Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Tozzi
An Tozzi
Implementation of
EU ATEX Directives and standards
Page 1
October 2015
Introduction
Page 2
October 2015
General Framework
Page 3
October 2015
Area classification
Page 4
October 2015
ZONE 0
ZONE 1
Probability of
explosive
atmosphere
ZONE 2
Probability of explosive
atmosphere
Area classification
Probability of
an ingnition
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Probability of an
ingnition
Page 5
October 2015
Not exactly:
consequences are not
specifically estimated
Area classification
Probability of Occurrence
1
Severity
I O N
R E G -
A B L E
8
7
I N T O L E R -
Page 6
October 2015
Page 7
EN 13463-1
Area classification
October 2015
ZONE NE
Area classification
Page 8
October 2015
21% oxygen
100 kPa
Ambient temperature
Area classification
Page 9
October 2015
Page 10
October 2015
When preparing EN 60079-10 (whose latest revision is 6007910-1) the relevant European committee (IEC-CENELEC) agreed
on leaving to the designer the flexibility to perform his own
specific assessment of the actual situation that he is facing
(plant, installation, equipment etc.) leading to the results of a
fully customized area classification.
Page 11
Examples
October 2015
Once the parameters have been identified, suitable formula will allow the
calculation of the released amount of vapor (passing through liquid
evaporation if applicable) and finally the extent of the hazardous area.
Ventilation
Parameter
Page 12
October 2015
Sonic flow
P>500 Pa
Page 13
October 2015
Page 14
October 2015
Page 15
October 2015
Age of CODESS
Age of designer
EN 60079-10-1
Page 16
Pressure (barg)
5
10
50
5
10
50
October 2015
It shall be noted that, under specific conditions (high pressure), the extent can
also increase compared to the one provided by previous deterministic standards.
Methane
Acetylene
Substance
Page 17
October 2015
Page 18
October 2015
Disadvantages
Flexibility
Higher complexity of the methodology
thus requiring higher skillness and
Fully reflecting and thus stimulating a
increased cost of the study itself
better design
Less conservative and thus avoiding
unjustified costs
In those rare circumstances in which
the extent of the classified areas, it
actually represents potentially
hazardous situations which would
otherwise go unnoticed
Simpler and quicker approach, thus
Less flexibility
requiring lower skillnes, lower costs Not reflecting and thus not stimulating a
and usually shorter time of execution
better design
More conservative and thus potentially
leading to unjustified costs
In some specific contingencies, it might
underestimate the extent of the zones
thus leading to potential hazard
Benefits
EN 60079-10-1
API 500
Page 19
October 2015
Separate worlds:
Hazardous Area Classification and Major Accidents
Prevention (Seveso Directive).
Page 20
October 2015
Page 21
Page 22
October 2015
Future perspective
October 2015
Page 23
Explosion Protection
October 2015
Page 24
Explosion Protection
October 2015
Page 25
Explosion Protection
October 2015
Page 26
The main differences in the two methodologies relies on the fact that
RAMSES perform an estimation (which is sometimes criticized) of the
severity of the consequences on the personnel (light injury, heavy injury,
specific part of the body involved etc.) while the ENI one assumes that
the consequence will always fall in the range of high severity (severe
injuries or more) thus focusing essentially on the likelihood.
Explosion Protection
October 2015
Criticalities:
Explosion Protection
Page 27
October 2015
Hot surfaces
Flames and hot gases (including hot particles)
Mechanically generated sparks
Sparks from electrical apparatus
Stray electric currents, cathodic corrosion protection
Static electricity
Lightning
Radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic waves from 1E04
Hz to 3E11 Hz
Electromagnetic waves from 3E11 Hz a 3E15 Hz
Ionizing radiation
Ultrasonic
Adiabatic compression and shock waves
Exothermic reactions, including self-ignition of dusts
Explosion Protection
Page 28
October 2015
PATEX
(PIGN)
(PEXP)
(PLAV)
Explosion Protection
Page 29
October 2015
Low
Medium
High
Estimated
of PATEX
Page 30
Value
of PATEX
Explosion Protection
October 2015
Low
Reduced
Medium
High
Estimated
of PIGN
Page 31
Value
of PIGN
Probability that ignition sources are present active and effective (PIGN)
Explosion Protection
October 2015
Explosion Protection
Page 32
October 2015
1
1
2
3
1
1
PATEX
PIGN
Explosion Protection
Page 33
October 2015
3
2
High
Medium
Low
1000
100 e < 1000
< 100
Value of
PLAV
Estimate of
PLAV
Presence worker
(hrs/year)
Explosion Protection
Page 34
October 2015
Explosion Protection
Page 35
October 2015
EXAMPLE
BAR
BAR
BAR
Not
Acceptable
Not
Acceptable
Not
Acceptable
ALARP
ALARP
ALARP
PEXP
2
Explosion Protection
PLAV
Page 36
October 2015
Page 37
October 2015
THANK YOU
GRAZIE
Page 38
TESSEREKUR