Franz Evegren
Robust fire risk assessment from a maritime perspective
SP – a wide technical range SP Calibration and Verification SP Certification SP Electronics SP Chemistry, Materials and Surfaces SP Energy Technology SP Fire Research 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
SP – a wide technical range SP Calibration and Verification SP Certification SP Electronics SP Chemistry, Materials and Surfaces SP Energy Technology SP Fire Research 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
• Reflections of risk and the use of risk assessment • Lightweight applications = heavy need for fire safety verification • Risk assessment methodology used for design of ship fire safety
Today’s agenda
What is risk?
Risk = uncertainty + damage
Risk = 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑺𝑯𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑺
Risk = c . p
𝑅 = 𝑠𝑖 , 𝑝𝑖 , 𝑐𝑖
“the possibility that an event will occur and adversely affect the achievement of objectives” (COSO)
“effect of uncertainty on objectives” (ISO)
Risk = c + p
Risk = frequency . magnitude
Risk assessment in the decision-making process True risk? What is shown by/estimated in a technological risk analysis?
Feelings
Engineering judgement
Political conviction
Society
Risk analyst
Decision-makers
Military know-how to civil production
FRP composite FRP = Fibre Reinforced Polymer FRP PVC / balsa
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
Weight item Tun island ferry [kg] Eco-Island ferry [kg] Lightweight 250 000 72 000
Ballast 33 900 0
Fuel & water 18 800 8 000
Stores 1 000 1 000
Passengers 15 000 15 000
Crew 225 225
Luggage 2 000 2 000
Cars 16 000 16 000
Deck cargo 3 075 3 075 Displacement 340 000 117 300
• Global strength (FEM) • Life cycle environmental effects (LCA) • Life cycle cost (LCC) • Fire Safety Assessment
Eco-Island ferry Displacing island ferry 200 passengers, 6 cars, 9.5 knots
Displacement: 120 tons (340 tons)
Engine power: 220 kW (590 kW)
Ignition and composite = fire catastrophy?
Prescriptive 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.
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
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.
Combustible
Alternative fire safety design - process SOLAS II-2 Regulation Objective
(RO) Regulation Functional Requirements (RFR)
Comment on how the base design challenges the regulation
Part B Prevention of fire and explosion
Reg. 5 Fire growth potential
Limit the fire growth potential in every space of the ship.
(1) Control the air supply to the space; (2) Control flammable liquids in the space; (3) Restrict the use of combustible materials.
Unprotected or insufficiently protected FRP composite surfaces could be a fire risk. If open deck is considered a space, unprotected external surfaces challenge RFR 3.
Reg. 6 Smoke generation potential and toxicity
Reduce the hazard to life from smoke and toxic products generated during a fire in spaces where persons normally work or live.
Limit the quantity of smoke and toxic products released from combustible materials, including surface finishes, during fire.
Unprotected interior FRP composite surfaces deviate from Reg. 6.2.1, even if they are without finish.
Part C Suppression of fire
Reg. 9 Containment 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.
Reg. 11 Structural integrity
Maintain structural integrity of the ship, preventing partial or whole collapse of the ship structures due to strength deterio-ration by heat.
Materials used in the ships’ structure shall ensure that the structural integrity is not degraded due to fire.
Reg. 11.2 is deviated as it states structures to be constructed in “steel or other equivalent material”, which is defined as non-combustible (Reg. 3.43).
Time
HR
R
To better determine the verification needs, a more thorough process for identification of differences in fire safety was incorporated
Collection and rating of all pros and cons in fire safety
Alternative fire safety design Quantification
Probabilistic fire risk assessment
Functional assessment
Consequence assessment
Hazard id.
Consequence assessment
Evaluation: Evaluation of better or worse consequences when plausibly worst scenarios appear
Proposed design Prescriptive design
Prob
abili
ty
The used method must be sufficient to quantify the proposed design in terms of fire safety
Consequence
Alternative fire safety design Quantification
Probabilistic fire risk assessment
Functional assessment
Consequence assessment
Hazard id.
Consequence
Prob
abili
ty
Functional assessment
Evaluation: Higher or lower probability of different consequences (failure of different safety functions), considering the full range of scenarios
Failure of different safety functions
The used method must be sufficient to quantify the proposed design in terms of fire safety
Probabilistic fire risk assessment
Alternative fire safety design Quantification
Probabilistic fire risk assessment
Functional assessment
Consequence assessment
Hazard id.
Prob
abili
ty d
ensit
y
Evaluation: Higher or lower risk (combination of probability and consequences), accounting for the full range of scenarios
Consequence (loss of life)
Prob
abili
ty
Consequence (loss of life)
Risk curves
The used method must be sufficient to quantify the proposed design in terms of fire safety
Alternative fire safety design Quantification
Alternative fire safety design Quantification
SP Fire Research
SP Fire Research
Standardized fire testing Loaded bulkhead fire resistance test Fire resistance test in furnace
Test of penetrations
Loaded deck fire resistance test After loaded deck fire resistance test
Four bed cabins 45 min fully developed fire Additional necessary fire testing
FRD60 insulation on inside surfaces
Local damage External fire test
Successful sprinkler protection
Additional necessary fire testing Fire growth on external composite surfaces based on SP FIRE105
Alternative fire safety design Quantification
Relative acceptance criteria will reduce uncertainties.
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: Data and models should be verified through tests. Statement #6: A relative assessment will reduce uncertainties.
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: Data and models should be verified through tests. Statement #6: A relative assessment will reduce uncertainties.
Franz Evegren [email protected] +46 (0)10-516 50 88 Thank You for your attention!