## 3 Experimental Program
### Test Set-Up and Measurement Plan  
Figure 2a shows an experimental device used to evaluate the fire-extinguishing performance of the CAFS in this study. The experimental device was manufactured as per UL 162 [11] which is the United States standard, and as per NFPA Code 11 [12]. Four foam heads were installed in a grid pattern of 3730 mm \(\times\) 3730 mm. The piping network was established as the tournament type, with a height of 4750 mm. For an explicit determination of the fire-extinguishing performance through an experiment with the CAFS, video cameras which could observe the changes in the flame on both sides were installed. Thermocouple thermometers were set up at 0.5 m, 0.8 m, and 1.2 m for the vertical direction in the middle of the combustion plate to collect data for the temperature change of the flame. Devices to measure the heat flux to confirm the short fire suppression time were also placed at 5 m, 6 m, and 7 m in the horizontal direction in the middle of the combustion plate. The thermocouple thermometers measure the erased temperature of the flame such that they investigate the remaining time of the flame. The measured value of the radiation intensity was determined as a reference point in accordance with the experimental error, identifying that the average intensity of the heat flux of the fire-extinguishing model of 20 units is 5.4 kW, 7 m away from the combustion plate. Furthermore, in accordance with the experimental conditions and analysis of fire suppression effectiveness in the fire-fighting field, a difference in the remaining flame time arises. Therefore, the behavior of the flame was analyzed to measure the thermocouple and intensity of the heat flux together. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Contents**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Results for the Aging Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Specification [10]**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Before** & **After** & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Kinematic viscosity (cS)} & Specific gravity & 1.031 & 1.032 & \(\leq\)1.03 \(\pm\) 0.02 at 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Kinematic viscosity (cS) \\ \end{tabular} } & 6.9 & 6.6 & \(\leq\)6.0 \(\pm\) 1.8 at 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & & 7.2 & 7.0 & \(\leq\)7.5 \(\pm\) 2.25 at 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & & 24.4 & 25.4 & \(\leq\)27 \(\pm\) 1.8 at \(-\)10 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Freezing point (\({}^{\circ}\)C) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(-\)12.5 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Below 2.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C than the lower bound of the service temperature of \(-\)10 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-4}  & & Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) & 8.08 & 7.86 & \(\leq\)8.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Diffusion coefficient & 6.08 & 6.28 & \(\geq\)3.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Discharging \\ performance of the \\ foam by the GAMS \\ \end{tabular} } & Expansion ratio & 8.8 & 8.4 & \(\geq\)5 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 25\% drainage time & 2 min 48 s & 2 min 42 s & \(\geq\)1 min \\ \cline{2-4}  & Extinguishing time & 1 min 40 s & 1 min 32 s & \(\leq\)5 min \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Discharging \\ performance of the \\ CAFS \\ \end{tabular} } & Expansion ratio & Ratio of 1:4 & 9.3 & 8.9 \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Ratio of 1:7 \\ Ratio of 1:10 \\ \end{tabular} } & 10.6 & 10.2 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Ratio of 1:10 & 11.4 & 10.6 & Not specified \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & 25\% drainage time & Ratio of 1:4 & 1 min 59 s & 2 min 4 s \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Ratio of 1:7 & 3 min 41 s & 3 min 52 s \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Ratio of 1:10 & 3 min 15 s & 3 min 27 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of the physical and chemical performance for the aqueous film forming foam (AAFF) of 3%. Figure 2b,c respectively displays the experimental frame of the CAFS and the storage tank of the aqueous foam solution to manufacture the compressed air for the test.