Fire Wrap Systems as an Alternative for Critical Circuit Cables: Is this the Best Suited

Fire-Protection Solution for Petrochemical Facilities?

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to educate facility and design engineers the shortcomings of
fireproof wrap and/or blanket systems for critical electrical systems in petrochemical facilities.
When a fire occurs at a petrochemical facility, the electrical systems which serve critical areas
such as ventilation, flame and gas detectors, fire pumps, alarms and other emergency systems
must remain operational. More importantly, cables which ensure the activation of emergency
shut down valves (ESDV’s) must be adequately protected to prevent further escalation of fire or
explosion. As a result, the effectiveness of electrical circuit integrity systems could very well
mean the difference between lost lives and saved lives.
Prior to discussing the pitfalls of fireproof wrapping, it would be helpful to describe the
environmental exposure in which these materials are tested in accordance with industry
standards. A good reference source when considering criteria for circuit systems is the
American Petroleum Industry (API) 2218, Fireproofing Practices in Petroleum and
Petrochemical Processing Plants, which offers guidance for the application and maintenance of
fire proofing materials for onshore petrochemical facilities. API 2218 – 2013 stipulates that UL
1709 (or functional equivalent) should be used to stimulate a hydrocarbon pool fire as a method
to measure the resistance of protective materials.

It is important to note that UL 1709 is a furnace test intended for structural steel integrity.
However, with simple modifications, the furnace can be altered to accommodate the testing of
electrical wire and cable. UL 1709 uses the rapid rise time-temperature curve where the
furnace starts at ambient temperature and rises to 2000⁰F within 5 minutes. The temperature is
maintained at the 2000⁰F for the duration of the test with an allowable temperature tolerance of
±100⁰F. This is known as the rapid temperature rise curve. API 2218 states the following: For
use in petroleum and petrochemical processing plants, the “rapid temperature rise curve” should
be specified.
Test duration for critical wiring and control systems is typically specified by the end-user.
However, a minimum of 15 minutes is the industry standard. Since this an enclosed furnace
test, there is a heat flux requirement of 65,000 ±5000 Btu/h·ft2 (204±16 kW/m2). When testing
any component in a fire, heat flux is an important criterion as it accurately defines the energy the
component is experiencing. The heat flux requirement in UL 1709 emulates a similar type of fire
a petrochemical facility could experience as opposed to a commercial office building where a
fire would be far less intense.

During this test, energized cable is passed through the UL 1709 furnace. Four thermocouples
within the furnace ensure that the temperature and heat flux requirements are met. The cable
sample typically powers light bulbs which are used to determine pass or fail. National testing
laboratories such as Southwest Research Institute and Intertek have the capability to conduct
this test for electrical cable. Many end-users such as Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, Saudi
Aramco and Suncor adhere to the recommendations of API 2218 and specify UL 1709 as their
standard for circuit integrity testing for critical circuits.
Another standard, UL 2196 Tests for Fire Resistive Cables, evaluates the performance of the
cable based on functionality during a fire following exposure to a hose stream. While a more
common cable standard for commercial and transit applications including high-rise buildings,
hospitals, trains and highway tunnels, this test method also has an optional rapid temperature
rise curve intended for hydrocarbon pool fire simulation. Unfortunately, UL 2196 lacks any heat
flux requirement. Additionally, at the time of publishing of this paper, UL lacks a furnace that
can meet the rapid temperature rise curve requirements nor accommodate energized electrical
cable. UL 1709 continues to be the de facto standard for critical circuit cable in a petrochemical
refinery.
A wide range of options are available to protect electrical cables from extended exposure to fire
and maintain their functionality. Fire wrap systems are often cited as an alternative for critical
circuit cables. These systems are more costly, inconvenient and do not serve critical
applications in the fire zone. A review of the two methodologies will prove that using critical
circuit cable is a far better option.
When using a wrap system, the installer is required to follow detailed instructions that include
considerable labor costs. These costs are in addition to the cost of the cable installation and
thereby calculated on the basis of the adder for the critical circuit cable over the cost of the non-
fire rated cable.
Since electrical industry trades do not install wrap systems, this can be a deterrent to use this
method as a fire protection solution. What happens when there is a need to move, add or
change the cables in the wrapped tray requiring independent installations for wrap? The short
answer from a local electrical contractor, “Nothing, we are not responsible for the wraps.” Here
is some further insight from an Electrical Engineer: “Use of listed thermal barrier systems comes
with high price, again, due to material cost and difficulty of installation. Protecting the feeders
with listed fire-rated assemblies can also carry a significant cost.”
In most industrial applications, the defined “fire zone” usually includes an ESV or Emergency
Shut-off Valve. These valves are typically located outdoors. Let’s give further consideration to
these methods by reviewing published documentation regarding fire wrap systems.
From API 2218 2011
6.3.5 Endothermic Wrap Fireproofing
The disadvantages include the following:
a) Long-term susceptibility to water or moisture ingress.

Guidelines for Fire Protection in Chemical, Petrochemical, and Hydrocarbon Processing

Facilities - Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS):
“The major disadvantage of endothermic wrap fireproofing is when used outdoors, the
system must be weatherproofed. Stainless steel jacketing or wrapping with a
manufacturer’s protective tape is necessary to provide the recommended level of
protection.”

Fireproofing Fundamentals National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) Paper

No.: RMC-09-22. Presented by: Thomas Kline, STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
Endothermic wraps – Flexible “blanket” materials that wrap around assets requiring fire
protection, however require a loose “f” or need temporary fire protection until a more permanent
system is applied to the asset. The fire protection process occurs when a change takes place
after flame impingement with the absorption of heat from the fire.
Pros: The “wraps” are very versatile and can be installed in a wide range of applications.
Cons: The “wraps” are primarily used in interior applications due to poor weathering
resistance of “unsealed” system and the potential of ponded moisture and algal growth.
The endothermic reaction initiates at a high temperature which needs to be maintained
for full fire protection service.

In addition to the challenges listed above, a key question should be: Where do fire wrap
systems stand in terms of economics? Here is a review of the financial investment associated
with these materials:

Material cost calculator for industry accepted Endothermic Fire Wrap System: Cost is
approximately $850 for 24” x 20 feet roll. 3 layers at 100’ is $8500 or $85/feet - plus labor,
cable, tray or pipe. An adder for labor (contractor costs at $75/hour) and installation time at .5
hours per foot increases cost $37.50 per foot for a total cost of $122.50 per foot. Fire-rated
cables in these ESV applications are for control and smaller gauge sizes, thereby the cost is not
nearly the same adder. This dispels the approach that fire blankets are a more cost-effective
solution; notwithstanding the inherent problems with wraps.

Circuit integrity cables are only used where the electrical performance of the cable is absolutely
required. If the functionality of these cables fail during a fire, the consequences are catastrophic
loss of life and/or total destruction of the facility. Why take a chance on selecting a solution that
has no performance-based testing proving the cables will work and no inherent possibility of
failure-improper installation or weather impaired problems?

When selecting the most appropriate options to maintain functionality of critical circuits, it’s
important to evaluate the total material, labor and installation costs; durability of the material
under extreme conditions; and long-term maintenance and replacement costs. Engineering
design approach suggests the use of best practices; thereby the use of the most tested, trusted
and least likely to fail. The choice is yours.

For further questions regarding Critical Circuit Cable and fireproof wrap systems, please feel
free to contact:
In the USA:
Michael Betts - Technical Manager Petrochemical Products
RSCC Wire and Cable LLC
A Marmon Wire & Cable/Berkshire Hathaway Company
Office: 860-653-8446 Cell: 713-540-7824
Email: michael.betts@r-scc.com Web: www.vitalinkcable.com

In Canada:
Ernie Gagnon – Manager Canada & NW USA
RSCC Wire and Cable LLC
A Marmon Wire & Cable/Berkshire Hathaway Company
Office: 780-438-2522 Cell: 780-983-6347
Email: ernie.gagnon@r-scc.com Web: www.vitalinkcable.com