Franz Evegren. Robust brandriskbedömning ur ett IMO-perspektiv

Transcription

1 Franz Evegren Robust brandriskbedömning ur ett IMO-perspektiv

2 SP a wide technical range SP Calibration and Verification SP Certification SP Electronics SP Chemistry, Materials and Surfaces SP Energy Technology SP Fire Technology SP Measurement Technology SP Structural and Solid Mechanics SP Process Development SP Wood Technology CBI, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute Glafo, Swedish Glass Research Institute JTI, Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering SIK, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology SMP, Swedish Machine testing

3 Novel Designs at Sea Shipping & Offshore

4 Military know-how to civil production FRP composite FRP = Fibre Reinforced Polymer FRP PVC / balsa

5 -C Aimed at improving the efficiency of marine transport and to increase the competitiveness of Swedish and European shipbuilding industry by development and demonstration of techniques for using lightweight materials for ship construction

6 Global strength (FEM) Eco-Island ferry Life cycle environmental effects (LCA) Life cycle cost (LCC) Fire Safety Assessment Displacing island ferry 200 passengers, 6 cars, 9.5 knots Displacement: 120 tons (340 tons) Engine power: 220 kw (590 kw) Weight item Tun island ferry [kg] Eco-Island ferry [kg] Lightweight Ballast Fuel & water Stores Passengers Crew Luggage Cars Deck cargo Displacement

7 Alternative fire safety design SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) Regulation 4 Probability of ignition Regulation 5 Fire growth potential Regulation 6 Smoke generation potential and toxicity Regulation 9 Containment of fire Regulation 11 Structural integrity Regulation 10 Fire fighting Regulation 13 Means of escape... Reg. 9 prescribes main vertical and horizontal zones of A-class divisions = steel or other equivalent material = a non-combustible material which, by itself or down to insulation provided, has structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the standard fire test. Reg. 11 prescribes the hull, superstructures, structural bulkheads, decks and deckhouses to be constructed of steel or other equivalent material.

8 Alternative fire safety design - process Regulation 17 Alternative solutions for fire safety are allowed if they can be shown to be at least as safe as a prescriptive design Is shown through an analysis based on MSC/Circ.1002

9 Alternative fire safety design SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) Regulation 4 Probability of ignition Regulation 5 Fire growth potential Regulation 6 Smoke generation potential and toxicity Regulation 9 Containment of fire Regulation Combustible 11 Structural integrity Regulation 10 Fire fighting Regulation 13 Means of escape Reg. 9 prescribes main vertical and horizontal zones of A-class divisions = steel or other equivalent material = a non-combustible material which, by itself or down to insulation provided, has structural and integrity properties equivalent to steel at the end of the standard fire test. Reg. 11 prescribes the hull, superstructures, structural bulkheads, decks and deckhouses to be constructed of steel or other equivalent material.

10 SOLAS II-2 Reg. 5 Fire growth potential Reg. 6 Smoke generation potential and toxicity Part B Part C Reg. 9 Containment of fire Alternative fire safety design - process Regulation Objective Regulation Functional Requirements Comment on how the base design (RO) (RFR) Regulation 17 To better determine the verification challenges the regulation Limit the fire growth (1) Control the air supply to the space; Unprotected or insufficiently protected FRP potential in every (2) Control flammable liquids in needs, the composite surfaces a could more be a fire risk. If thorough open process for Alternative space of the ship. solutions for fire safety are allowed if they can space; (3) Restrict the use of combustible identification deck is considered a space, unprotected of external differences in fire safety be shown to be at least surfaces as challenge safe RFR 3. as a prescriptive design materials. Limit the quantity of smoke and was toxic Unprotected incorporated interior FRP composite surfaces Prevention of fire and explosion Reduce the hazard to life from smoke and toxic products generated during a products released from combustible materials, including surface finishes, during fire. deviate from Reg , even if they are without finish. Is fire in shown spaces where through an analysis persons normally work or live. based on MSC/Circ.1002 Suppression of fire Contain a fire in the space of origin (1) Subdivide the ship by thermal and structural boundaries; (2) Boundaries shall have thermal insulation of due regard to the fire risk of the space and adjacent spaces; (3) The fire integrity of the divisions shall be maintained at openings and penetrations. Load-bearing bulkheads, decks, and where necessary also internal bulkheads, made in combustible material deviates from the A-X class definition. Collection and rating of all pros and cons in fire safety Reg. 11 Structural integrity Maintain structural integrity of the ship, preventing partial or whole collapse of the ship structures due to strength deterioration by heat. Materials used in the ships structure shall ensure that the structural integrity is not degraded due to fire. Reg is deviated as it states structures to be constructed in steel or other equivalent material, which is defined as non-combustible (Reg. 3.43). HRR Time

11 Alternative fire safety design Preliminary analysis report

12 Alternative fire safety design Quantification The used method must be sufficient to quantify the proposed design in terms of fire safety Probability density Probability Probability Consequence Functional Probabilistic assessment fire risk assessment Proposed design Prescriptive design Consequence Consequence (loss of life) Evaluation: Evaluation: Evaluation: Probability Risk curves Consequence (loss of life) Failure of different safety functions Evaluation of better or worse consequences Higher or lower when risk (combination plausibly worst of probability and scenarios Higher consequences), or lower appear probability accounting of for different the full consequences range of (failure of scenarios different safety functions), considering the full range of scenarios Probabilistic fire risk assessment Functional assessment Consequence assessment Hazard id.

13 SP Fire Technology

14 SP Fire Technology

15 Alternative fire safety design 4 3,5 Quantification 3 Height [m] 2,5 2 1,5 1 0, Time [s]

16 Alternative fire safety design Quantification Relative acceptance criteria will reduce uncertainties.

17 IMO guidelines for use of FRP Development of IMO guidelines for how to evaluate fire safety when using FRP composite within ship structures Naval ship code guidelines

18 Conclusions Statement #1: Regulations are incomplete; a risk assessment may need to go beyond regulations to describe the proposed design in terms of fire safety Statement #2: A larger focus on the hazard identification (detect weaknesses, define dependencies, assess redundancies in barriers) and where this is carried out early in the design phase Statement #3: Regardless of requirements, the used method must be sufficiently sophisticated to quantify the proposed design in terms of fire safety Statement #4: If input data is too uncertain, you will be better off performing a less sophisticated assessment. Statement #5: Relative acceptance criteria will reduce uncertainties.

19 Conclusions As long as safety can be assessed and risks addressed, the possibilities are endless. Statement #1: Regulations are incomplete; a risk assessment may need to go beyond regulations to describe the proposed design in terms of fire safety Statement #2: A larger focus on the hazard identification (detect weaknesses, define dependencies, assess redundancies in barriers) and where this is carried out early in the design phase Statement #3: Regardless of requirements, the used method must be sufficiently sophisticated to quantify the proposed design in terms of fire safety Statement #4: If input data is too uncertain, you will be better off performing a less sophisticated assessment. Statement #5: Relative acceptance criteria will reduce uncertainties. Franz Evegren franz.evegren@sp.se +46 (0) Stena F-MAX designed with FRP composite superstructure