1

Stainless steel for durability, fire-resistance and safety

By G. Waller & D.J. Cochrane

Economic and safety

aspects of stainless steels
Since the industrial age began, the safety of structures and even after prolonged exposure to the highest temperatures
the protection of human life have been matters of reached in hydrocarbon fires, whereas GRP and
paramount importance to engineers. Despite two centuries aluminium provide relatively little resistance to fire
of accumulated experience, those same issues remain of because of their low melting points. Galvanised mild steel
major concern today. Perhaps because mankind's can withstand fire for a useful period but suffers some loss
ambitions sometimes exceed his current skills, accidents of rigidity and may drip molten zinc, constituting a
still occur and continue to take their toll. New technologies possible hazard to personnel.
pose new problems and occasionally the unforeseen This favourable result for stainless steel is not sur-
happens, with far-reaching and tragic results. prising in view of the widespread use and long experience
Fire is one of the most dangerous hazards. The of this type of material in high-temperature industrial
widespread storage and handling of inflammable liquids processes and equipment. Nevertheless, comparative tests
and gases mean that a mere spark can be enough to create a under controlled conditions were considered advisable to
conflagration or provoke an explosion. So when industrial establish the order of superiority that stainless steel
complexes are being planned, the closest attention must be demonstrates over alternative materials in severe fire
given to the problems of preventing, containing, limiting conditions.
and extinguishing fire. This includes studying the available
materials and making the best and safest choices for the LIFE-CYCLE COST STUDY
key fire-risk areas and personnel evacuation routes.
In parallel with these tests, the U.K. Steel Construction
COMPARATIVE FIRE TESTS Institute was asked to examine the economics of stainless
steel structures vis-a-vis those made from other materials.
To assist designers and engineers in this task, the This involved computing the first cost and, importantly,
Nickel Development Institute joined with the International the ongoing costs arising from maintenance, repair and
Chromium Development Association and three stainless replacement over the likely life-cycle of each structure. A
steel makers (Avesta AB, British Steel Stainless, and summary of the findings appears on pages 6-8 of this
Ugine) to sponsor an independent programme of fire tests booklet.
on four materials commonly used in land-based and The calculations show that the relatively high material
offshore structures. These were galvanised mild steel, cost of stainless steel is counterbalanced by its long
glass-reinforced plastic (GRP), aluminium and austenitic corrosion-free life and virtual freedom from maintenance
stainless steel Type 316 (UNS S31600). Details of the test and repair, making its true economics much more
procedures and results are on pages 4-6 of this booklet. attractive than might at first appear. Indeed, it is likely to
The tests demonstrated clearly that stainless steel be substantially less costly over a 10-30 year life than
structures can be expected to maintain their integrity galvanised mild steel, which was the only other material
tested that demonstrated a useful degree of fire resistance.
Additional safety usually carries some financial
penalty in the short term. The information provided by the
fire test programme and the economic study sug-
gests that the greater use of stainless
steels in selected areas of onshore
and offshore structures could signi-
ficantly enhance fire safety at an
acceptable cost.

Stainless steel cladding, as used for this British

Gas platform in Morecambe Bay, ensures long
trouble-free life, minimum maintenance and
outstanding resistance to fire.
Courtesy of British Gas plc
2

Worldwide uses of stainless

steels
Steels resistant to rusting were first developed about 75 it was in the post-war era that the rate of growth
years ago when the effects of adding substantial amounts accelerated rapidly. The impetus came firstly from the
of chromium to steel were being investigated. These early modernisation and restructuring of traditional industries,
chromium-rich steels looked highly promising, combining followed by the advent of advanced technologies and,
a bright surface appearance with what was then regarded latterly, the ever-rising aspirations of the world's peoples
as outstanding resistance to corrosion. In practice, their as regards living standards, health care and environmental
usefulness proved to be restricted because they were not concerns. All these impulses called for superior
amenable to hot- and cold-working and could not be constructional materials capable of ensuring safety, long
formed readily into the bar, plate, sheet and other forms trouble-free life, freedom from deterioration and
needed to construct industrial equipment. These minimum maintenance. These are the very qualities that
limitations were overcome by adding nickel to the the stainless steels provide.
chromium steels; this much improved their fabrication Many grades of chromium-nickel stainless steel are
characteristics and further enhanced their corrosion- now available to meet specific needs, but the basic ‘18-8’
resistance. type (now designated Type 304 or UNS S30400) is still
During the 1920's a definitive composition for a utilised in substantially greater quantities than any of the
versatile rust-free steel was established. This was the `18- newer variants. Its good corrosionresistance, ease of
8' type so familiar today, containing 18% chromium and cleaning, ability to withstand both heat and extreme cold,
8% nickel. Commercial production soon followed and the strength, toughness and good fabrication behaviour make
popular name `stainless steel' came into general parlance. it the standard material for countless applications.
One of its first major uses was for the Art Deco-style spire Examples are petrochemical equipment, food and
of the Chrysler Building built in New York City in 1929; beverage production, medical equipment, road and rail
it involved cladding the upper 88 m of the 320m high transport, paper and pulp manufacture, liquid-gas
structure. Today, more than six decades later, the spire handling and storage, nuclear components and structures,
remains among the city's finest sights as it catches and pharmaceutical production, architectural facades and
reflects the changing sunlight, bearing striking testimony roofing, domestic kitchen equipment and street furniture.
to the longevity and visual appeal of stainless steel. Wherever service conditions are unusually stringent,
The 1930's saw notable expansion in the use of ‘18-8’ one or more specialised types of stainless steel are
type stainless steels. Significant markets began to open up available to provide enhanced performance. A good
as the news spread of their excellent resistance to many example is the widespread and successful use of Type
types of corrosive media and their freedom from 316 (UNS S31600) stainless steel in the aggressive
maintenance when exposed for long periods in atmos- chloride-laden conditions of marine service. Particular
pheric conditions. Among the industries which first needs such as superior corrosion-resistance, easier fab-
exploited the benefits of the new materials were pet- rication, improved weldability, maximum strength-
rochemical production, power generation, food processing weight ratio or good cold-working behaviour can be met
and handling, transport and architecture. The range of by suitably alloyed stainless steels. Advice on the most
uses steadily extended as practical experience was gained appropriate grade to use is obtainable from stainless
and confidence grew. steel manufacturers or from the Nickel Development
Further expansion occurred during World War II but Institute.

Swedish railcar fabricated entirely from stainless steel (18%

Cr 9% Ni). The body has a strong cross-section of arc-
welded beams with longitudinal side-beams at floor and
ceiling level. Roof and side panels are corrugated and the
poor is pattern rolled for further strength.
Courtesy of ABB Traction, Sweden
3
4

Tests prove the superior fire

resistance of stainless steels
To obtain comparative data on the behaviour of four Galvanised Mild Steel: The mild steel ladder maintained
familiar structural materials when exposed to serious its integrity for the required 5 minutes. Large globules of
fires, Darchem Engineering Limited (a NAMAS- molten zinc were seen to fall as the test proceeded.
approved testing laboratory) was commissioned to per- Maximum average temperature recorded was 642° C and
form a series of controlled tests on cable ladders the maximum individual ladder temperature was 811° C.
obtained commercially. The candidate materials were Stainless Steel: The stainless steel ladder maintained its
glass-reinforced plastic (GRP); aluminium; galvanised integrity for the required 5 minutes and, without shutting
mild steel; austenitic stainless steel Type 316 (UNS off the burners, it was decided to continue the test. After a
S31600). further 40 minutes the test came to an end when the
bottled gas supply ran out. Throughout the full 45 minutes
the stainless steel ladder maintained its integrity.
FIRE RESISTANCE TEST °
Maximum average ladder temperature reached was 705 C
°
and maximum individual ladder temperature was 757 C.
Modern electric cables have intumescent coatings to The average flame temperature exceeded the specified
provide self-protection for the conductors if a fire occurs. 1000° C for 14 minutes.
These coatings expand in a fire, become brittle and cannot
withstand much bending. Cable ladders should therefore RADIATION RESISTANCE TEST
be made of material that will not deform excessively at
high temperatures, thus avoiding damage to coatings.
The test procedure involved ladders of 3-metres length In fire situations, structures may be heated by radiation
being uniformly loaded* to simulate the weight of cables rather than by direct flame impingement. To simulate this
and directly heated by 18 LPG burners adjusted to give condition, each ladder was uniformly loaded as in the
average temperatures of 1000-1050° C for 5 minutes. previous test and then exposed to direct radiation from
above in an electrically-heated cabinet. The tests were
Results continued until either the ladder temperature stabilised or
structural failure occurred.

GRP: The GRP ladder collapsed before all the burners Results
were ignited and no meaningful temperature measure-
ments were possible. Ignition of the ladder material was GRP: The GRP ladder suffered total structural failure
observed together with the emission of fumes. after 6 minutes. Average ladder temperature at failure was
Aluminium: The aluminium ladder suffered total 185° C with a maximum individual temperature of 222° C.
structural failure after 26 seconds, too short a time for Aluminium: The aluminium ladder suffered total
meaningful temperature readings to be obtained. No structural failure after 12 minutes. Average ladder
molten metal was seen because the rapid collapse due to °
temperature at failure was 238 C and the maximum
°
softening caused the ladder to fall outside the fire zone. individual temperature was 264 C.

* The aluminium ladder, purchased to the same nominal

specification as the other three ladders, was found to
be of thinner material section. It was therefore loaded
only sufficiently to provide similar initial deflection, Aluminium ladder before and after fire resistance test. The ladder
collapsed 26 seconds after the burners were ignited.
ie. 455 kg against 609 kg for the other ladders.
 5

Top left: GRP ladder after fire resistance test. Total collapse occurred before all Top right: Aluminium ladder after radiation resistance test. Structural failure
burners were alight. Smoke and fume emissions were noted. occurred after 12 minutes of radiant heating.

Galvanised Mild Steel: The mild steel ladder maintained steel leg. No test of aluminium legs was made because it
its structural integrity throughout the 2 hours taken to was thought improbable that these would ever be fitted to
reach temperature stability. Average ladder temperature at protected ladders.
the end of the test was 552° C with a maximum individual Each ladder contained 12 cables butted against its
temperature of 557° C. By the end of the test the entire sides in two groups of six and was loaded, as in previous
zinc coating of the ladder had disappeared, although only tests, to simulate the remaining cables. Three cables on
one globule of molten zinc was observed to fall. each side were connected to an integrity meter indicating
Stainless Steel: The stainless steel ladder maintained its three fault conditions : open circuit; earth fault; cable-to-
structural integrity throughout the 3 hours taken to reach cable fault, ie. electrical resistance breakdown between
temperature stability. Average ladder temperature at the cables. One cable each side was thermocoupled.
end of the test was 556° C with a maximum individual The test procedure was to control the burners for flame
temperature of 565° C. The deflection of this ladder after temperatures in the 1000-1050° C range and monitor
3 hours was only slightly more than one-third that of the cable integrity and temperature. Two criteria for failure
galvanised steel ladder after 2 hours. were set : (a) that cable integrity be maintained for 15
minutes, and (b) that cable temperature remain below 95°
CONDUCTION THROUGH FITTINGS TEST C for 15 minutes.

Observations of actual installations have shown that Results

although cable ladders are protected from fire, the support
legs are very rarely insulated. This can provide a heat Aluminium: The aluminium ladder suffered progressive
path around the fire protection. Tests were therefore collapse and consequent cable integrity failure in less
made on aluminium and stainless steel ladders wrapped than 5 minutes. Initial collapse on the galvanised leg side
with 100 mm of ceramic fibre insulation and supported occurred in just over 2 minutes and partial collapse on the
on unprotected legs. Each ladder was fitted with stainless leg side just over 1 minute later. Total collapse
one stainless steel and one galvanised mild of the ladder took 4 minutes and 41 seconds.

Bottom left: Galvanised mild steel ladder after fire resistance test. Structural Bottom right: Stainless steel ladder after fire resistance test (extended to 45 minutes,
integrity was maintained for the stipulated 5 minutes, at which time central see text). Structural integrity was maintained throughout test and central deflection
deflection was 166.5 mm. Globules of molten zinc were seen falling during test. was only 80.5 mm at conclusion.
6

Stainless Steel: The test criteria were fully met and the test with the splice plate at the point of penetration of the wall.
was continued beyond the stipulated 15 minutes. Cable Flame temperatures were set at 1000-1050° C and the test
integrity failure occurred at 26 minutes on the stainless leg was continued until the temperature stabilised on the
side and 33 minutes on the galvanised leg side. The cable "cold" side of the wall.
°
temperature climbed above the stipulated 95 C after 21
minutes on the stainless leg side and 26 minutes on the Results
galvanised leg side.
Aluminium: The aluminium ladder suffered total collapse
CONDUCTION THROUGH WALLS TEST by melting on the "hot" side after 1 minute 8 seconds.
However, since the end of the ladder protruding from the
In some installations where cable ladders pass through wall was still exposed to flames, the test was continued.
walls, there is a possibility that sufficient heat could be After 37 minutes the temperature had stabilised on the
°
transferred from a fire on one side of a wall to create a "cold" side at 134 C on one ladder web and 152° C on the
hazard on the other side. Tests were therefore made on a other web.
rig simulating a cavity wall, with the cavity insulated, Stainless Steel: The stainless steel ladder remained in
penetrated by a cable ladder and being subjected to a unchanged condition throughout the test, which was
severe fire on one side only. terminated at 90 minutes when temperatures on the "cold"
Aluminium and stainless steel ladders were tested, each side of the wall had stabilised. The temperatures recorded
2-metres long with a joint in the centre fitted with a were 80° C on one ladder web and 58° C on the other.
splice plate. For the test, each ladder was positioned

Evaluating the true costs of

stainless steel structures
An independent study of the structural applications of All design criteria used in the study conformed to
stainless steels offshore has been conducted by the U.K. British Standards Codes of Practice, Department of
Steel Construction Institute at the request of the Nickel Energy guidelines and American Petroleum Institute
Development Institute, the International Chromium (API) recommended practice for offshore platforms. The
Development Association and three stainless steel direct-cost elements studied were materials procurement,
producers (Avesta AB, British Steel Stainless, and Ugine). fabrication, surface protection, repair, replacement and
It complements the fire-test programme summarised on cleaning. Indirect costs were also considered, especially
pages 4-6 by identifying specific areas of offshore the substantial savings that may arise from the use of
platforms where the fire-resistance, strength and maintenance-free materials.
corrosion-resistance of the stainless steels can be
beneficially exploited, and analysing the economic con-
sequences of choosing stainless steel rather than mild steel
or aluminium.
Structures selected for detailed evaluation were stair-
ways, ladders, walkways, handrails, gratings, floor
systems, firewalls, blastwalls, and cladding for modules
and corridors. Cable ladders were excluded because Left: Accommodation module for the Hutton tension leg (TLP)
platform, clad with stainless steel.
stainless steel is already established offshore for this Courtesy of Conoco (U.K.) Limited
application. Other uses suggested but not costed were
helidecks and flare booms. Right: Firewall fabricated with stainless steel profiled cladding.
Courtesy of Darchem Engineering Limited
 7

COSTING TOPSIDE STRUCTURES

The three materials considered were mild steel to BS 4360

Grade 43C or equivalent; aluminium to Grade 6082TF; and
stainless steel Type 316L. Evaluation was on the full-life cost
basis using information from suppliers and fabricators
working in the offshore industry. Assumptions on
maintenance schedules and costs were made on data provided
by operators responsible for the day-to-day running of
offshore facilities.
Allowance was made for the fact that offshore fabrication
is covered by very tight specifications involving higher levels
of weld inspection and weld repair than are required onshore.
Also, labour is much more expensive offshore, primarily Estimated costs over a 30-year life cycle of walkways for a North Sea
modular platform with a topside dry weight of 20, 000 tonnes.
because of the costs of transportation and providing living
quarters aboard offshore platforms.

MAINTENANCE AND CORROSION

In estimating the frequency and cost of maintenance, the key

factor is the likely corrosion behaviour of the structural
materials in the harsh conditions of offshore service.
Fortunately, there is a wealth of long-term experience on which
to draw.
Mild Steel:- Unprotected mild steel is known to corrode in the
chloride-laden marine environment at around 0.15 mm per year
per exposed surface, which if allowed to continue will soon
lead to severe weakening. For example, a 6-mm-thick I-section
beam would lose half its capacity in only 10 years. Hence it is
Estimated costs for the same platform of firewalls having fire ratings of
essential that protective paint layers are maintained intact H120 in process areas and A60 in accommodation areas.
throughout the life of the structure. While details of offshore
maintenance contractors' schedules vary, the study having zero corrosion and being maintenance-free. The
conservatively assumes complete repainting every 5 years. study assumes washing at 6-monthly intervals to reduce
When repainting is properly and regularly performed, mild surface staining and tarnishing, but in practice this is not
steel can be expected to last the full life of the structure and essential.
require no replacement. Galvanised mild steel, on the other DIRECT-COST COMPARISONS
hand, will probably last 10 to 15 years depending on the
severity of the environment. It may then need complete On the basis of direct costs alone, the study finds that the
replacement. Consequently the study gives replacement costs relatively low first-cost of mild steel structures is soon offset
for both 10- and 15-year lives. when the life-cycle maintenance and replacement costs are
Aluminium:- Corrosion rates of aluminium are low and usually taken into account. The changeover point occurs at the time
limited to surface pitting. The study assumes a wash-down when the first replacement of mild steel becomes necessary.
every 6 months to reduce the rate at which this occurs. The Aluminium structures, while significantly more expensive
chief source of concern with aluminium alloys is galvanic than mild steel, are shown to be somewhat cheaper than
corrosion, aluminium being anodic to both mild and stainless those of stainless steels at the materials costs obtaining in
steels. When connecting aluminium to mild-steel modules or early 1989. Both aluminium and stainless steel are normally
around stainless steel piping, it is essential to provide electrical regarded as maintenance-free offshore apart from an
separation of the two metals or the aluminium will corrode infrequent wash-down.
preferentially. If joined to galvanised mild steel, aluminium PRODUCTION LOSSES DURING
will first cause corrosion of the zinc coating and then itself MAINTENANCE
corrode.
Stainless Steels:- For use offshore the recommended grade is An indirect cost consideration which cannot easily be
not the familiar ‘18-8’ type but the more highly alloyed Type quantified is the effect that required maintenance work such
316, usually in its low-carbon version designated 316L. This as welding, shot-blasting and repainting may have on
material maintains its protective chromium-rich oxide layer production. Whenever welding is performed in hazardous
even in severe chloridecontaining atmospheres and provides areas, production of oil or gas is halted and the environment
high resistance to surface pitting and crevice corrosion over a is checked for explosive gases before work
long service life. For all practical purposes it can be regarded as commences. The cost of each lost day amounts to
8

The Royal Navy Type 22 frigate ‘HMS Sheffield’, commissioned in 1988, embodies four stainless steel
stairways and numerous other functional and decorative components in the same material.
Crown Copyright picture

FIRE RESISTANCE
Having shown that mild-steel structures are the lowest
Courtesy of Rocco Products Ltd. in first-cost but the highest in life-cycle costs, and
millions of dollars for a large platform. Grit or shot noted that aluminium structures are currently cheaper
blasting are classified as ‘hot working’ and are consi- than those of stainless steel, the study comments on the
dered a potential fire risk unless production is closed relative safety of the three materials in fire conditions.
down. It points to the `very poor fire resistance' of aluminium
Most platforms have an annual shut-down period for compared with mild steel and the stainless steels, citing
°
routine maintenance to proceed. For a moderate-size its low melting point (660 C) and serious loss of
oil-producing platform it could typically be 10 days per strength at temperatures as low as 200° C. By contrast,
year. For each day of lost production of perhaps 70,000 the stainless steels have melting points around 1400° C
barrels of oil at, say, $18 per barrel the lost revenue and retain useful strength up to the highest temperatures
would be $1,260,000. It follows that even the saving of likely to be attained in hydrocarbon fires.
just one day of one shut-down period would largely Attention is drawn to the potential risk of molten
recoup the extra costs of specifying maintenance-free aluminium dripping from topside structures during a
stainless steel rather than mild steel for structures like fire emergency and the similar risk of molten zinc
ladders and walkways. (melting point 420° C) dripping from galvanised mild
steel. The study also notes that stainless steels require
OTHER POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS no painting and cannot therefore give rise to the toxic
fumes sometimes given off by burning paint on mild
Maintenance-free elements in a structure offer the steel structures. The overall conclusion reached is that
possibility of scaling-down the size of accommodation the stainless steels have demonstrably better fire-
and facilities for maintenance crews, hence reducing resisting properties than aluminium or mild steel, mak-
weight and cost during platform construction. Another ing them safer materials in a fire.
weight-saving factor is that stainless steel does not
require the ‘corrosion allowanc’ of mild steel and can CONCLUSION
therefore be used in thinner sections.
In the current economic climate of lower oil prices The fire tests and study of life-cycle costs together
and development of marginal fields, unmanned satellite demonstrate that the stainless steels are cost-effective
platforms are being considered. Trouble-free materials materials offering a greater degree of safety than GRP,
will be of special importance in these structures aluminium or mild steel (galvanised or painted).
because of the limited scope for accommodating Compared with mild steel, lightweight stainless steel
maintenance teams. structures reduce topside weight, enhance fire-
resistance and virtually eliminate the need for maintenance.
Maintenance onshore and offshore is costly, disruptive of
Modular Integrated production, and sometimes hazardous. The wider deployment of
Mild Steel 811.525 444.825 stainless steel will therefore yield significant economic benefits
Stainless Steel 604.480 308.680 as well as providing levels of fire safety unequalled by
alternative materials.
Weight saving, tonnes 207.045 136.145 Enquiries should be directed to:
Weight saving, % 25.5% 30.6% Nickel Development Institute.,
European Technical Information Centre,
Two types of North Sea platform, one of modular construction and the The Holloway, Alvechurch, Birmingham B48 7QB,
other an integrated deck, were considered in the Steel Construction England.
Institute study. This comparison of the total weights involved highlights
the savings realised by the use of stainless steel structures. Tel: 0527-584777 Fax: 0527-585562 Tlx: 51-337125