4 replies to this topic

[kc45]

Hi, I was referencing API 2218 Fireproofing Practices in Plants and came across the following finding.

 

Say a vessel is at risk of failure due to fires, why does API 2218 recommends that for vessels elevated on exposed steel legs, the leg supports are to be fireproofed.

 

Why isn't the entire vessel being fireproofed instead to delay fire risk.

[Pilesar]

If the structure fails, the vessel falls and the piping comes loose, leading to loss of containment with no recovery. If the pressure vessel remains in place, it can be protected from overpressure with relief valves, sprinkler systems, etc.

[breizh]

hi,

Consider to read : https://www.eng-tips....cfm?qid=434810

 

Breizh 

[kc45]

hi,

Consider to read : https://www.eng-tips....cfm?qid=434810

 

Breizh 

Thanks for the link!

 

So essentially, the reason to fireproof the supports is so that the vessel does not topple down and spill more hydrocarbon leading to further escalation. Also because the supports are closer to the source of fire which in this case of discussion is pool fire.

 

Is this reason still valid for

i) jet fire scenarios?

ii) a gas filled vessel.

[breizh]

Hi,

You may find pointers in the link attached :

https://www.hse.gov....rpdf/rr1120.pdf

 

Regarding gas filled vessel you need to consider that the Cp of the gas is much less than of the liquid meaning little or no heat absorption by the chemical in case of pool fire.

Breizh