7/28/2017 Rapid Rise Hydrocarbon Fires – An Engineering Perspective

Volume: 2 | Issue: 1

Rapid Rise Hydrocarbon Fires – An Engineering Perspective

Roger Williams, Sherwin-Williams | 21 January 2013

Topics

Facilities planning and maintenance

Safety/health

Photo of the Deepwater Horizon rig courtesy of the US Coast Guard.

Hydrocarbon fires present engineers with a special set of protection issues compared with those in which the fuel source is wood or building
materials.

fire protection
passive fire protection
structure collapse
hydrocarbon fires

The energy contained in oil and gas makes them immensely useful—and dangerous. A fire fueled by hydrocarbons can quickly threaten anything
exposed to it.

In the American Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC) document, “Facts for Steel Buildings—Fire,” the performance of steel in fire is discussed: At
higher temperatures, both the yield strength and tensile strength of steel decrease, as does the modulus of elasticity ... In general, steel retains
strength and stiffness approximately equal to 50 percent of its strength and stiffness at ambient conditions at a temperature of 1,100°F (593°C) ... At
1,300°F (704°C), steel retains about 20 percent strength and stiffness. A near-total depletion of strength occurs at approximately 2,200°F (1,204°C).

The AISC text is accompanied by a graph of strength retention against temperature similar to the one shown in Fig. 1.

https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=397 1/5
7/28/2017 Rapid Rise Hydrocarbon Fires – An Engineering Perspective

Fig. 1—Strength retention factors for steel complying with grades S275 to S355 of BS EN 10025 and 10210-1.

The fire protection of structural steel, decks and bulkheads, pipe supports, process equipment, valves, and especially pressure vessels, has
become a top-of-mind issue for oil and gas engineers. Among the concerns with any fire event are protecting fire responders and occupants, and
preventing the escalation of fire, blocked escape routes, and outright structural collapse.

How Steel Structures Can Collapse

The fires most people think of are cellulosic. Their fuel sources are wood, carpeting, and drywall, and the temperature rise is more gradual.
Cellulosic fire protection materials are tested using protocols, such as UL 263, BS 476-20, and EN 13381.

When the fuel source is hydrocarbon-based, that is, involving gasoline, crude oil, liquid gases, or solvents, the conditions within the fire are
significantly different from those seen in cellulosic fires.

While no two fires are the same, this general knowledge is unhelpful when trying to develop tests to quantify the performance of fire protection
systems. To enable reproducible testing, reproducible fires must be defined.

A number of test protocols have been established that specify “standard” time/temperature relationships designed to simulate the different types of
fire. Some of the key heating curves are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2—Comparison of fire test heating curves.

Several scenarios can lead to the potential collapse of interior and exterior steel structures used in the hydrocarbon production and processing
industries.

The most common is the pool fire, resulting from the ignition of spilled cargo under normal ambient conditions. The heating regimes used to test fire
protection materials designed for hydrocarbon pool fires are set out in BS 476-20 and UL 1709, among others. As shown in Table 1, temperatures
rise more rapidly in pool fires than in cellulosic fires. If there is a coating already protecting the steel, such fires do not erode the coating to any
significant degree.

https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=397 2/5
7/28/2017 Rapid Rise Hydrocarbon Fires – An Engineering Perspective

A jet fire occurs when flammable inventory is released under pressure (e.g., a leak of flammable liquids or gases from pressurized containment,
such as a riser, pipe, or vessel). These fires are erosive of the incumbent fire protection. Jet fire testing uses methods such as ISO 22899 or NFPA
58. Unlike cellulosic and hydrocarbon pool fires, jet fires are not defined by a heating regime, but by the type of fuel, rate, and velocity of delivery.

A cryogenic spill on liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels and support structures could, in a matter of seconds, lead to cold-induced brittle fracture,
simply from the thermal shock of going from ambient temperatures to –260°F (–162°C). Spilled LNG will also vaporize and present a potential
explosion and fire hazard.

A blast or explosion can result where vapor from the release of volatile inventory comes into contact with a source of ignition. An explosion is likely
to cause damage to adjacent structures, escalating the original leak, and could result in a fire.

The ABCs of Intumescent Coatings

To avoid catastrophic losses in a rapid rise fire and in cryogenic spills,
specifiers turn to intumescent epoxy coatings, a form of passive fire
protection (PFP) that provides up to 4 hours of protection while a fire is
being contained. These solvent-free (100% solids) coatings are applied at
as much as 30 times the thickness of standard epoxy coatings and
chemically react to fire by swelling to 5 to 10 times the original application
thickness. A carbon-based char forms, which reduces the rate of heat
transfer and extends the time for a given steel section to reach its critical
failure temperature. The coating is reinforced between the first and finish
coats with a fibrous mesh that supports the transition from organic epoxy
resin to inorganic carbon char barrier.
The normal operating temperature of the steel substrate is a related
issue. If the temperature runs at ambient temperatures, protection can be
the intumescent system alone. However, especially with processing units,
if the running temperature is normally elevated, the properties of the
intumescent coating could be activated prematurely. To avoid this, a
solvent-free epoxy thermal insulating barrier coating can be specified.
The barrier also allows the epoxy PFP to be used in cryogenic
applications, such as protection in situations where there is the possibility
of release of LNG followed by a fire.
Epoxy intumescent coatings undergo independent fire testing,
assessment, and certification by globally recognized organizations, such
as Lloyd’s Register, Det Norske Veritas, and ABS. In addition, because
coatings must be present to work, they should have excellent durability.
Epoxy intumescent coatings have been shown by independent testing
carried out in the UK to be durable, even when damaged, unlike some
other types of PFP. Corrosion under fire protection is causing concern
among asset owners and operators because other types of PFP can
allow corrosion of the underlying steel to develop and progress hidden
behind the PFP.
It is critical to specify a durable intumescent coating formulated with high-
quality corrosion-resistant resins to last the design life of the asset on
which it is applied, even in the harshest maritime environments, such as
the North Sea. Generally, these coatings would be formulated using raw
materials that do not absorb water. Intumescent coatings also contain
ammonium polyphosphate, which is a highly effective corrosion inhibitor.
The standards that address durability and weatherability include
NORSOK M-501, which governs surface preparation and protective
coating, and UL 1709, which determines a coated steel section’s
durability performance. For UL 1709, steel sections are exposed to high
temperatures for 270 days, high relative humidity for 180 days, an
industrial atmosphere for 30 days, salt fog for 90 days, 12 rounds of
thermal cycling for 84 days, and then fire tested.
NORSOK testing protocols expose sections to the elements and then fire
test them without a topcoat that could mask early signs of breakdown.
While damage to any fire protection system should be repaired at the
earliest opportunity, an intumescent coating that passes NORSOK testing
has shown that mechanical damage will not lead to coating failure.
In the case of achieving cryogenic spill protection, international standards
do not currently exist. But through extensive testing advanced by
Sherwin-Williams, it is proven that an epoxy syntactic material, in
conjunction with the PFP, offers an effective solution to the cryogenic spill
hazard, with or without a subsequent hydrocarbon fire.
Guide to Standards for Fire Testing of Materials
Pam Boschee, Oil and Gas Facilities Editor
BS 5950-8:2003—Published by the British Standards Institution (BSI).
Presents a comprehensive set of elevated temperature properties for
hot finished steel, normal weight concrete, lightweight concrete, and
hot rolled and cold worked reinforcing bars. These properties have
been introduced to enable the fire engineering design of
steel structures.
BS EN 10025—Published by BSI. Specifies the European
requirements for flat and long products of hot rolled structural steels,
excluding structural hollow sections and tubes. The steels covered are
normally used in welded, bolted, and riveted structures.
BS EN 10210-1—Published by BSI. Specifies the technical delivery
conditions for hot finished hollow sections of circular, square,
rectangular, or elliptical forms and applies to hollow sections formed
hot, with or without subsequent heat treatment, or formed cold with
subsequent heat treatment to obtain equivalent metallurgical
conditions to those obtained in the hot formed product.
UL 263—Published by Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Specifies fire
tests applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite
assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and
other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and
composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs.
BS 476-20—Published by BSI. Describes a procedure for a laboratory
test for the determination of fire resistance of elements of construction
when subjected to defined heating and pressure conditions.
EN 13381—A European standard which specifies a test method for
determining the contribution made by applied reactive fire protection
systems to the fire resistance of structural steel members. It can be
applied to beams or columns.
UL 1709—Requirements describe a test method measuring the
resistance of protective materials to rapid temperature rise fires.
ISO 22899—Published by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). Describes a method of determining the
resistance of passive fire protection materials and systems to jet fires.
It gives an indication of how passive fire protection materials behave in
a jet fire and provides performance data under the specified
conditions.
NFPA 58—Published by the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA). Covers the design, construction, installation, and operation of
liquefied petroleum gas systems, including piping, equipment,
containers, venting, and highway transportation.
NORSOK M-501—Published by Standards Norway (NORSOK).
Provides the requirements for the selection of coating materials,
surface preparation, application procedures, and inspection for
protective coatings to be applied during the construction and
installation of offshore installations and associated facilities.

https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=397 3/5
7/28/2017 Rapid Rise Hydrocarbon Fires – An Engineering Perspective

Conducted at the South Hook LNG terminal, Europe’s largest regasification terminal, no breakdown of coating was seen in a large-scale test
wherein a 1-m long protected steel test piece was subjected first to cryogenic and then rapid rise fire exposure.

As floating LNG (FLNG) vessel consortia continue to develop new projects, the company is involved in the process with those working to
understand the complexities of designing solutions commensurate with the completed risk assessment.

Intumescent PFP in New-build Oil and Gas Projects

The design life of a petrochemical asset protected with an intumescent epoxy should be 25 to 30 years. If given a choice, owners never want to shut
down and bring into shore a deepwater floating production, storage, and offloading or FLNG vessel for maintenance purposes.

Incorporating fire protection on these projects is addressed once all steel components have been designed, but because of cost, weight, and safety
compliance issues, its consideration starts earlier in the engineering and procurement cycle than with standard protective coatings. For a new-build
project, developing a PFP coating specification ordinarily occurs in the front-end engineering and design stage.

Each steel section has a different fire rating requirement determined by the project’s safety assessment. The recommended coating thickness
depends on the desired rating and the section factor of the assembly to be protected.

Section factor gives a guide to the rate at which a steel member will heat up when exposed to fire. Terms such as Hp/A (heated perimeter/cross-
sectional area), A/V (surface area/volume), and W/D (weight per linear ft/heated perimeter) are used to denote the section factor, and although the
terms are different in some way, all are a ratio of the surface area exposed to the fire and the weight of the steel.

Fig. 3 illustrates an intuitive understanding that the section on the left will heat up more quickly than the other one, even though their overall
dimensions are similar. The more rapidly a member would heat up in a fire, the thicker the application of fire protection required for a given
fire rating.

To protect steel, it is advantageous to use a coating that has been engineered to perform at the lowest required film thickness. The weight impact of
the PFP can be substantial, as much as 5% of the net platform weight. Even small weight savings can be converted to additional process
equipment and living quarters. This is one of the reasons that epoxy intumescent coatings are the preferred PFP solution at sites where weight is a
consideration, such as on offshore platforms. Technologies, such as cementitious fire protection, are significantly heavier.

Typically, a major oil and gas company hires an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) firm that establishes the specifications for the
project and its component products. The EPC selects a fabricator who in turn hires the specialist PFP applicator as part of the standard
procurement process.

It is recommended that the fire protection be applied before the erection of the steel, because application at this stage favors the project’s
construction critical path, realized in benefits such as:

Time savings—smaller window for site disruption

Better quality—easy access to coat the steelwork and improved quality control
Safety—reduced solvent emissions and fewer tradespeople needed on site
Reduced cost—quicker return on investment from faster construction

The usual method of defining the limits of fire protection is by discussion and negotiation between the design team and engineers representing the
asset owner in conjunction with the insurance authorities and local and federal safety regulatory bodies.

A number of coatings manufacturers can offer a complete single source supply for petrochemical facilities, including protection to address corrosion,
pool fire, jet fire, and cryogenic spill protection on a global basis. By specifying a single source for all the coatings requirements, the EPC can
eliminate compatibility and responsibility issues that have troubled projects in the past.

Summary
Hydrocarbon fires present engineers with a special set of protection issues compared with those in which the fuel source is wood or building
materials. Hydrocarbon fires behave differently, use different fire protection products, and involve different approvals than cellulosic fires. Coating
technologies, such as FIRETEX M89/02, are available to address not only a hydrocarbon fire itself, but also to provide the necessary corrosion
resistance that ensures the coating will be there when and if it is needed for the design life of the asset.

For Further Reading

Gewain, R.G., Iwankiw, N.R., and Alfawakhiri, F. 2003. Facts for Steel Buildings—Fire. American Institute of Steel Construction, www.aisc.org.

Roger Williams is the global market director of fire protection and the FIRETEX technology director with Sherwin-Williams. He has
been involved with fire protection for more than 25 years.

Related Articles
25 July 2017

https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=397 4/5
7/28/2017 Rapid Rise Hydrocarbon Fires – An Engineering Perspective

Study Provides Guidelines for Community Input in Unconventional Development

The effectiveness of delivering information about a new energy project to community stakeholders varies based on the method used; how a
message is framed can affect individual opinions.

19 July 2017

Drones and Facility Security: Things to Look Out For

Operators need to take steps to protect their facilities from drone security breaches by outsiders. The costs an attacker incurs in developing tools to
break into and control infrastructure is low compared to the costs an operator incurs in defending against those tools.

18 July 2017

Concept for Ice-Resistant Offshore Terminal for Arctic LNG Export

Cost and delivery of long-distance natural gas pipelines to a distant liquefaction facility at a warm-water port has become excessive, and
environmental restraints have been increasing. An alternative is an offshore ice-resistant LNG port accommodating a new class of LNG transport
vessels.

https://www.spe.org/en/print-article/?art=397 5/5