000007595 001__ 7595
000007595 005__ 20240531164501.0
000007595 02470 $$2doi$$a10.24868/issn.2515-818X.2018.025
000007595 035__ $$a2273042
000007595 037__ $$aGENERAL
000007595 245__ $$aMachinery Space Fire Fighting – Modern Alternatives
000007595 269__ $$a2018-10-03
000007595 336__ $$aConference Proceedings
000007595 520__ $$aMachinery spaces in the majority of Royal Navy (RN) vessels use carbon dioxide (CO2) as the primary fire suppressant. While CO2 is very effective for firefighting, particularly in machinery space application, it is harmful to life in the concentrations required for effective fire suppression; exposure to concentrations greater than 15% can cause death within sixty seconds.

The use of CO2 and similar fire suppressant systems in machinery spaces presents a risk due to the potential exposure of personnel. This may occur in a fire scenario where personnel are unable to escape the affected compartment, if there is a leak in the system, or due to accidental discharge. These risks are typically mitigated through physical means and procedural controls. However, in the hierarchy of safety controls the primary means should always be the elimination of the hazard.  

Babcock Energy & Marine undertook a study for the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD) into alternative methods of firefighting on Royal Navy minor warship machinery spaces with the safety of personnel considered a key requirement. The study identified five alternatives to CO2 available on the market. One particular aerosol fire suppression system was found to be superior to the others for application in small craft. This system is not toxic, non-ozone depleting and leaves almost no residue after application to the affected space, enabling re-entry (provided that the space has been ventilated to remove the products of combustion). The study concluded that traditional methods of fire suppression should be reconsidered across all small craft due to the health and safety issues associated with CO2 and the availability of improved alternatives.  

This paper considers the use of traditional firefighting systems on naval vessels in light of 21st century health and safety regulations. An assessment of current fire extinguishing agents is presented followed by a case study to determine the most appropriate solution for a minor warship concept with a particular aerosol system being justified as the preferred option. The paper also considers if the same conclusions would be reached for major warships or if the difference in scale results in an alternative solution.
000007595 542__ $$fCC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
000007595 6531_ $$aMarine firefighting
000007595 6531_ $$afire suppression systems
000007595 6531_ $$acondensed aerosols
000007595 7001_ $$aGoode, T$$uBabcock Energy & Marine
000007595 773__ $$tConference Proceedings of INEC
000007595 773__ $$jINEC 2018
000007595 789__ $$whttps://zenodo.org/record/2273042$$2URL$$eIsIdenticalTo
000007595 85641 $$uhttps://imarest.org/inec$$yConference website
000007595 8564_ $$9feae2b6c-7fdb-4ef9-93af-cedf692c9aeb$$s2857943$$uhttps://library.imarest.org/record/7595/files/INEC%202018%20Paper%20037%20Goode%20SDG%20FINAL.pdf