Richard Holliday, PPG Protective and Marine Coatings, UK, outlines a detailed test undertaken to compare epoxy passive fire protection products commonly specified for the protection of steel structures.
T
he hydrocarbon processing industry has strict international testing standards related to the performance of passive fire protection (PFP) coatings for oil and gas platforms, terminals, refineries, and other petrochemical facilities. In recent years, several high-profile PFP coatings failures in cold-weather climates, such as a well-documented case at the oilsands in Alberta, Canada, have demonstrated the need for more rigorous testing of intumescent epoxy coatings for application in such environments. Whether floating offshore or based on land, LNG installations are essentially densely populated factories in which fire hazards are in close proximity to process areas as
well as facilities such as control rooms and even accommodation modules. This increases the risk of rapid escalation combined with the need for specialist escape and evacuation provisions for personnel while trying to minimise damage to the asset. Growing interest in offshore floating LNG (FLNG) for export trade and increasing numbers of import facilities for local power supply mean that the number of offshore fixed and FLNG installations is growing. Such projects may often feature gas storage close to industrial installations or at ports where a nearby population or critical infrastructure is present. Fire ratings for such installations are traditionally based on the ability to withstand pool fires, which may not be sufficient
17
