Quote Originally Posted by f81aa View Post

Be aware that requirements of one company could be in conflict with others. That means that what is mandatory for one company could be deemed differently by another.
(...) Keep in mind that its intention is to provide guidelines for developing effective methods of fireproofing in petroleum and petrochemical processing plants.

If a proposed fireproofing application is not mentioned in the examples given in the fire-potential equipment definitions of API PUBL 2218 (sections 5.2.1.1 up to 5.2.1.3), it does not mean that is not justified. Take them as they are, only examples. After all, determining fireproofing requirements for a petroleum or petrochemical facility involves experience-based or formal risk-based evaluation that includes developing fire scenarios from which the needs analysis evolves.

(...) There are cases where the equipment body is fireproofed. safetyuser mentioned offshore separators with fireproofing on the whole vessel back then. Another example is vessels, heat exchangers, and other equipment constructed from low melting point material, such as aluminum.
(..) Well, if a formal risk-based evaluation determines that the collapse of the structure-bearing the water tank could severe lines, cause loss of containment in other vessels and/or damage other equipment, escalating the consequences, the structure should be protected.
1- THANKS f81aa: YOUR ABOVE IS AN EXCELLENT EXPLANATION OF THE MEANING "MAKE YOUR OWN PROJECT-SPECIFIC FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT"

Quote Originally Posted by f81aa View Post

however, the Scandpower document is not available yet. If safetyuser or anybody else has "Guidelines for the protection of pressurized systems exposed to fire" and could share it, it would be appreciated.
2- AT THIS LINK YOU CAN FIND THE VALUABLE REPORT. PLEASE NOTE THAT CLAUSE 5.15.1.2.2 OF THE MASTER CODE API RP 521 "Pressure-relieving & Depressuring Systems" EXPLICITLY REFERS TO THIS REPORT FOR ANALYTICAL DETAILS ON THE VESSEL FIRE PROTECTION MATTER.

[link Point to another website Only the registered members can access]

3- LAST BUT NOT LEAST FOR arad FIRST QUESTIONS:

[QUOTE=arad;123902]
(...)
2- as u may know in API 2218 only pool fire hazard is discussed and a method is presented for determining fire scenario envelope based on categorizing equipments into four potential fire hazard, now my question is that can we use consequence modeling to find fire scenario envelope?for example with a 12.5 kW/m2 raddiation criteria? and in this case , how much exposure time is sufficient for different equipments or supports to fail?
QUOTE]

MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT CONSEQUENCE MODELING SHOULD BE USED TO CONFIRM OR EXTEND THE LIMITS OF THE EARLY FIREPROTECTION CRITERIA, BUT AT THE VERY FIRST IT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE AND CRITICISM ALONG WITH HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION THAT SHOULD IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERNS AND BASIC ITEMS TO BE FIREPROOFED.

12.5kW/m2 WILL HARDLY POSE FIRE HAZARDS TO METALLIC VESSELS SINCE THIS FIGURE IS NORMALLY TAKEN AS THE LIMIT FOR >90% HUMAN IMMEDIATE FATALITY.
OTHER IS IF YOUR CONCERN IS EXPOSURE TO WOODEN OR PLASTIC ITEMS.

I WOULD SAY 37.5kW/m2 IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE TANKS AFTER FEW TENS OF MINUTES PROLONGED EXPOSURE.
PRESSURE VESSELS AND PIPING HAVE A MUCH HIGHER RATIO thickness-to-diameter SO THEY CAN WITHSTAND THIS LIMIT FOR SOME MORE TIME, DEPENDING OF THE CONSTITUENT MATERIAL.
ANYWAY I RECOMMEND A CAREFUL READING TO THE SCANDPOWER REPORT FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND APPROPRIATE FIGURES FOR VESSELS IMPINGEMENT AND LOAD RESISTANCE TO BOTH JET AND POOL FIRE.