#  > Petroleum Industry Zone >  > Safety And Environment >  >  >  Fireproofin criteria

## arad

Hi All
I'm working on a fireproofing project during which some questions came into my mind!
here they are:
1- in fireproofing should we consider jef fires scenarios?
2- what is the criteria for determinig fire scenario envelope ?12.5 kW/m2 or 37 kW/m2 
3- how much exposure time is sufficient for different equipments or supports to fail?

the goal of all above questions is determinig which equipment to or structure to fireproof?in other words determining the appropriate dimensions to use for planning
fire protection.?


Any Help is appreciated
tnx
A.H.RSee More: Fireproofin criteria

----------


## safetyuser

hi arad, in the first istance I would recover an old discussion on the same topic in another forum:

**[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]

----------


## arad

dear safetyuser tnx for your reply
1-do u have the references u mentioned:

"Avoidance and Mitigation of Fire & Explosions", UKOOA
API 2030 "Fireproofing practices in the petroleum and petrochemical processing plant"
"Guidelines for the protection of pressurized systems exposed to fire", Scandpower

and could u send them to me plz?
2- as u may know in API 2218 only pool fire hazard is discussed and a method is presented for determining fire scenario envelope based on categorizing equipments into four potential fire hazard, now my question is that can we use consequence modeling to find fire scenario envelope?for example with a 12.5 kW/m2 raddiation criteria? and in this case , how much exposure time is sufficient for different equipments or supports to fail?
3- what about jet fires? what should we do for them?

----------


## Nabilia

API RP 2030 3rd Ed. July 2005 - Application of Fixed Water Spray Systems for Fire Protection in the Petroleum and Petrochemical Industries.pdf
**[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]

----------


## Nabilia

UKOOA Part_1_Avoidance&amp;MitigationExplosion.pdf
**[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]

UKOOA Part_2_Avoidance&amp;MitigationFires.pdf
**[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]

----------


## f81aa

Hi arad, safetyuser and other Forum members:

I would like to post some comments.

safetyuser already directed us to a post in **[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links], nice exchange of information there. 3 valuable sources of information were cited in **[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links] but we know there are many more. One of them is CCPS "Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical, and Hydrocarbon Processing Facilities" which has been posted in the past, I think more than once. Other sources are Oil/Gas/Petrochemical Companies.

Out of many documents available, I have uploaded a zip file containing 7 documents from SAUDI ARAMCO, EXXON, CHEVRON, BP and SHELL. I am almost sure that those documents have not been posted as stand-alone but as part of bigger collections in different forums of EGPET.NET. That is why I decided to put them in a package. Be aware that requirements of one company could be in conflict with others. That means that what is mandatory for one company could be deemed differently by another.

The zip file can be downloaded from **[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]. I hope it will give members not familiar with fireproofing, a notion of the broad scope of fireproofing applications.

As a very general information, the principal value of fireproofing is realized during the early stages of a fire when efforts are primarily directed at shutting down units, isolating fuel flow to the fire, actuating fixed suppression equipment, and setting up cooling water streams.

Fireproofing does not extinguish fires and may have no significant effect on the final extent of property damage if intense fire exposure persists significantly longer than designed into the fireproofing system. If activated while fireproofing is still protective, cooling from fixed or portable firewater can extend the effective time of passive fire protection beyond its nominal fire resistance rating, provided that the force of the firewater application does not damage or dislodge the fireproofing material.

When properly implemented, fireproofing systems can help reduce losses and protect personnel and equipment by providing additional time to control or extinguish a fire before thermal effects cause equipment or support failure.

I would say that the first document that many people consult for fireproofing-related information is API PUBL 2218 (1999) Fireproofing Practices in Petroleum and Petrochemical Processing Plants. Keep in mind that its intention is to provide guidelines for developing effective methods of fireproofing in petroleum and petrochemical processing plants.

If a proposed fireproofing application is not mentioned in the examples given in the fire-potential equipment definitions of API PUBL 2218 (sections 5.2.1.1 up to 5.2.1.3), it does not mean that is not justified. Take them as they are, only examples. After all, determining fireproofing requirements for a petroleum or petrochemical facility involves experience-based or formal risk-based evaluation that includes developing fire scenarios from which the needs analysis evolves.

It could be said that fireproofing of the principal members of a structure is warranted if the structure is in the fire-exposed envelope and failure of these members could cause any of the following:
 Threat of injury to personnel
 Loss or serious damage to valuable or critical supported equipment
 Release of large volumes of flammable material
 Release of toxic material
 Escalation of the incident
 Unacceptable environmental pollution
 Threat to adjacent property and structures of high value
 Serious loss of productive capacity

After having written these comments, I would like to go back to the post in **[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links] and say that I am in disagreement with some comments posted by demank and PKS. I hope they are members of EGPET.NET. Those comments are:
 PKS (I have some idea that fire proofing is done only on equipment supports and supporting structure, not on the equipment body). There are cases where the equipment body is fireproofed. safetyuser mentioned offshore separators with fireproofing on the whole vessel back then. Another example is vessels, heat exchangers, and other equipment constructed from low melting point material, such as aluminum.
 demank (Water Tank no need for fireproof material). Well, if a formal risk-based evaluation determines that the collapse of the structure-bearing the water tank could severe lines, cause loss of containment in other vessels and/or damage other equipment, escalating the consequences, the structure should be protected. Some documents of Oil/Gas/Petrochemical Companies may not consider this application, good thing that API PUBL 2218 does (see clause 6.1.1.3 and Figure 6).

Special situations have to be recognized and proper measures taken.

Finally, safetyuser and Nabilia have shared UKOOA documents and API RP 2030 "Application of Fixed Water Spray Systems for Fire Protection in the Petroleum and Petrochemical Industries", API PUBL 2218 and the CCPS book have also been shared in other posts and I am sharing some others; however, the Scandpower document is not available yet. If safetyuser or anybody else has "Guidelines for the protection of pressurized systems exposed to fire" and could share it, it would be appreciated.

Best regards

----------


## hamidkeng

thanks everybody for useful information

----------


## arad

Dear Nabilia thanx for sharing those invaluable documents.
Dear f81aa , thanx for your complete and perfect answer, it helped me very much specially for 7 documents!
God bless u

----------


## safetyuser

> Be aware that requirements of one company could be in conflict with others. That means that what is mandatory for one company could be deemed differently by another. 
> (...) Keep in mind that its intention is to provide guidelines for developing effective methods of fireproofing in petroleum and petrochemical processing plants.
> 
> If a proposed fireproofing application is not mentioned in the examples given in the fire-potential equipment definitions of API PUBL 2218 (sections 5.2.1.1 up to 5.2.1.3), it does not mean that is not justified. Take them as they are, only examples. After all, determining fireproofing requirements for a petroleum or petrochemical facility involves experience-based or formal risk-based evaluation that includes developing fire scenarios from which the needs analysis evolves.
> 
>  (...) There are cases where the equipment body is fireproofed. safetyuser mentioned offshore separators with fireproofing on the whole vessel back then. Another example is vessels, heat exchangers, and other equipment constructed from low melting point material, such as aluminum.
> (..) Well, if a formal risk-based evaluation determines that the collapse of the structure-bearing the water tank could severe lines, cause loss of containment in other vessels and/or damage other equipment, escalating the consequences, the structure should be protected.



1-  THANKS f81aa: YOUR ABOVE IS AN EXCELLENT EXPLANATION OF THE MEANING "MAKE YOUR OWN PROJECT-SPECIFIC FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT" 





> however, the Scandpower document is not available yet. If safetyuser or anybody else has "Guidelines for the protection of pressurized systems exposed to fire" and could share it, it would be appreciated.



2-  AT THIS LINK YOU CAN FIND THE VALUABLE REPORT. PLEASE NOTE THAT CLAUSE 5.15.1.2.2  OF THE MASTER CODE API RP 521 "Pressure-relieving & Depressuring Systems" EXPLICITLY REFERS TO THIS REPORT FOR ANALYTICAL DETAILS ON THE VESSEL FIRE PROTECTION MATTER.

**[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]


3- LAST BUT NOT LEAST FOR arad FIRST QUESTIONS:

[QUOTE=arad;123902]
(...)
2- as u may know in API 2218 only pool fire hazard is discussed and a method is presented for determining fire scenario envelope based on categorizing equipments into four potential fire hazard, now my question is that can we use consequence modeling to find fire scenario envelope?for example with a 12.5 kW/m2 raddiation criteria? and in this case , how much exposure time is sufficient for different equipments or supports to fail?
QUOTE]

MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT CONSEQUENCE MODELING SHOULD BE USED TO CONFIRM OR EXTEND THE LIMITS OF THE EARLY FIREPROTECTION CRITERIA, BUT AT THE VERY FIRST IT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE AND CRITICISM ALONG WITH HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION THAT SHOULD IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERNS AND BASIC ITEMS TO BE FIREPROOFED.

12.5kW/m2 WILL HARDLY POSE FIRE HAZARDS TO METALLIC VESSELS SINCE THIS FIGURE IS NORMALLY TAKEN AS THE LIMIT FOR >90% HUMAN IMMEDIATE FATALITY.
OTHER IS IF YOUR CONCERN IS EXPOSURE TO WOODEN OR PLASTIC ITEMS.

I WOULD SAY 37.5kW/m2 IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE TANKS AFTER FEW TENS OF MINUTES PROLONGED EXPOSURE.
PRESSURE VESSELS AND PIPING HAVE A MUCH HIGHER RATIO thickness-to-diameter SO THEY CAN WITHSTAND THIS LIMIT FOR SOME MORE TIME, DEPENDING OF THE CONSTITUENT MATERIAL.
ANYWAY I RECOMMEND A CAREFUL READING TO THE SCANDPOWER REPORT FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND APPROPRIATE FIGURES FOR VESSELS IMPINGEMENT AND LOAD RESISTANCE TO BOTH JET AND POOL FIRE.

----------


## arad

12.5 kW/m2 does not pose damage to the equipment body but I think equipment support and steel structure is vulnerable to even lower intensities.

----------


## arad

Dear friend I want u to complete your collection by adding this GS_EP_SAF_337A:
**[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]
*link*




<![CDATA[[Only Registered And Activated Users Can See Links]

----------


## f81aa

safetyuser and arad, thanks a lot.

Regards

----------


## hassar97

can you please reload the fireproofing.zip link because it is not working (requested file is not found). thanks.

See More: Fireproofin criteria

----------

