Citation

Sorathia U, Gracik T, Ness J, Durkin A, Williams F, Hunstad M, Berry F. J. Fire Sci. 2003; 21(6): 423-450.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2003, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0734904103035393

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In response to several claims from Manufacturers that intumescent coatings could be used in place of fire insulation and provide equal protection to shipboard structures during a fire, U.S. Navy conducted an extensive investigation of several fire protective coatings for use aboard ship. These fire protective coatings included water and solvent based coatings, insulative coatings, and foams. The objective of this program was to identify passive fire protection (PFP) coatings for shipboard interior applications capable of meeting U.S. Navy (USN) fire resistance requirements (DRAFT MIL-PRF-XX 381) of 30 min rating with backside average temperature rise less than 139 C using UL-1709 fire curve (post flashover fire). This evaluation consisted of small scale fire, adhesion, and impact tests; intermediate scale room corner fire tests, and full scale fire tests conducted aboard ex-USS SHADWELL. The test results with steel substrate show that all candidate coatings failed to meet minimum U.S. Navy fire resistance criteria when used as stand-alone coatings. Furthermore, many coatings demonstrated poor adhesion, and fell off from the substrate during the fire test. These data have led the Navy to conclude that intumescent coatings tested in this study are not sufficient to protect shipboard spaces during a fire and are not equivalent when used alone as direct replacement for batt or blanket type fibrous fire insulation (mineral wool, StructoGard) installed aboard U.S. Navy ships. However, U.S. Navy smallscale fire tests have also demonstrated that some of the intumescent coatings, when applied over substrates such as Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP), did reduce flame spread and smoke generation.

Language: en