Fire protection gets passive

Intumescent epoxy materials have been recognised as the best means of

saving lives and limiting damage when hydrocarbon fires hit offshore
platforms.
By Paul Mather, International Coatings Limited
In 1988, the North Sea offshore installation Piper Alpha sustained a catastrophic fire
that killed 167 men - unprecedented for an offshore platform - and the loss of the
platform.
This single event changed the whole philosophy towards safety in the UK sector of
the North Sea and, indeed, worldwide.
Before Piper Alpha, Classification Society and Government regulations relied mainly
on water-sprinkler and deluge systems, and minimal passive fire protection, if any.
Where passive fire protection was required, it was for divisions - bulkheads and decks
of control rooms and accommodation fronts - and in most cases the fire rating was
based on cellulosic-fire resistance rating and not hydrocarbon-fire resistance.
Most home fires are cellulosic and can exceed 1000oC over time. Hydrocarbon fires,
however, reach such temperatures very quickly, and if a pressurised release of gas
ignites, high thermal shock and a highly erosive jet flame may result.
The subsequent inquiry, chaired by Lord Cullen, concluded that Piper Alpha had
inadequate passive fire protection. The fire-resistance capabilities of certified
divisions, it stated, were not designed to withstand the types of fire likely where
hydrocarbons were being extracted or processed.
The report addressed the fire performance and testing of fire division, stating: '...It
was noted that a major misconception in the performance of fire protection is the
belief that a fire rating indicates the time the assembly will survive in an actual fire...'
Regardless of the fire-testing standard, if that standard does not reflect the thermal and
mechanical loads a passive fire-protection system is likely to experience, that system
may not be suitable for its intended purpose.

Safety case regime

Piper Alpha and the Cullen report concentrated the minds of legislators, operators,
designers and manufacturers. A 'safety case' regime was imposed on the industry,
supported by new legislation. The safety case is al-encompassing, from detecting and
mitigating potential hazards to resolving action to ensure a situation does not arise but
is managed if it does. A fire-hazard analysis is required to identify potential fire type,
severity and duration, and the divisions, structure and plant that would be affected.
Standards specific to hydrocarbon-fire protection were also developed for testing
divisions and structural members. Fire-protection systems must withstand the effects
of simulated hydrocarbon pool fires and, more importantly, the tremendous thermal
loads and erosive mechanical forces following ignition of pressurised hydrocarbon

gases. In other words, systems must be effective against jet fires. Once fire hazards
and their severity have been identified, structural-response computer models are often
used to examine how much fire resistance is required.
In recent years, land-based oil refineries and petrochemical plants have also addressed
the potential of hydrocarbon jet and pool fires.
Regrettably, safety cases and management systems - no matter how sophisticated cannot prevent fires. Therefore, fire protection has three distinct phases: Detection;
extinguishing using portable and/or fixed systems; and passive systems.
Even if detected early, a hydrocarbon fire is not easily extinguished, and fixed
extinguishing systems are susceptible to damage in a blast. Consequently, many
regulations, even if they require fixed systems, do not recognise them as mitigation
when establishing the passive fire protection necessary for divisions, structure or
plant.

Passive system that works

Detection and fire-extinguishing systems are visible aspects of fire protection. Not so,
passive systems. Walls and floors, structural steelwork and plant can all be protected
either by the application of protective material to the substrate (e.g. spray applied), or
by enclosure in a protection system. Passive protection limits the temperature on the
unexposed side to a level where personnel are safe or below the combustion
temperature of combustible materials. Alternatively, they limit the stress levels in
structural steel to a temperature where its load-bearing ability is not compromised.
Among available passive fire-protection materials and systems are mineral wool,
ceramic fibre, concrete and vermiculite-based materials. However, the most effective
against hydrocarbon fires are epoxy intumescent materials; the premier product,
specified and used worldwide, is International Coatings Limited's Chartek.
Intumescent materials are thin coatings - 5-15mm - that, when exposed to fire, form
thick char preventing heat transfer. These materials provide protection against
hydrocarbon pool and jet fires, and retain their fire performance throughout the life of
an application, subject to material characteristics, surface preparation and correct
application. Some also inhibit corrosion. The relative ease of application and their
durability far outweigh any cost advantages of other systems.
Many hydrocarbon fires are preceded by or lead to a blast. Tests show intumescent
systems capable of withstanding the effects of either blast overpressure and/or drag.
Even after a blast, the system should afford the same level of protection.
Intumescent materials have been used in fire protection for over 25 years. Their
durability has been proved in the harsh environmental conditions of the North Sea, the
Arctic and the Middle East. Intumescent hydrocarbon-fire resisting systems are
specified extensively for use on offshore installations to protect divisions, structural
steelwork and plant. The materials were designed for use offshore, but their suitability
for wider applications - such as for liquid propane gas spheres and bullet tanks - is
now acknowledged.

Protecting steel from stress

Coating manufacturers design their systems using a defined fire scenario derived from
prescriptive requirements, or from fire-risk analysis studies. These studies define the
type of fire - cellulosic, hydrocarbon pool or jet, or any combination - the duration of
the fire and what the fire will affect in terms of thermal loading. Finally, the fire
specification defines the limiting temperature either of the substrate for structural
members or the unexposed - non-fire side - temperature for divisions.
Girders, beams and other structural steel need to be protected so their core
temperatures do not exceed critical stress levels. Provided steel grade, loading and,
therefore, load utilisation (how much load-bearing capability is actually being used)
are known, engineers can define the limiting critical core temperature. Alternatively, a
prescriptive or default value may be selected. In the offshore industry, regulators
specify a limiting temperature for steel structure as 400oC. Divisions may also have a
limiting temperature requirement for the non-fire-exposed side. Most standards have a
maximum average temperature of 140oC above ambient.
When a design is conceived with the first approach, past experience tends to be
forgotten. There are other concerns, though, regarding the removal or reduction in
safety factors. Even before the passive system is applied, safety margins are reduced.
Typically, an engineer designs the structure to the limit, as permitted by design codes,
which are now being challenged.
Under fire conditions, stress levels are raised as far as possible, and fire-risk analysis
identifies the most severe fire given a sequence of events and flammable inventory.
On the basis of these criteria, the passive fire-protection system is specified. Only one
element of the design process needs to fail for an installation's perceived safety to be
challenged. Many in the offshore industry believe the safety pendulum needs to swing
more towards the cautious side.
Regulations often refer to testing standards for materials and systems, but are moving
away from prescriptive requirements in favour of safety cases. However, this largely
places collective responsibility on owners, designers and manufacturers. Some
regulatory weight must remain on fire-protection products, which must pass extensive
independent testing, in accordance with fire test standards, to be considered for use as
fire-resisting systems. The tested system must be able to withstand conditions
identified in the fire-risk studies or as per the prescriptive requirements of the
applicable regulations.
Once all the conditions have been fulfilled, all places where hydrocarbons are
processed, stored and transported shall become safer places to work and the capital
expenditure on plant will become a more secure investment.

Photographs

Structural steelwork is treated with intumescent

Coating, which provides passive fire protection.

Structural steelwork that has been treated with intumescent

material undergoes full-scale jet-fire testing.

Note: 'This article was first published in September 2001 in International

Hydrocarbon, published by Sterling Publications, part of the Sterling
Publishing Group.'