Managing Safety and Ensuring Asset Integrity Through Judicious PFP Application

Abstract

Passive fire protection (PFP) is applied to steel structures in process plants to delay temperature rise and maintain structural integrity until active firefighting methods are deployed and fire is contained. Our largest gas plant was developed in several phases spanning over 25years with fireproofing designed and applied as per existing philosophy during respective execution phases. During recent Risk Management Survey, potential gaps in fireproofing were observed and survey recommended a campaign to review and identify similar gaps across entire Plant. This paper highlights the approach for gap identification, assessment and optimal recommendations which ensure safety and asset integrity while avoiding high OPEX. Fire hazard evaluation is carried out based on risk assessment of fire and hydrocarbon leakage scenarios in process plant, and recommendations for fire prevention, protection and firefighting measures are provided. Requirement of fire protection is dependent on fire source and resulting fire influence zone (fireproofing zone drawings, FPZ). Structures which are located within the FPZ are then evaluated as per identified criteria in a sequential approach (e.g. whether sudden collapse will cause significant damage, structure supports equipment containing toxic material etc.). Further detailed assessment of structural members and their impact on overall structural stability and integrity is carried out for identified structures to determine fireproofing needs. Based on the outcome, fireproofing is applied for identified members. The scope involved assessment of structural steel fireproofing in the entire complex comprising of over 40 numbers process units and 12 numbers utility units. Several teams conducted physical site survey to identify the actual fireproofing based on zone drawings across the entire plant. Desktop assessment and identification of gaps were carried out primarily based on Project fireproofing specifications, fireproofing zone drawings, fireproofing location drawings, fireproofing schedule, structural design calculations and 3-D models wherever available for respective areas. Study revealed that actual fireproofing at site in each phase of plant is consistent within all process units installed as part of that particular project, however inconsistencies were observed when compared across the different phases, probably due to different interpretation of requirements. To ensure consistency a common criteria was established considering fire source, equipment supported by structure, criticality of member and industry standards. Optimized solutions was recommended to avoid high OPEX while ensuring asset integrity and safety. Fireproofing criteria are general guidelines susceptible to various interpretations by respective users. Establishment of common criteria and elimination of ambiguities in specifications enables consistent application of fireproofing, resulting in optimization while ensuring asset safety and integrity. The approach adopted by ADNOC Gas Processing can be shared with other group companies to enable each organization be prepared to justify the actions in case of any external / internal audits.