R&D SPOTLIGHT


The testing reveals the importance of fluid type and seal material choice in ensuring optimum seal performance and service life. Traditional sealing materials, s uch as FKM (fluoropolymer), often inert in most fluids, are exhibiting disadvantageous behaviour in HFC fluids.


In applications where temperatures are above +135°C / +275°F, industry professionals would typically look to FKM materials to provide a solution. However, our testing illustrates that water-based HFC fluids create a significant change to the properties of FKM at both +70°C / +158°F and +135°C / +275°F. As a result, FKM would not typically be recommended for any applications involving these fluids.


Offshore operators also often add extra additives to suit their particular application, but these could lead to seal material incompatibilities and cause dramatic adverse effects on sealing materials.


We recommend each application must be reviewed uniquely to optimize the seal materials with


Above: Engineers tested seven seal materials which were immersed in water glycol fluids at a range of elevated temperatures.


the HFC fluid to ensure seal performance and life.


The series of tests were developed by Trelleborg Sealing Solutions in 2015.


Water-based hydraulic fluids are widely used in oil and gas, mining, hot-rolling mills, and similar applications where the potential for fire could cause catastrophic consequences. They are also replacing traditional oil-based HLP fluids in applications where environmental regulations must be observed.


As a result, they have become more prevalent in many applications within offshore energy production as a means of protecting people,


the environment and resources.


HFC fluids are the most common hydrous, fire-resistant hydraulic fluids because they have the best fire resistance and hydraulic properties. They are also used wherever hydraulic fluid escaping under high pressure can ignite on contact with hot materials.


The fire resistant and environmentally friendly qualities of HFC fluids make them ideal for use in offshore installations, offering more time to initiate fire-fighting measures and bring people to safety in the event of an accident.


www.tss.trelleborg.com


TRELLEBORG NJORDGUARD CPS PASSES WET TESTS


Trelleborg’s offshore operation has completed a series of wet tests to verify the capabilities and functionality of its NjordGuard cable protection system for installation and removal on J-tube and monopile interfaces for offshore wind farms.


In addition to passing all the tests, NjordGuard was installed and removed from the test rig without the intervention of a remotely operated vehicle (ROV).


The testing took place at the Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult’s National Renewable Energy Centre, an open access shallow water testing facility located in Blyth, England. The facility has been testing subsea equipment since 2002 and contains an


artificial seabed and two still water test tanks.


Trelleborg was able to perform eight full scale wet tests of NjordGuard covering a range of installation scenarios without having to go offshore.


John Deasey, Renewables Sales Manager at Trelleborg’s offshore operation based in the U.K., states:


Deemed a complete success, the tests definitively prove NjordGuard is capable of installing into both monopile and J-tube openings and can be successfully removed without the need for ROVs.


The test results provided a


greater understanding of potential installation issues our customers might face such as pull-in and pull-out loads. We also gained valuable insights into the dynamics of the system to help further refine and optimize our designs to optimize performance for our customer’s critical applications.


Currently available to the market for both array and export cables, further testing of NjordGuard will be an integral part of developing and enhancing the solution to meet our customer needs and further highlights our commitment to supporting renewable energy projects.


May 2017 | www.sosmagazine.biz | p23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52