Epoxy Intumescent Coatings: Current Philosophy

by Thomas Ward and Paul Greigger, PPG Industries, Inc., Springdale, PA, US; Ron Matheson, PPG Industries, Inc., Aberdeen, UK; and Bjrn-Erik Alveberg, Jak J. Alveberg a.s, sters, Norway

Fig. 1: Application of EIC to prefabricated steel. The bulk of the application can be in the shop before the steel is erected. Small tie-in areas are masked and coated after the structure is built. The flexibility, toughness, and fast cure of EIC allow the precoated steel to be moved and installed without damage.

poxy Intumescent Coatings (EIC) have been used extensively on offshore and onshore petrochemical installations to protect the structural integrity of steel in the event of a fire. In response to intense heat, EIC materials first soften then release gases, which transforms the coating into a char much thicker than the original coating layer with cellular insulation properties. EIC prevent or delay structural failure, allowing time for evacuation of personnel, and for employment of active fire fighting measures. EIC can also reduce asset loss and help min-

imise environmental damage. Recent years have brought dramatic changes on how EIC are being specified, driven by both changing safety philosophies in the petrochemical industry and by economic considerations. Fire safety covers an enormous field. There are volumes of codes, guidelines, and regulations under the control or influence of various governmental departments, trade organisations, and insurance companies, with each country acting independently. Understanding the
Copyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

16

PCE December 1996

fire protection requirements of facility owners operating in different countries has and continues to be a difficult challenge for EIC suppliers. Because of non-specific or non-existent regulations, differences in interpretation, variations in facility owners safety philosophy, and diversity of methodology employed in safety assessments, the end result has been inconsistent specifications for EIC use.

Programmes to model fire events have been developed for hydrocarbon and jet fires. One example is the programme Chaos from British Gas. This information is used to model and predict the resultant temperature rise of the structural elements, using software such as Ansys or Swanson Analysis Define Fire Hazard Calculate Structural Thermal Response Structural Failure Times Predicted Consequence of Structural Failures Identify Structural Members to Be Protected by EIC Determine Required Thickness of EIC
Fig. 2: Flow Chart Showing Safety Assessment and EIC Requirements

Current Trends in Specifying EIC

Following the disastrous fire on the Piper Alpha, an offshore platform in the North Sea, and the publication of the Cullen report (Secretary of State for Energy, UK, 1990), the petrochemical industry has undergone rapid and evolving changes in both design and safety considerations for offshore platforms, which are now being carried over to onshore facilities. The Alliance concept on new projects where the owner, engineering firm, fabricator, and other major sub-contractors form a partnership to reduce project cost, is also having an impact on the use of EIC. New methodologies are being employed to determine where and what quantity of EIC material is needed to protect a specific facility. The fire hazard assessment identifies where a fire could occur, its type (jet fire or hydrocarbon), its duration, based on available fuel inventory, and its direction and distance from the source.
Copyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

cal structural members are identified; the time needed to prevent collapse is determined; and the fire environments are defined to generate specifications for EIC requirements. The fire safety assessments are allowing design and safety specialists to target critical areas for protection to ensure survival in the fire and blast scenarios developed. An added benefit is a cost and weight reduction in the use of EIC because it is no longer being specified for non-critical structural members. Through better design, isolation of critical areas, and use of emergency shutdown systems, excess passive fireproofing has been eliminated.

Brief History of Fire Ratings

Historically, the testing of firerated materials or construction such as fire doors, floors, and penetrations was carried out under fire conditions simulating a cellulosic fire. Several fire standards were developed, including ASTM E-119; UL 263; BS 476, Part 21; and ISO 834. These standards continue to be used throughout the world. During the 1970s, the hydrocarbon processing industry investigated the fire conditions produced by burning various hydrocarbon materials. Two important variables emerged to distinguish a hydrocarbon from a cellulosic fire. The heat-up rate, as depicted in Fig. 3, shows a hydrocarbon fire will reach 1100 C with-

System. The next step is to predict structural integrity and collapse scenarios; for this work, the software programme called USFOS (SINTEF Structures and Concrete, Trondheim, Norway) is utilised. The consequence of structural failure is evaluated using several criteria. Evacuation of personnel is of prime importance to allow time to reach designated safe refuge. The collapse of supports for critical processing equipment may result in additional inventory release or pose a hazard to personnel or other equipment. The critiPCE December 1996

17

Classification

Time (minutes) to Meet Backside Temperature Requirements1

Time (minutes) to Provide Integrity to Prevent Passage of Fire and Smoke and/or to Provide Integral Load Bearing Capability 120 120 120 120 120

A-60 A-120 H-60 H-120 H-O2

60 120 60 120 120

Table 1: Summary of A & H Ratings for Bulkheads and Decks (A=Cellulosic; H=Hydrocarbon) 1 Failure criteria is when the average backside temperature readings reach 139 C or an individual reading reaches 180 C. 2 The O Classification requirement is to prevent passage of fire and smoke and provide load bearing capability for 2 hours. But the current specifications have set 400 C average temperature as the temperature requirement.

1375

Temperature, C

1100

825

550

275

UL 263 UL 1709

0:00 0:05 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00

Time, hr:min
Fig. 3: Comparison of Hydrocarbon (UL 1709) vs. Cellulosic (UL 263) Fire Heat-up Rate Curves Fig. 5: Epoxy Intumescent Coatings provide fire and corrosion protection to vessel skirts.

Cross Sectional Perimetre Hp/A = Cross Sectional Area

High Hp/A

Low Hp/A

Fig. 4: Hp/A (F/A) Steel Sizes

in 5 minutes, while the cellulosic curve reaches 880 C after 40 minutes. Comparing heat fluxes, the cellulosic fire is approximately 100 kW/m2 versus 200 kW/m2 for the hydrocarbon fire. The hydrocarbon fire curve is known as UL 1709, Mobil curve, or Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) curve. In 1984, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, IL, US, tested the first EIC product using the standard UL 1709, Rapid Rise Fire Tests of
PCE December 1996

Protection Materials for Structural Steel. The testing was performed on a 10W49 steel I-beam taken to a failure temperature of 538 C. UL 1709 test requirements also include exposing the EIC materials to a series of accelerated weathering tests. The weathered samples are fire tested and compared to unexposed samples to determine if degradation of fire properties has occurred. An ASTM E-84, UL 723, Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, is conducted to deterCopyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

18

mine the flame spread and smoke generation. UL testing and listing procedures also include witnessing the manufacturing procedures for the product to be tested. UL retains on file the manufacturing steps, raw materials or components (with code numbers), and the supplier information. UL also provides a follow-up inspection service; its inspectors will visit manufacturing sites, review manufacturing records, and, occasionally, take samples for comparisons with the original product that was tested. In 1984, specifiers of EIC now had 2 fire scenarios at their disposal, one for cellulosic and one for hydrocarbon fires. The UL directory listed the column testing under ASTM E-119 conditions with an X designation followed by a three digit code and XR for UL 1709 listing. The design listing includes the hourly ratings and required thickness of EIC with a description of the method of application. In the early 1980s, the hydrocarbon fire test requirement was evolving; unfortunately, outside of the US, there was not an accepted fire standard. Regulations and guidelines for specifying EIC were adopted from the hydrocarbon processing industry, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The quest for a standardised approach to define fire testing conditions was occurring through the 1980s; but there was disagreement among interested parties trying to reach a consensus on a standardised test. The hydrocarbon fire testing being performed in Europe
Copyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

Structural Element Hp/A 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 Time (min) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 30

Minimum dry film thickness to achieve fire resistance time (mm)1 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 60 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 90 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 120 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 18 19 20 20

150

180

Table 2: EIC Dry Film Thickness Required, Based on Hp/A Values 1 Minimum dry film thickness necessary to restrict the temperature of steel cores to 400 C within the specified time period as a function of the cross sectional area and shape of the structural element represented by the Hp/A value, where Hp is the perimetre of the cross section of the element exposed to the fire in metres and A the area of the element in square metres.

followed a fire test time-temperature curve referred to as the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) Curve. In order to distinguish between the 2 kinds of tests, A was designated for cellulosic and H for hydrocarbon fire conditions. Table 1 summarises the more common ratings used for decks and bulkheads. As a weight and cost savings measure, the concept of using the Hp/A values of structural members (Fig. 4) was utilised. Fire tests are conducted on structural members representing a range of Hp/A values coated with EIC tested to different failure times. The test data is used to generate tables
PCE December 1996

which provide the required thickness of a specific EIC for a particular Hp/A value for a specified time period and steel failure temperature. A typical table is shown in Table 2.

Jet Fire Testing

The industry has become aware of the need to protect against jet fires. A jet fire results from a high pressure hydrocarbon release from a source such as a ruptured pipe, flange, or process vessel. It is characterised by a high velocity flame and a heat flux of 300 kW/m2. Until recently, the only recognised test of jet fire resistance was

19

the British Gas facility at Spadeadam. The test consists of a free jet produced from sonic release of natural gas exiting a nozzle at 3 kg/sec. The instrumented test piece, usually an Ibeam or tubular 10 m in length, is positioned 9 m away from the jet nozzle. A 1-hour test would consume over 10,000 kg of gas. The high gas velocity tests the erosion resistance of the fire protective material. A jet fire working group was formed of members from industry, certifying agencies, and test laboratories. They have developed a small scale jet fire test. This is described in the Offshore Technology Report, OTI 95 634.7 This procedure reduces the scale and cost of Fig. 6: Main structural elements of a deck are protected with EIC. the test, as compared Non critical secondary steelwork is partially protected (called a to the Spadeadam coatback to prevent heat transfer to the main member. test, but maintains its severity. The gas flow rate is 0.3 kg/sec, using propane directed to a target one metre away. There is no currently recognised standard jet fire test, although this test procedure is now being recognised by certifying agencies. Because of the interim status of the test, certifying authorities, such as Lloyds and Det Norsk Veritas (DNV), are issuing letters of compliance rather than type approvals. Approvals for jet fire requirements are granted on a project-by-project basis.

be preceded by an explosion. The explosion may be insufficient to damage the structure but strong enough to dislodge the fireproofing. If the fireproofing is damaged or disbonded by the explosion, then the steel will not be adequately protected from fire. It is critical that the fire protective coating demonstrate the ability to withstand an explosion at least as severe as the predicted overpressure. The fireproofing must not crack or disbond as a result of the explosion, and the fire performance of the product must not be impaired as a result. An explosion produces not only overpressure but also impact damage from flying debris. If the fire protective coating is brittle or does not have sufficient flexibility, the material may be severely damaged, not only by the explosion overpressure, but by the impact of debris. Actual explosion testing can determine the response of a coating to debris, whereas simulated explosion testing cannot. Because explosion resistance is important to the effectiveness of a fire protective system, the fire testing performance of a product should not be considered without documented blast test performance.

Current Status
A safety assessment as described previously will predict a fire scenario in a particular area of a facility. If a jet fire event is possible, such variables as available inventory, initial pressure, and size of a release opening are taken into consideration. The available inventory will be controlled by shut-down valves, volume of processing equipment, and blow
Copyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

Explosion Resistance
In many cases, a fire event will

20

PCE December 1996

down capability. As the fuel pressure drops, the jet fire length, velocity, and heat flux will diminish. As a result, direct jet fire impingement will last only for an initial time period. The heat flux will decrease from 300 kW/m2 down to 200 kW/m2, representing a hydrocarbon or pool fire. The fire exposure becomes a mixed event, initially a jet fire but later a hydrocarbon fire. The jet fire may last from 15 minutes to several hours, depending on inventory, but, typically, with other safety measures in place, the jet fire is being predicted to last 15 to 30 minutes. Jet fire exposures from fire risk analyses are being classified as jet fire only (J ratings in Table 3) or as a jet fire followed by a hydrocarbon or pool fire (J/H rating in Table 4). Hydrocarbon fires, often referred to as pool fires, may result in lower heat fluxes if the structural members in question are at varying distances from the fire source. The heat fluxes may range from below 100 kW/m2 to greater than 200 kW/m2. The complexity in specifying a fire exposure type, heat flux and duration, different structural geometries, Hp/A values, and assigned failure temperatures should now be very apparent. The task to generate the required EIC thickness by actual fire testing is becoming unrealistic. As described previously, fire scenarios are much more precisely defined and are unique to each project. Specifications for EIC by areas of a structure are therefore much more detailed than in previous times. Because these new specifications represent an infinite number of fire scenarios and structural configurations, testing
Copyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

Fire Classification (J) J-15 J-30 J-60

Protection Time to Meet Backside Temperature Requirements1 15 30 60

Criteria for Choosing an EIC Material

A list of criteria for selecting EIC material is shown below. Fire SpecificationVerify that the EIC material has been tested under the specified fire environment and structural member designs by a recognised fire testing laboratory and the results have been certified by an approved organisation. Explosion resistance should also be documented. Environment of FacilityThe following should be considered: A. Location and Climate Onshore or offshore, ambient temperature, severe temperature changes, rainfall, and humidity are features which may effect the durability of a product. B. Physical ExposurePossible damage may result from objects coming in contact with EIC, structural movement, vibration, and surface operating temperature. C. Chemical ExposureTypes of chemicals and duration of exposure. Evaluation of these environmental factors are extremely important to ensure that the EIC material will not be easily damaged or degraded. Application PropertiesThe EIC material must allow application over a large range of climatic conditions and be user-friendly to allow easy application to large structures as well as to small laboratory test pieces. Technical Sales SupportThe supplier should have the resources to provide support to the facility owner and engineering firm during the specification stage. An example is assisting the customer by calculating the amount of EIC needed as indicated in the blueprints. Technical Field SupportTrained technical field support personnel

Table 3: Summary of J Ratings for Bulkhead and Decks 1 Failure temperatures are specific to each design and safety assessment.

Fire Classification (J/H) J-15/H-15

Fire Exposure & Duration 15 minutes jet fire exposure changing to 15 minutes hydrocarbon conditions 15 minutes jet fire exposure changing to 45 minutes hydrocarbon conditions

J-15/H-45

Table 4: Summary of J/H Ratings

becomes virtually impossible. The testing that is carried out provides the cornerstone of a materials fire resistance. Based on these standard test results, it is possible, with an understanding of thermodynamics, risk analysis, and fire events, to determine the required amount of fireproofing for specific fire scenarios. Computer modelling of fire ratings can, if used properly, be a useful tool to determine appropriate thickness. These computer techniques are still in their infancy and should be used only to interpolate from actual documented fire test data. The use of computer simulation to predict fire performance of EIC in jet fires is still unproven.
PCE December 1996

21

should be available at start-up to instruct the application crew, QA/QC staff, inspectors, and facility owners team members. EconomicsThe calculation of cost should include not only the installed cost for material and labour also but the maintenance/ repair cost over the projected life of the facility to arrive at a total life cycle cost. Job HistoryThe supplier should provide job references outlining where the EIC has been used. References should detail

Fig. 7: EIC provide fire protection to main support legs and to shell of flammable chemical storage tanks.

location, type of structure protected, and fire ratings specified. Quality ProgrammeThe supplier should have a certified or documented QA/QC system. Supplier Financial Stability Request annual reports or bank references from the supplier to verify financial stability. When selecting an EIC, the purchaser should apply the criteria above in a rigorous analysis, because even though a product

falls within a generic classification, there can be major differences in the formulations that will impact on product performance (both fire and durability), application cost, and long-term maintenance costs. An EIC for use on both offshore and land-based structures requires a product that has high impact strength, flexibility, and good adhesion. The flexibility gives several desirable properties, such as the ability to relieve stresses generated during rapid thermal cycling to prevent cracking and disbonding. High impact strength minimises damage from physical contact. The coating can withstand the normal movement and/or vibrations found in steel support structures. It is perfectly suited for coating and transporting the steel prior to erection for new construction. EIC find new uses due to their unique physical properties. EIC can be moulded into complex shapes or into flat panels. These moulded articles can be installed on site to eliminate the need to spray the coating. EIC are also being used on overdecks to provide fireproofing. Aggregate can be added onto the EIC to provide anti-skid properties. Alternatively, anti-skid topcoats can be used to overcoat the EIC.

Summary
This article reviews the recent history of the evolution of fire testing methods to evaluate EIC used to protect structural steel being used in petrochemical facilities today. The transition from the cellulosic fire conditions to the more demanding hydrocarbon fire test and on to the developCopyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

22

PCE December 1996

result of human error, is there enough of a safety margin being figured into the assessment in case a particular accident scenario was not considered? For some projects the classic struggle between the interests of commercial and safety specialists arise. For this reason, and to ensure consistency, the industry should look to governmental or independent certifying authorities for a final review of the safety assessment and proposed use of EIC materials for each project.

References
Fig. 8: Crew quarters and helideck being lifted onto main deck. EIC must posses adhesion, flexibility, and impact resistance to prevent material damage.

ment of a jet fire scenario is the result of increased knowledge of possible fire events. Safety and design specialists are using sophisticated computer techniques to simulate a fire event and to predict locations and time of structural failure based on predicted fire and explosion events. This safety assessment methodology results in a more cost-effective approach to determine where and how much EIC material is used. The requirements for specifying or selecting an EIC should be based on an analysis of the installation in question. Based on the predicted fire and blast event, the EIC material must have demonstrated acceptable levels of actual fire performance conducted under standardised test conditions accompanied by the appropriate certifications. The local environment and climate should be considered to determine if the EIC has the necessary physical and
Copyright 1996, Technology Publishing Company

chemical properties to provide long-term, maintenance-free performance. The products job history should indicate if the application can be performed in the local climate and site conditions following the procedures that were used for test qualifications. Suppliers of EIC are often asked by customers to help specify or make recommendations on what fire ratings should be met and where EIC should be used in their facilities. This presents problems: one is a possible conflict of interest (supplier - customer); second is the question of whether the suppliers personnel have the necessary expertise to perform the safety assessment; and third is the possible liability issue if the fire and the safety assessment was incorrect. Today, these safety assessments are being made based on predicted events that have to occur to produce the fire or explosion. Because an accident is usually the
PCE December 1996

1. Brian Songhurst, Offshore Platform Design Safety and Cost, Expro 1992, p. 113. 2. John Spouge, Assessment of Major Offshore Hazards, Expro 1992, p. 171. 3. Dr. Colin Billington, Structural Cost Savings, Expro 1992, p. 117. 4. Ash Bakshi, Alliance Changes Economics of Andrew Field Development, Offshore, January 1995, p. 30. 5. C.P. Rogers and M. Ramsden, Optimisation of Passive Fire Protection for Offshore Structures Using Progressive Collapse Techniques, paper presented at ERA Conference on Offshore Structural Design Hazards, Safety and Engineering, London, 15-16 November 1994. 6. J.H. Warren and A.A. Corona, This Method Tests Fire Protective Coatings, Hydrocarbon Processing, January 1975. 7. Offshore Technology Report OTI 95 634, Jet-Fire Resistance Test of Passive Fire Protection Materials, Health and Safety Executive, 1996.

23