is this a bad PFP design?... 1

[Thedraffy]

I'm currently examining the extent of a PFP steelwork coating system literally full of holes on an offshore hydrocarbon installation, the main issues consist of:
bad installation (large air/water bubbles, and extremely thin covering) lack of sufficient coat back , manufacturer is not approved for this type of installation/plant, some specified areas have been completely missed, poor installation of mesh, some samples show layers of paint between coats of PFPF system also…

currently this study is a costing exercise to determine an accurate Square metre area etc for planning and pricing remedial/replacement work, which will be extensive either way…

More specialist engineers will become involved in the study as it progresses who will specify additional area’s requiring protection etc, but are there engineers out there who could enlighten me as to how these decisions are made:

For instance we have the 1st 25m (from deck level) of the flare stack protected, yet the overboard cantilever structure the stack sits on is not protected…

The module housing the caisson is protected, yet the cantilever deck supporting the caisson dead weight and housing is not…

Does this sound like a poor design? Or am I too naive in this area of expertise to be passing judgement like this?

Any insight from people with experience in this specialism is very welcome and appreciated.


TheDraffy

 

[London]

There is often a safety document that will highlight the areas requiring protection, based on jet fires from a ruptured riser or pipeline. Primary steel that is in the jet fire radius is considered for protection. The duration of the jet fire is important to determine how much protection is required, based mainly on the amount of hydrocarbons within the line.