Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

A study on methods for fire load application with passive fire

protection effects
Jeong Hwan Kim, Du Chan Kim, Cheol Kwan Kim, Md. Shafiqul Islam, Sung In Park,
Jeom Kee Paik n
The Ship and Offshore Research Institute (The Lloyd's Register Foundation Research Centre of Excellence), Pusan National University,
Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this paper was to introduce more advanced and practical procedures for fire load
Received 21 September 2012 application methods considering the effects of Passive fire protection (PFP) with the motivation to
Accepted 12 May 2013 nonlinear structural consequence analysis of FPSO topsides structures under fire load. This paper is a part
Available online 3 July 2013
of phase III of the joint industry project on explosion and fire engineering of FPSOs (EFEF JIP).
Keywords: Temperature dependent material properties of steel and PFP materials were adopted to develop fire
Passive fire protection (PFP) load application methods. But in case of PFP materials, only temperature dependent thermal properties
Eurocode were considered to focus on the thermal effects. Numerical simulations were performed and the
Nonlinear finite element method (NLFEM) modeling method of PFP materials were validated with published experimental results. The nonlinear
Floating, production, storage and offloading
finite element code LS-DYNA was used for numerical simulations. The results of this study will be useful
(FPSO)
for consequence structural analysis under fire load considering PFP effects.
LS-DYNA
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Phase I: This phase includes a literature survey, identification

Hydrocarbon explosions and fires in FPSO installations are
extremely hazardous. They involve extreme explosion actions
and heat, which can have serious consequences for health, safety,
and the surrounding environment as can be evidenced by the
Piper Alpha accident, which occurred on 6 July, 1988 (Cullen, 1990)
and Deepwater Horizon accident, which occurred on 20
April, 2010.
A total number of 26 joint industry projects have been under-
taken worldwide in the area of fire or explosion engineering since
the Piper Alpha incident as shown in Fig. 1 (Paik and Czujko, 2009).
The objectives of the EFEF JIP, which constitutes the 27th such joint
industry project, are to bridge the gaps that exist between academic
developments and engineering practice and to develop pertinent
guidelines for the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) of FPSO
installations, with a focus on topsides and equipment that are subject
to fires (Paik, 2009; Paik and Czujko, 2010). Its more specific
objective is to produce documented procedures and guidelines for
use in the assessment of fire actions (loads), their consequences (e.g.,
structural damage) for FPSO topside structures and equipment, and
their associated risk levels. The acceptance risk criteria are also
addressed. The overall EFEF JIP comprises the following three phases:
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 51 510 2429.
E-mail address: jeompaik@pusan.ac.kr (J.K. Paik).
of resources, and a detailed definition of the scope of work for
the entire project in terms of fire and gas explosion events in
FPSO installations.

Phase II: In this phase the procedures used to identify the
design loads for hydrocarbon fires and explosions on FPSO
topsides and equipment are developed. The design loads for
gas explosions are equivalent to overpressure, drag forces, and
pressure impulses, and those for fire are equivalent to tem-
perature and heat doses. Probabilistic approaches in association
with the exceedance curves of design loads are applied.

Phase III: The final phase establishes the NLFEM-based con-
sequence analysis procedures. Guidelines and a handbook for
the analysis, design, risk assessment and management, and risk
acceptance criteria of FPSO topsides and equipment subject to
gas explosion and fire events are developed.
The following figure shows the quantitative risk assessment
(QRA) procedure for fires developed by the EFEF JIP (Fig. 2).
The final phase of EFEF JIP concludes with the establishment of
NLFEM based consequence analysis procedure. NLFEM is of course
necessary and cost effective for enhancing fire risk evaluations of
steel structures (Reed and Peterson, 2012). The following figure
shows the nonlinear structural consequence analysis procedure
under fire load (Fig. 3).
This paper is a part of the report of EFEF JIP phase III. It is
very important to determine the actual fire load profile of
structure for performing nonlinear structural consequence

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.05.017
178 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187

Nomenclature αc coefficient of convection (W/m2 K)

Δt time interval (s)
Am surface area of the member (m2) εf surface emissivity of the fire
Am =V section factor for unprotected steel member (m−1) εm surface emissivity of the member
Ap appropriate area of fire protection material (m2) θg gas temperature of the fire compartment (1C)
Ap =V section factor for steel members insulated by fire θm surface temperature of the steel member (1C)
protection material (m−1) θp surface temperature of the fire protection material
Ca specific heat of steel (J/kg K) (1C)
Cp specific heat of fire protection material (J/kg K) θ∞ ambient temperature (1C)
da thickness of steel (m) λa thermal conductivity of steel (W/m K)
dp thickness of fire protection material (m) λp thermal conductivity of fire protection material
ksh correction factor for the shadow effect (W/m K)
V volume of member (m3) ρa mass density of steel (kg/m3)
t time (s) ρp unit mass of fire protection material (kg/m3)
t PFP thickness of gypsum board type PFP (mm) Φ view factor

Fig. 1. Joint industry projects in the area of explosion and fire engineering for offshore installations.
 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187 179

Fig. 2. EFEF JIP procedure for the quantitative risk assessment and management of fires.

Fig. 3. Procedure for nonlinear structural consequence analysis under fire.

analysis under fire load. The gas temperature profile and the
steel temperature profile are not same. The gas temperature
profile can be found by performing fire simulation or from
standard fire curve. But, to find the actual response of structure
under fire load, it is necessary to calculate the steel temperature.
Again some structures are provided with passive fire protective
materials.
In the present study, a method for calculating steel temperature
profile was developed considering the PFP effects. The main
objectives of the study were as follows:

To develop a numerical method for modeling of PFP materials.

To introduce the fire load application methods for steel
structures.
180 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187
2. Nonlinear material modeling
2.1. Nonlinear material modeling of steel
To perform the thermal and structural response analysis of
steel structures due to fire, material properties should be known
properly. This section describes the thermal properties of carbon
steel according to EN 1993-1-2 (Eurocode, 2005; FABIG, 2001).
2.1.1. Thermal properties of steel
The properties like specific heat capacity and thermal conduc-
tivity of steel are dependent on steel temperatures. Table 1 and
Fig. 4 show the thermal properties of carbon steel according to EN
1993-1-2. At a temperature of approximately 730 1C, steel under-
goes a phase change from ferrite-pearlite to austenite. This phase
change results in a denser molecular structure and causes marked
change in expansion characteristics represented by a plateau
between 750 1C and 860 1C. For changing the phase it requires
significant amounts of energy causing a significant spike in the
specific heat in this temperature range as shown in Fig. 4(a).
2.2. Nonlinear material modeling of PFP
Insulation behaviors of fireproofing material most commonly
used in the petroleum industry can be sorted into two main types:
active and inactive insulation. Active insulation undergoes signifi-
cant chemical and physical changes when exposed to fire while
inactive insulation does not. Typical material achieving active
insulation is epoxy, and achieving inactive insulation is cement.
Table 1
Equations of thermal properties for carbon steel according to EN 1993-1-2.
Thermal properties
Specific heat, C a (J/kg K)
Thermal conductivity, λa (W/m K)
Fig. 4. Thermal properties of carbon steel: (a) specific heat and (b) thermal conductivity.
Epoxy type PFP is widely used in offshore for structural
members, external decks and roofs, underside decks, equipment
enclosures, pipe work and risers.
But, it is hard to make a formulation for behavior of PFP
materials because those are made of laminated or composite
materials. An intumescing material is stable at ambient tempera-
tures and when exposed to fire, a chemical reaction takes place
and the material starts to expand. How much it expands vary with
different materials and it can expand to many times its original
thickness. The expansion provides an insulating foam-like coating
or char which protects the substrate. As a result of the increase of
volume, the density of the material decreases. This protective char
limits both the heat transfer from the heat source to the substrate
and the mass transfer from the substrate to the heat source,
resulting in conservation of the underlying material. Fig. 5 illus-
trates the behavior of Epoxy type PFP during the exposure period
of fire.
As seen in this figure, the char starts to form early, and the
longer the material gets exposed to heat the more the char
develops. Between the unreacted material and the char it has
something called the reaction zone. It is here the mastics starts to
intumesce because of the heat that has penetrated through the
outside layer. In stage 4, when the whole material has reacted, it
still forms an efficient heat retardation mechanism.
As PFP material undergoes chemical and physical changes during
fire exposure period, it is very difficult to make a formulation behavior
of PFP. The room temperature properties and elevated temperature
properties are not same. Also there is a lack of temperature variant
properties of PFP materials. In this study, behaviors of PFP under fire
Equation
8
>
> 425 þ 7:73  10−1 θa −1:69  10−3 θa 2 þ 2:22  10−6 θa 3 ð20 1C ≤θa o 600 1CÞ
>
>
< 666 þ 13; 002=ð738−θ Þ ð6001C ≤θa o 735 1CÞ
a
> 545 þ 17; 820=ðθa −731Þ
> ð735 1C ≤θa o 900 1CÞ
>
>
: 650 ð900 1C ≤ θa o 1200 1CÞ
(
54−3:33  10−2 θa ð20 1C ≤θa o 800 1CÞ
27:3 ð800 1C ≤θa o 1200 1CÞ
 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187
Stage 1:Initial fire exposure
Fire
Unreacted material
Substrate
Stage 3:Mid term fire exposure
Fire
Char
Reaction zone
Unreacte dmaterial
Substrate
Fig. 5. Intumescent reaction and char formation (International Protective Coatings, 2008).
Fig. 6. Set-up for the fire test of gypsum board.
are modeled using temperature dependent thermal conductivity and
specific heat to focus on the thermal effects of PFP.
2.3. Validation of method for modeling of PFP
Gypsum boards were used as PFP specimens in the experi-
ment carried out by University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
(Rahmanian and Wang, 2009). Gypsum board is a kind of cemen-
titious type PFP which is widely used in the onshore platforms.
Specimen was placed horizontally on top of an electric kiln, as the
source of heat, so that one side of the panel was subjected to kiln
temperature and the other side faced up to the room temperature
(19–25 1C). An opening of 280  265 mm2 on the top lid of the kiln
allowed the lower side of the panel to be exposed to the elevated
kiln temperatures. A 30 mm layer of glass wool (with an opening
of the same size as that in the kiln lid) was laid underneath the
specimen to insulate the contact surface between the top lid and
the specimen. Temperatures were measured on the unexposed
side and the exposed side of the gypsum board using Type K
thermocouples. Fig. 6 shows the typical set-up of the experiments.
181
Stage 2:Short term fire exposure
Fire
Char
Reaction zone
Unreacted material
Substrate
Stage 4:End of term fire exposure
Fire
Char fully reacted
Substrate
Since gypsum is a porous material, heat transfer through
gypsum is a combination of all three modes: conduction through
the solid, and convection and radiation through the pores. There-
fore the effective thermal conductivity of gypsum should include
these effects. This effective thermal conductivity can be affected by
many factors such as temperature, density, moisture content and
porosity of the material. Assuming gypsum is made of solid
substrate and uniformly distributed spherical pores, the effective
thermal conductivity of gypsum can be demonstrated as three
parts:
(1) constant thermal conductivity up to 95 1C before water eva-
poration, equal to that at ambient temperature;
(2) linear reduction of conductivity to 0.1 W/m 1C at 155 1C; and
(3) nonlinear increase in thermal conductivity based on the
density and porosity of the material.
Fig. 7 shows the temperature dependent thermal properties of
the gypsum board back-calculated by the help of the experiment
to produce the best fit.
The temperature dependent specific heat of gypsum experi-
ences two peaks corresponding to the two dehydration reactions
of gypsum, as shown in Fig. 7(a). These peaks represent the energy
consumed to dissociate and evaporate water and include the effect
of water movement and recondensation of water in cooler regions
of gypsum. The base value of the specific heat of the gypsum board
used in this experiment is 950 J/kg 1C.
Fig. 8 shows the thermal load profile. The thermal load profile
is similar with the standard cellulosic fire. Since bottom side of the
gypsum board was directly subjected to kiln temperature, it was
assumed that the temperature of bottom surface of the gypsum
board is same as the kiln temperature. Thus thermal load of
LS-DYNA (2011) model, which was modeled with solid elements
to validate a method for modeling of PFP, was applied in way of
nodal temperature using kiln temperature profile at nodes of
exposed side. And to consider heat loss of unexposed side, heat
flux of convection and radiation was applied. The coefficient of
heat transfer by convection was 10 W/m2 K, and the effective
surface emissivity of the gypsum board was 0.8 (Table 2). For
room temperature, it was assumed 20 1C. Fig. 9 shows concept of
FE modeling for heat transfer analysis of gypsum board. Fig. 10
illustrates temperature versus time history on the unexposed side
of various thickness of four gypsum boards. The solid line is the
182 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187

Fig. 7. Temperature dependent thermal properties of gypsum board: (a) specific heat and (b) thermal conductivity.

Table 2
Coefficient of heat transfer by convection and view factor.

α (W/m K) Φ

Unexposed side of separating elements

Radiation considered separately 4 ≠0
Radiation implicitly considered in the convection 9 ¼0

Surface exposed to the fire

Standard fire curve ISO 834 25 ≠0
Hydrocarbon curve 50 ≠0
Parametric fire, zone fire models or external members 35 ≠0

Fig. 8. Thermal load profile of the experiment.

temperature history measured on the unexposed side by experi-

ment, and the short dash line is the analysis result of LS-DYNA.
Although there is some difference in the results for the thick
gypsum boards, on the whole, the results of heat transfer analysis
are in reasonably good agreement with those of experiment. Thus
it can be said that modeling method for PFP using thermal
conductivity and specific heat is useful in the prediction of
temperature development through insulation materials such as
gypsum. Fig. 9. Concept of FE modeling.

3. Methods for fire load application

the well known Fourier equation of heat transfer. The governing
The increase in steel temperature depends on the temperature equation for the two-dimensional nonlinear, transient heat con-
of the fire compartment, the area of steel exposed to the fire and duction within a structural element, takes the following form:
the amount of the applied fire protection. This chapter will focus    
on the transfer of the heat from the fire compartment to structural ∂ ∂θm ∂ ∂θm : ∂θm
λa þ λa þ Q ¼ ρa c a ð1Þ
elements and method of fire load application for thermal and ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂t
structural response analysis.
The heat transfer from the hot gases into the surface of the where, λa is the thermal conductivity, Q is the internal heat source
structural elements by a combination of convection and radiation that is equal to zero in case of non-combustible members, ρa is the
is normally treated as a boundary condition. The heat transfer unit mass of steel, ca is the specific heat, θ is the temperature and t
within the structural elements is by conduction and is governed by is the time. The temperature distribution which satisfies Eq. (1)
 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187
within the structural element must satisfy the following boundary
conditions:
(i) Heat transfer by convection between the part Γ c of the
boundary at structural element temperature θm and surround-
ing ambient temperature θ∞
qc ¼ αc ðθm −θ∞ Þ on Γ c ð2Þ
2
where, αc is the convection heat transfer coefficient (W/m K)
and qc is the heat flux by convection per unit area.
(ii) Heat transfer by radiation between the part Γ r of the boundary
at an absolute temperature θm and the fire environment at an
absolute temperature θg
qr ¼ sεðθ4m −θ4g Þ on Γ r ð3Þ
where s is the Stephan Boltzmann constant (5.67  10−8
W/m2 K4), ε is the emissivity and qr is the heat flux by
radiation per unit area.
Fig. 10. Temperature versus time history on the unexposed side of four gypsum
boards with different thicknesses.
Fig. 11. Procedure of methods for fire load application.
183
This chapter represents methods for fire load application using
above equations. Fig. 11 shows the procedure of methods for fire
load application. Firstly, gas temperature profile is selected. Next,
considering the presence or absence of PFP, there are two methods
to calculate the steel temperature from gas temperature namely
the thermal analysis method and the heat transfer equation
method. In case of presence of PFP, the thermal analysis is
performed by modeling simple FE model with solid element to
consider the effect of PFP. After calculating steel temperature,
structural response analysis is performed for full FE model. In the
next chapter, methods for fire load application without and with
PFP are explained in detail.
3.1. Methods for fire load application without PFP
In consideration of fire load application without PFP, there are
two methods to convert gas temperature to steel temperature
namely, thermal analysis method and heat transfer equation
method as shown in Fig. 11.
3.1.1. Thermal analysis method
This method applies the heat flux with difference in tempera-
ture between gas temperature (θg ) and surface temperature (θm )
on the surface of the structural elements. Thermal analysis method
considers convection, and radiation heat loss on the unexposed
side. Fig. 12 illustrates the concept of the thermal analysis method.
In this method, the temperature development of unprotected
structural member is calculated by the following equation:
Δθm Am =V _
¼ ksh hnet ð4Þ
Δt ca ρa
where h_ net ¼ h_ c þ h_ r
Here, the assumption of this equation is the same temperature
within the thickness direction of the structural member.
The shadow effect is not considered and in case of shell element
the section factor (Am/V) is calculated by taking the inverse value
of the thickness of the structural member. If there is a difference
between gas and surface temperature profile for T (m) thick
structural member then the heat flux needed to make the two
184 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187

method. The first heat transfer equation is found from Euro-

code and the second one is developed by Pusan National
University (PNU).

3.2.1. Thermal analysis method

If a fire scenario is established, thermal response analysis is
carried out using simple FE model, which is a partial FE model
with PFP. In thermal analysis method, to take into account the
effect of PFP only temperature dependent thermal properties are
used. Fig. 13 shows the concept of thermal analysis method with
PFP. A partial area of heated structure with PFP is modeled in solid
element, to consider heat transfer through thickness direction of
insulation material and structure. Thermal loads are applied by
means of either surface heat flux or nodal temperature. In a view
of structure member, incoming heat flux is conduction from PFP,
and outgoing heat flux is convection and radiation on the
unexposed surface of structure member.

3.2.2. Heat transfer equation (EN 1993-1-2) method

Fig. 12. Concept of the thermal analysis method. Eurocode provides a heat transfer equation to evaluate the
temperature profile of structure members insulated with passive
temperatures same is expressed by the following equation: fire protection materials. In this equation, heat is transferred
within PFP only by conduction and used constant values of
h_ net ¼ ca ρa Tðθgas −θmember ÞΔt ¼ h_ gasðinÞ −h_ memberðoutÞ thermal properties. The temperature increment Δθm;t of an insu-
h_ gas ¼ ca ρ Tθgas Δt h_
a member ¼ ca ρ Tθ
a member Δt ð5Þ lated member during a time interval Δt, is given by

The incoming heat flux provided by the gas is calculated by the Ap =V _ Δt

Δθm;t ¼ h −ðeϕ=10 −1ÞΔθg;t ð1CÞ ð7Þ
time dependent gas temperature profile. The outgoing heat flux ca ρa in ð1 þ ϕ=3Þ
from the structural member is calculated by the temperature where
dependent heat flux curve and that temperature dependent heat
h_ in ¼
λp ðθg;t −θm;t Þ
flux is computed by the convection and radiation process. dp

3.1.2. Heat transfer equation (EN 1993-1-2) method

As another method for fire load application without PFP,
Eurocode provides an equation for calculating steel temperature,
takes the following form:
Am =V _
Δθm;t ¼ ksh hnet Δt ð6Þ
ca ρa
where

h_ net ¼ h_ c þ h_ r
h_ c ¼ αc ðθg −θm Þ
h_ r ¼ Φεf εm s½ðθg þ 273Þ4 −ðθm þ 273Þ4 

This equation is used to calculate the nodal temperature of

steel members by net heat flux considering convection and
radiation. The assumption of this equation is the equivalent uni- Fig. 13. Concept of the thermal analysis method with PFP.
form temperature distribution throughout the cross section. In this
equation, the value of the section factor Am/V should not be taken
less than 10 m−1 because such a massive section would not have a
uniform temperature and time interval should not be taken as
more than 5 s. Φ is always taken as 1.0 if the radiative flux given by
the above equation is used in Eq. (6) written for fully engulfed
element. For cross sections with a convex shape (e.g. rectangular
or circular hollow sections) fully embedded in fire, the shadow
effect does not play a role and consequently the correction factor
ksh equals unity. εm is the surface emissivity of the member taken
as 0.7 for carbon steel, 0.4 for stainless steel and 0.8 for other
material (FABIG, 1993, 1995, 2009) .

3.2. Methods for fire load application with PFP

In consideration of fire load application with PFP, there are two

methods to convert gas temperature to steel temperature namely,
the thermal analysis method and the heat transfer equation Fig. 14. Concept of model for heat transfer equation.
 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187 185

cp dp ρp Ap The increment of temperature in part 1 can be calculated by the

ϕ¼
ca ρa V following expression:
λp ρp cp dp Δθp
The concept of the heat transfer equation method is illustrated h_ in −h_ pc;t ¼ h_ in − ðθp;t −θm1;t Þ ¼ ð9Þ
dp 2Δt
in Fig. 14. This equation is an approximation and only valid for
small values of the factor ϕ (normally not be higher than 1.5). where
There are two major assumptions in this equation. One is that the
h_ in −λp =dp ðθp;t −θm1;t Þ
surface temperature of the insulation is similar with the gas Δθp ¼ Δt
ρp cp dp =2
temperature, and the other is that the temperature distribution
in the structure member is uniform. The temperature drop over and, the increment of temperature in part 2 can be calculated by
the insulation is relatively large and, consequently, the surface the following expression:
temperature of the insulation is close to the gas temperature. Thus, Δθm1
it is assumed that the thermal resistance between the gas and the h_ pc;t −h_ ac;t ¼ ðρp cp dp þ ρa ca da Þ ð10Þ
2Δt
insulation is negligible (θg≈θm), and this assumption provides
more conservative results in the temperature profile of structure where
member. According to the heat transfer analyses results of steel h_ pc;t −h_ ac;t
member using solid elements, the temperature distributions show Δθm1 ¼ Δt
ðρp cp dp þ ρa ca da Þ=2
almost uniform distribution where the difference between the
maximum and minimum temperature is less than 50 1C. These Again, the increment of temperature in part 3 can be calculated by
results are normally attributed to the high value of the thermal the following equation:
conductivity of the steel that leads to a quick propagation of heat λa ρ ca da Δθm2
h_ ac;t ¼ ðθm1;t −θm2;t Þ ¼ a ð11Þ
producing an almost uniform distribution of temperature in the da 2Δt
cross section (θm1≈θm2). This equation can be applied much simply
where
using this assumption of uniform temperature distribution.
λa ρ ca da Δθm2
h_ ac;t ¼ ðθm1;t −θm2;t Þ ¼ a
da 2Δt
The thermal conductivity of steel is high enough to lead to a
3.2.3. Heat transfer equation (PNU) method quick propagation of heat with almost uniform distribution of
In the equation EN 1993-1-2, it is assumed that the thermal temperature in the thickness direction. Thus if it is assumed that
resistance between the gas and the PFP surface is negligible. But in θm2 is equal to θm1 then the temperature increment of θm1 can be
reality this is not exactly true. To find the more realistic thermal expressed as follows:
load profile of PFP surface, this study proposed new equation for
calculating surface temperature profile of PFP. The concept of this λp =dp ðθp;t −θm1;t Þ
Δθm1 ¼ Δt ð12Þ
method is shown in Fig. 15. ρp cp dp =2 þ ρa ca da
In this method, the entire structure is divided into three parts. and the PFP surface temperature can be calculated by the follow-
The heat flux by conduction can be expressed by the following ing equation:
equation:
h_ in −λp =dp ðθp;t −θm1;t Þ
λa λp Δθp ¼ Δt ð13Þ
h_ ac;t ¼ ðθm1;t −θm2;t Þ and h_ pc;t ¼ ðθp;t −θm1;t Þ ð8Þ ρp cp dp =2
da dp

4. Validation of fire load application methods

To validate the fire load application methods, fire simulations

p m1 m2 were performed to get the realistic gas temperature profile.
A simple model consisting of FPSO topsides structures was used
for fire CFD simulation using Kameleon FireEx code (KFX, 2010). In
hpc hac the model, the thickness of the two vessels are 7 mm. Fig. 16
shows the steel temperature distribution and also the checking
t+ t points for the temperature profile in case of without PFP. Fig. 17
illustrates the gas temperature profile and the corresponding steel
surface temperature profile at point A and B, respectively.
t In case of offshore structure, Epoxy type PFP is widely used.
hin But, due to lack of available temperature variant thermal proper-
ties of Epoxy type PFP data, this study used 5 mm gypsum board as
a representative of PFP material. By using the gas temperature
profile of point A as indicated above, the PFP surface temperature
was calculated as shown in Fig. 18.
As it is previously indicated, the heat transfer equation
(EN 1993-1-2) method assumes that the gas temperature is equal
p , cp , p a , ca , a to PFP surface temperature. From Fig. 18, it can be shown that the
surface temperature profiles of PFP calculated by the thermal
analysis method and the heat transfer equation (PNU) method are
dp da almost same. For calculating steel temperature profile, the thermal
analysis method and heat transfer equation methods were used
Fig. 15. Concept of the heat transfer equation (PNU) method. and steel temperature distributions are shown in Fig. 19 and
186 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187

Point A
Point A

Point B Point B

Fig. 16. Steel temperature distributions by (a) heat transfer equation (EN 1993-1-2) and (b) thermal analysis method in case of without PFP.

Fig. 17. Steel surface temperature profile at point A and B in case of without PFP.

temperature profile is shown in Fig. 20. In this target structure, PFP

is applied only on the horizontal vessel.

5. Conclusions

Fig. 18. PFP surface temperature profile.
This paper is a part of the report of phase III, EFEF JIP which
deals with the NLFEM-based structural consequence analysis of
offshore structure. In this paper, nonlinear material modeling
technique of steel and PFP materials is developed. PFP material
modeling technique is validated with experimental results.
The modeling method of PFP using temperature dependent
thermal conductivity and specific heat is very useful in prediction
of temperature development through insulation materials. Fire
load application methods considering with or without the effect of
PFP are well established. In case of Fire load application methods
considering the effect of PFP, the steel temperature profiles
calculated by the thermal analysis method and the heat transfer
equation (PNU) method are same. But the steel temperature
profile, calculated by heat transfer equation provided by Eurocode,
 J.H. Kim et al. / Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 177–187
Fig. 19. Steel temperature distributions in case of with PFP (Thermal analysis).
Fig. 20. Steel surface temperature in case of with PFP.
is little different as the assumption of this equation is that the gas
temperature profile is same with the PFP surface temperature
profile. The principals and assumptions of different methods are
well distinguished. The fire load application method described in
this paper will be very useful and practical for nonlinear structural
consequence analysis under fire load.
Acknowledgments
The present work was undertaken at the Research Institute for
Ship and Offshore Structural Design Innovation at Pusan National
University (PNU), Korea. The leading investigator of the EFEF JIP
(Jeom Kee Paik) is pleased to acknowledge the support of a
number of partners, including the American Bureau of Shipping,
187
Busan Metropolitan City Government, the Daewoo Shipbuilding
and Marine Engineering, the Korean Register of Shipping, and The
Lloyd's Register Educational Trust as funding sponsors in addition
to the ComputIT AS (Norway), the Gexcon AS (Norway), and the
USFOS AS (Norway) as investing sponsors who provided goods,
including computer programs. The efforts of the research and
development staff and post-graduate students at The PNU's
Research Institute are also very much appreciated.
References
ANSYS/LS-DYNA, 2011. User's Manual, Version 13.0. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA,
USA.
Cullen, W., 1990. The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster. HMSO, London,
UK.
European standard [Eurocode 3], 2005. Design of Steel Structures—Part 1–2:
General Rules—Structural Fire Design (CEN members).
FABIG, 1993. Technical Note 1: Fire Resistant Design of Offshore Topside Structures.
Fire and Blast Information Group, Berkshire, UK.
FABIG, 1995. Technical Note 3: Use of Ultimate Strength Techniques for Fire Resistant
Design of Offshore Structures. Fire and Blast Information Group, Berkshire, UK.
FABIG, 2001. Technical Note 6: Design Guide for Steel at Elevated Temperatures and
High Strain Rates. Fire and Blast Information Group, Berkshire, UK.
FABIG, 2009. Technical Note 11: Fire Loading and Structural Response. Fire and Blast
Information Group, Berkshire, UK.
International Protective Coatings, 2008. Chartek Fireproofing—Fire Exposure Case
Studies. UK 〈http://www.chartek.com/productdata/marketing_notes〉.
KFX, 2010. User's Manual for Kameleon FireEx. Computational Industry Technolo-
gies AS, Stavanger, Norway.
Paik, J.K., Czujko, J., 2009. Explosion and Fire Engineering of FPSOs (Phase I):
Hydrocarbon Releases on FPSOs—Review of HSE's Accident Database. The Ship
and Offshore Research Institute, Pusan National University, Korea, Report No.
EFEF-02.
Paik, J.K., Czujko, J., 2010. Explosion and Fire Engineering of FPSOs (Phase II):
Definition of Fire and Gas Explosion Design Loads. The Ship and Offshore
Research Institute, Pusan National University, Korea, Report No. EFEF-03.
Rahmanian, I., Wang, Y., 2009. Thermal conductivity of gypsum at high tempera-
tures—a combined experimental and numerical approach. Acta Polytech. 49,
16–20.
Reed, M., Peterson, E., 2012. Enhancing fire risk evaluations of plant structures
using finite element analysis. Process Saf. Prog. 31 (4), 411–412.