and the aqueous test 

results are listed in Table 4. 

Table 3. HFE Fluorocarbon System Data Summary 

Agent FS01-40/

HFC-227(a)

FS01-40/ 

HFE-7100

FS01-40/ 

Novec 1230

GD-04/ 

HFC-227(a)

FS01-40/

CF3I 

Active additive - - - K2CO3 CF3I 

MW, g/mol 170 250 316 170 196 

HFE Load (g) 358 - 358 228 98(c)

Discharge mass, g 340 - 340 217 93 

Mole (K or I) discharged 0 - 0 0.046 0.429 

FSN (FS01-40/HFC-227) 1 >1(b) 1 0.637 0.274

(a) Tested during the first part of Phase II2

. (b) Tests conducted using 358 g (same agent weight as the FS01-40/HFC-227 system) did not extinguish the 

fire. Testing was suspended since the amount of agent needed would be more than the baseline system. (c) Anticipated threshold value: two tests were conducted using 130 g (both fires out) and two tests were 

conducted using 98 g (one fire out, one fire not out). 

The threshold values in the above table were determined by conducting ambient tests. An 

additional test of the 130 g FS01-40/CF3I HFE was conducted after cold soaking the HFE and it 

also extinguished the fire. The HFE was conditioned to –65 °C, but the CF3I temperature rose to

–27 °C before the HFE was operated (note the boiling point of CF3I is –22.5 °C). 

Table 4. HFE Aqueous System Data Summary 

Agent GD-02/

Water

GD-04/ 

Water

FS01-40/ 

Water:KOAc:Soap(b)

Active additive KI K2CO3 KC2H3O2

MW, g/mol 18 18 30 

HFE Load - - 228 

Discharge mass, g - - 217 

Mole (K) discharged - - 0.96 

FSN (FS01-40/HFC-227) >1(a) >1(a) 0.637

(a) Testing conducted using 358 g (same agent weight as the FS01-40/HFC-227 system) did not extinguish the 

fire. Testing was suspended since the amount of agent needed would be more than the baseline system. (b) 48:48:4 weight ratio of Water:Potassium acetate:Soap. 

11
Discussion

Direct incorporation of coolant compounds into the propellant composition was shown to be an 

effective means for reducing exhaust temperatures, typically resulting in a linear relationship

between Tc and mass-fraction of coolant, as well as a linear ln(burn rate) vs. 1/Tc relation, 

indicative of an activated reaction process. While direct prediction of burn rates does not appear 

possible using these relations, trends can be predicted within a composition family. 

Propellant formulations incorporating the new high nitrogen compound BTATZ (C4H4N14), 

while structurally similar to the 5-aminotetrazole (5AT) fuel used in the GD FS01-40 propellant 

(Figure 4), appear to provide increased means for reducing propellant combustion temperatures. 

Several new BTATZ compositions were formulated to yield cooler exhausts. Preliminary 

ballistic testing indicates that burn rates may be maintained within workable constraints at the

same time that exhaust temperatures are reduced below current baseline levels. 

The presence of chemically active additives greatly enhances the fire suppression efficiency of 

SPGG and HFE devices. The most effective solid propellant composition tested remains GD-04, 

which delivers a mixture of an inert gas blend with potassium carbonate additive. Previous

testing indicated that GD-04 is nearly 3x more effective than the inert FS01-40 and nearly 1.5x 

more effective than compositions having an equimolar amount of potassium iodide (GD-02)2

. 

Testing reported here indicates that reducing the potassium carbonate by 50% results in a falloff 

in effectiveness versus GD-04, to a level comparable to GD-02. In light of reports from other 

workers6,7 indicating a saturation of chemically active agent effectiveness beyond some critical 

concentration, it appears that these new compositions (e.g. GD-05) contain additives at levels 

below saturation. 

As noted above, the propellant weight of an SPGG can be decreased by 50-70% with the 

addition of active additive, but the HFE weight was only reduced by approximately 30% during 

previous testing2

. We theorized that the difference in weight reduction was due to the fact that 

the active propellant comprised 100% of the total SPGG weight, but only 14% of the HFE agent 

weight, thus limiting the molar fraction of chemically active additive2

. The results from the

FS01-40/CF3I and FS01-40/Water:KOAc:Soap HFE tests support this theory. The molar fraction 

of the chemically active additive was increased and the results show a 64% weight reduction for 

the FS01-40/CF3I HFE (versus FS01-40/HFC-227) and a >36% weight reduction for the FS01-

40/Water:KOAc:Soap HFE (versus GD-04/Water). Figure 7 below illustrates these results. 

12
0 mol K

0.43 mol I

0.046 mol K 0.96 mol K

0.072 mol K

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

FS01-40/HFC-227 GD-04/HFC-227 FS01-40/CF3I GD-04/Water FS01-

40/Water+KC2H3O2

Total Initial Mass (g)

Mass of Active (g)

Mass of Inert (g)

Fire was not extinguished with

this amount of agent.

Fluorocarbon HFEs Aqueous HFEs

Figure 7: HFE Results – Decrease in Total Agent with Increase in Active Additive

HFE testing with aqueous agents provided additional insight into necessary levels of active agent 

required to effect suppression. Tests using an inert propellant configuration with pure water were 

found to require agent loads in excess of threshold levels of inert propellants and HFC-227. 

Similar findings were obtained when the active GD-04 propellant was used in conjunction with 

pure water. Previous work2

 had demonstrated a 30% performance enhancement in HFC-227 

HFEs when substituting GD-04 for the inert FS01-40 propellant composition, thereby suggesting 

that the threshold level for FS01-40/water HFE is >30% over the FS01-40/HFC-227 threshold. 

This relatively poor performance of the water hybrids is not well characterized at present, but is 

likely a function of insufficient distribution of the hybrid stream into the fire compartment of the 

FTF. The effectiveness of the water-potassium acetate HFEs demonstrates that taking advantage 

of chemically active additives can offset this insufficient distribution. 

HFE testing demonstrates that higher-boiling fluids, such as HFE-7100 and Novec-1230, can be

successfully discharged when pressurized by a solid propellant gas generator. This opens 

opportunities for alternate suppression fluids that, on the basis of vapor pressure alone, may not 

appear to be desirable candidates as fire suppressants. The decision to include HFE-7100 and 

Novec 1230 in our test matrix was motivated by earlier reports their effectiveness in cup burner 

testing8,9 We were unable to extinguish fires using this agent when used in quantities up to the 

threshold determined for HFC-227 hybrid units. Several tests at this agent loading resulted in a 

post-discharge flare-up in the test fixture. Testing with FS01-40/Novec-1230 HFEs indicated that

its effectiveness is, on a mass basis, comparable to that of FS01-40/HFC-227 hybrid units. This 

suggests that the overall heat capacity of both discharges is similar; modeling is underway to 

verify this. 

The lowest HFE agent loads were found when using CF3I as the hybrid fluid. Incorporation of 

CF3I into a hybrid configuration was examined in light of its poor low temperature dispersion10. 

Coupling this agent with a solid propellant gas generator did result in improved performance at

low temperature, with effectiveness levels approaching ambient temperature test levels. This 

13
finding indicates that CF3I HFE configurations provide a viable solution to the use of CF3I in low 

temperature applications.

Summary 

A strategy for obtaining cooled propellant formulations incorporating the new high nitrogen 

compound BTATZ (C4H4N14) has been defined, with preliminary results indicating the viability 

of these platforms for reducing propellant combustion temperatures. This strategy, involving 

direct incorporation of coolant species into the propellant composition, may be effective in 

reducing exhaust temperatures by as much as 30% vs. current baselines. 

Fires testing with chemically active compositions indicate that the GD-04 composition is the 

most effective. This composition incorporates potassium carbonate in its discharge, and is ~3x 

more effective per unit mass than the inert baseline FS01-40. Testing with compositions of lower 

active-agent loading resulted in less effective performance. This indicates that the additive 

loading in GD-04 is below (or at) the saturation level reported in sub-scale testing with numerous 

other chemically active suppressants. 

HFE testing with HFE-7100 and Novec-1230 indicate that high boiling agents such as these may 

warrant closer inspection than initially thought: their low vapor pressures can be offset by the 

heating and pressurizing power of the solid propellant driven HFE. Results with HFE-7100 were 

not as encouraging as initial indications suggested, and in fact resulted in flashback in fire tests. 

We found that FS01-40/Novec-1230 HFEs were comparably effective to FS01-40/HFC-227 

HFEs on a mass basis. Hence other factors – e.g. atmospheric lifetimes – may provide the 

discrimination between their use. Incorporation of CF3I into HFEs proved a useful means of 

overcoming its poor cold-temperature dispersion. However, while poor dispersion in the case of

water-based HFEs probably resulted in their lackluster performance, this effect could be largely 

offset by blending in chemically active species such as potassium acetate. 

Acknowledgements 

This research is part of the Department of Defense's Next Generation Fire Suppression 

Technology Program, funded by the DoD Strategic Environmental Research and Development

Program. We thank our colleagues at General Dynamics (P.H. Wierenga, G. Gregg, C.

Anderson, R. Paxton and R. Nikko) and China Lake (J. Twesme, Dr. B. Zentner, G. Meyers, Dr. 

T.P. Parr, R. Stalnaker, J. Hittner, P. Curran, A.I Atwood, T. Bui) for their technical support. We

also gratefully acknowledge the Naval Air Combat Survivability Program and V-22 Fire 

Suppression Research and Development Program for their financial support of this joint project. 

14
References

 1

 Grosshandler, W.L., Hamins, A., Charagundla, S.R., and Presser, C., "Suppression 

Effectiveness Screening for Impulsively Discharged Agents," Proceedings of the 2000 Halon 

Options Technical Working Conference, pp. 15-25, Albuquerque, 2000. 

2

 Fallis, S., Reed, R., McCormick, J.L., Wilson, K.A., and Holland, G.F., “Advanced 

Propellant/Additive Development for Fire Suppressing Gas Generator: Hybrids,” Proceedings of 

the 2001 Halon Options Technical Working Conference, pp. 364-372, Albuquerque, NM 2001. 

3

 Hamins, A., Cleary, T., and Yang, J., “An Analysis of the Wright Patterson Full-scale Engine 

Nacelle Fire Suppression Experiments,” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg NISTIR-6193, 1997. 

4

 Sutton, G., and Biblarz, O., Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New 

York 2001. 

5

 Fallis, S., Reed, R., Lu, Y.C., Wierenga, P.H., and Holland, G.F., “Advanced Propellant 

/Additive Development for Fire Suppressing Gas Generators,” Proceedings of the 2000 Halon 

Options Technical Working Conference, pp. 361-370, Albuquerque, NM, 2000. 

6

 Linteris, G.T., Knyazev, V., and Babushok, V., “Premixed Flame Inhibition by Manganese and 

Tin Compounds,” Proceedings of the 2001 Halon Options Technical Working Conference, pp. 

72-82, Albuquerque, NM, 2001. 

7

 Williams, B.A. and Fleming, J.W., “Suppression Mechanisms of Alkali Metal Compounds”,

Proceedings of the 1999 Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque NM, pp. 

157-169 (1999).. 

8

 Nyden, M.R., Yang, J.C., Mather, J.D., “Screening of Candidate Fire Suppressants,” 

Proceedings of the 2000 Halon Options Technical Working Conference, pp. 104-115, 

Albuquerque, NM 2000. 

9

 Rivers, P., “Advancement in Sustainable Fire Suppression Development C6F-Ketone: A Novel 

New Halon Replacement Alternative to HFCS and PFCS,” Proceedings of the 2001 Halon 

Options Technical Working Conference, pp. 341-348, Albuquerque, NM, 2001. 

10 Yang, J.C., Nyden, M.R., and Manzello, S.L., “Cold Discharge of CF3I in a Simulated Aircraft 

Engine Nacelle,” Proceedings of the 2001 Halon Options Technical Working Conference, 

pp. 64-71, Albuquerque, NM, 2001. 

15