Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 20 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1518 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Watermist fire fighting MV electrical safety

David Gorshkov

I am reviewing the fixed watermist fire fighting installations in a new fleet of hybrid ships we are building . The water mist based fixed fire fighting appliances (FFFA) we are using extends into the main propulsion areas as well as the power generating areas.

Water Mist heads are used instead of sprinklers these days as these are more effective, however I can find no definitive tests or regulations that state water mist is safe to use in Medium Voltage switchboard areas?  Appreciate that if I have a fire the main objective is to extinguish it but it is not unusual for FFFA to be set off accidentally in a technical space so I must then consider IP ratings of equipments in these spaces in order that equipment is not damaged during an accidental discharge and that engineers investigating the incident are not at risk of electrocution from the MV systems which may still be live or charged!

Does anyone have any reference information regarding any testing done on Watermist systems to validate their safety levels with LV, MV and indeed HV systems?

Parents
  • 0

    Hi Simon, more than happy to deliver a walkthrough of the new Hybrid Super Ferries we are building. Let me know when and where and will be happy to present.

    Re shore connections, big debate here as the current philosophy is to let cruise ships connect to an HV shore supply for the duration of their stay ( usually 12 hours) to reduce pollution i  the port area. They all need roughly 6-10 MW so having 75-120 MWH of batteries on board is not practical …think 1500 EV cars worth!

    The shore connection is called ‘cold ironing’ and there are a few ports providing 1 or 2 berths with these connections to cope with 11KV and 6.6KV cruise ships. Its not practical for a ferry with a 1-2 hr turn around to connect up as connection and disconnection can take 20mins for each task . Cost is another issue,  KWH costs via cold ironing are significantly more than a KWH raised with MGO ( Marine gas oil) on the ship so the driver is an environmental one not economic as most ships DG's are more efficient (cost wise) than shore power.

     

Reply
  • 0

    Hi Simon, more than happy to deliver a walkthrough of the new Hybrid Super Ferries we are building. Let me know when and where and will be happy to present.

    Re shore connections, big debate here as the current philosophy is to let cruise ships connect to an HV shore supply for the duration of their stay ( usually 12 hours) to reduce pollution i  the port area. They all need roughly 6-10 MW so having 75-120 MWH of batteries on board is not practical …think 1500 EV cars worth!

    The shore connection is called ‘cold ironing’ and there are a few ports providing 1 or 2 berths with these connections to cope with 11KV and 6.6KV cruise ships. Its not practical for a ferry with a 1-2 hr turn around to connect up as connection and disconnection can take 20mins for each task . Cost is another issue,  KWH costs via cold ironing are significantly more than a KWH raised with MGO ( Marine gas oil) on the ship so the driver is an environmental one not economic as most ships DG's are more efficient (cost wise) than shore power.

     

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines