IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO.
2, MARCH/APRIL 2018
Application of IEC 60079-10-1 Edition 2.0 for
Hazardous Area Classification
Allan Bozek
Abstract—This document provides guidance on the application
of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60079-10-1
Edition 2.0: Explosive Atmospheres—Part 10-1: Classification of
Areas—Explosive Gas Atmospheres. The IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0
document incorporates significant revisions from previous editions
in both technical content and design approach to classifying haz-
ardous locations where flammable gas or vapors may be present.
The design concepts incorporated into the document are intro-
duced with application guidance provided in the context of real-
world examples.
Index Terms—Explosive gas atmospheres, hazardous area classi-
fication, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60079-
10-1.
I. INTRODUCTION
NTERNATIONAL Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
I 60079-10-1 [1] is the core document used within the IEC
system of standards for classifying locations where flammable
gas or vapor hazards may be present. The document supports
the proper selection and installation of equipment using the
“zone” method of hazardous area classification. Edition 2.0 of
IEC 60079-10-1 incorporates significant changes to address the
shortcomings of previous editions and provides several new
evaluation methods for determining the degree and the extent of
a hazardous location.
This paper describes the most significant changes incorpo-
rated into IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 and provides guidance on
how the document may be used to classify a location. Several
examples are presented with a discussion on how the results
compare with American Petroleum Institute (API) and National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommended practices.
II. EVOLUTION OF IEC 60079-10-1
A. History
The IEC is a world organization that publishes international
standards for electrical, electronic, and related technologies. IEC
Manuscript received July 26, 2017; revised October 31, 2017; accepted
November 15, 2017. Date of publication December 18, 2017; date of cur-
rent version March 19, 2018. Paper 2017-PCIC-0351.R1, presented at the 2017
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada,
Sep. 18–20, and approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IN-
DUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of
the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
The author is with EngWorks Inc., Calgary, AB T2T 2T7, Canada (e-mail:
abozek@engworks.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2017.2785258
0093-9994 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1881
, Senior Member, IEEE
standards publications form the basis of recommendations for
international use and uniformity. The standards are developed
on a consensus bases with all member countries interested in
their development given the opportunity to participate. IEC Na-
tional Committees may then elect to use IEC publications within
the context their national and regional standards publications.
The development of IEC 60079-10-1 is the result of the ef-
forts of the Sub-Committee (SC) 31J subcommittee responsible
for the preparation and maintenance of IEC standards relating
to the classification of hazardous areas and their installation
requirements.
Edition 1.0 of IEC 60079-10-1 [2] evolved from IEC 79-10
[3] first published in 1972. The original publication consisted of
13 pages of guidance addressing the classification of locations
where flammable gas/vapor atmosphere may exist. In 2008,
the flammable gas/vapor and combustible dust standards were
amalgamated under the 60079 series of standards. The subse-
quent revision of the IEC 60079-10 standard was renumbered
to IEC 60079-10-1 Ed.1.0 to address the classification of loca-
tions where flammable gas/vapor hazards may exist. The former
IEC 61241-10 standard was renumbered to IEC 60079-10-2 to
address combustible dust hazards.
The IEC 60079-10-1 document is considered an objective-
based standard meaning that the requirements and objectives
that are important to health, safety, and the technical integrity
of a design are addressed. Every requirement is related to at
least one of the standards stated objectives. The standard will
state why an objective is important and it may provide guidance
on how to achieve an objective, but how a solution is imple-
mented is left up to the user. For this reason, the IEC standards
for hazardous area classification do not incorporate application
diagrams to define a hazardous location. This is in contrast to
such publications as API Recommended Practice (RP) 505 [4],
NFPA 497 [5], and EI15 [6] where “classification by example”
diagrams are often used to designate the degree and extent of a
hazardous location.
There was general industry consensus that the edition 1.0 of
IEC-60079-10-1 required a revision to address several short-
comings. While the body of the document addressed the objec-
tives required of a hazardous area classification, the guidance
provided in the supporting annexes did not always result in
an acceptable solution. This prompted the development of a
new approach supported by scientific research and experimen-
tal data. The calculation methods incorporated into Edition 2.0
of IEC 60079-10-1 provide an improved method of assessment
that better reflects real world applications.
1882 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2018

III. TECHNICAL REVISIONS INCORPORATED INTO IEC

60079-10-1 ED. 2.0
The technical changes incorporated into IEC 60079-10-1 Ed.
2.0 with respect previous editions include the following.

A. Recognition of Alternative Area Classification Standards

and Recommended Practices
IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 recognizes the use of other standards
and recommended practices where they provide guidance or ex-
amples appropriate to the application and comply with general
Fig. 1. High velocity jet release.
principles of the IEC standard. Historically, the IEC standard has
relied on “source of release” evaluation methodologies where
release scenarios were modeled using calculations to assess a
situation and determine an appropriate classification. The stan-
dard now recognizes the use of “simplified methods” where the
zone classification and extent are determined using typical di-
agrams sourced from a variety of publications including API
RP 505, NFPA 497, and EI15. IEC 60079-10-1 cautions Users
that where a standard is selected as a preferred base for a site
or application, examples from another standard should not be
selected to achieve a less rigorous classification without due
justification. An extensive list of industry codes and national
standards for hazardous area classification are included for ref-
erence in Annex K of the document. Where such industry codes
or national standards are used, they shall be quoted as the basis Fig. 2. High pressure gas/vapor jet release hazardous area shape.
for classification and not IEC 60079-10-1.
The IEC standard also describes a “combination of methods”
approach where “simplified methods” are used to classify facili-
ties in the early stages of a design and then later optimized using
“source of release” methods when detailed process information
becomes available as the project evolves. The “source of re-
lease” methodology is described in detail in a series of schematic
flowcharts incorporated into Annex F of the document.
The standard now recognizes the value of prior experience
when classifying facilities. Clause 5.5.4 from NFPA 497 was
paraphrased within the standard allowing for the evaluation of
same or similar installations to be used as a basis for classi-
fying new facilities. It also implies that existing facilities may Fig. 3. Low pressure gas/vapor release hazardous area shape.
be reclassified based on operating experience. This allows for
experience and documented evidence to be incorporated into a of the hazardous area would likely be as illustrated in Fig. 3.
hazardous area classification design with proper justification. In contrast, a liquid hydrocarbon release would likely form a
pool near the vicinity of the release. The extent of the hazardous
B. Forms of Release area and its shape will be influenced by vapor pressure of the
flammable fluid as it evaporates under ambient conditions. The
IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 incorporates a detailed discussion of
shape of the hazardous area would be as illustrated in Fig 4.
material properties as they apply to a potential source of release
The standard also provides recommended hazardous area
and how it influences a hazardous area classification design. The
shapes for liquefied flammable gas release scenarios and
characteristics of a gaseous release, a gas liquefied by pressure,
discusses how aerosol and hybrid mixtures incorporating
or by temperature, or a liquid pool release are discussed in the
flammable gas and combustible dusts may be handled.
context of release behavior and their influence on the shape of
hazardous area. For example, a high pressure gaseous release
C. Source of Release Calculation Methods
may be self-diluting under certain conditions with the shape of
the hazardous area influenced primarily by the release velocity, Annex B of IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 provides calculation
as illustrated in Fig. 1. The suggested shape of the hazardous methods for evaluating a source of release based on its form of
area under such conditions would be as illustrated in Fig. 2. A release.
low pressure gas release in contrast will be influenced more by 1) Release rates of gas or vapors: The standard provides a
material vapor density and atmospheric conditions. The shape method for determining the release rate of low pressure
BOZEK: APPLICATION OF IEC 60079-10-1 EDITION 2.0 FOR HAZARDOUS AREA CLASSIFICATION
Fig. 4. Flammable liquid pool release hazardous area shape.
subsonic releases and high pressure sonic releases. The
calculation methods for gas releases are very similar to
the methods described in 60079-10-1 Ed. 1.0 with the
addition of a coefficient of discharge factor added to the
equations which serves to model the viscosity properties
of a liquid or gas with respect to a release opening. The
standard provides some guidance on selecting an appropri-
ate coefficient of discharge factor if no other information
is available to the User.
The standard also incorporates a new table in Annex
B that recommends suitable hole cross-sectional diam-
eters for secondary grades of release. Previous editions
of the standard omitted this information and it was left
up to the user to determine an appropriate hole size for
a given situation. The hole size had a large influence on
the calculation resulting in a wide variation of potential
solutions. The new table provides consistency in model-
ing similar situations which should help to achieve more
uniform design solutions.
2) Release rate of liquids: The formula from 60079-10-1
Ed. 1.0 with the addition of coefficient of discharge factor
(Cd) has been incorporated into the standard. The intent
is to use the liquids release calculation to determine an
appropriate pool size for determining the release rate of
an evaporative pools.
3) Release rates of evaporative pools: A new calculation
model for evaluating the evaporation rate of a pool release
is provided. This is a very common scenario in many
facilities handling flammable liquids where a release sce-
nario usually results in a pool formation adjacent the leak
source. The standard also provides a diagram to assist
in determining the volumetric evaporation rate of a pool
release.
D. Determining the Zone Classification of a Location
Annex D of the standard provides a structured method for
selecting the appropriate zone classification for both indoor and
open air locations based on the “grade of release,” “availabil-
ity” of ventilation, and the “effectiveness” of ventilation within
an area. Using these parameters, Table D.1 (see Fig. 5) of the
standard then suggests an appropriate zone classification for
the location. It should be cautioned that the zone classifica-
tion suggested by the table should be evaluated against the
1883
Fig. 5. IEC 60079-10-1 Ed 2.0 Table D.1—Zones for grade of release and
effectiveness of ventilation.
formal definitions for a zone classification. For example, the
standard defines a zone 2 location as one where a flammable gas
atmosphere is “not likely to occur” and if it does, “exists for
a short time only.” If the “short time only” criteria cannot be
achieved, which may the case in remote unattended or unmon-
itored facilities; the assignment of the zone classification may
warrant further evaluation.
E. Introducing the Concept of Dilution for Ventilation
Assessment
Previous editions of IEC 60079-10 evaluated enclosed loca-
tions based on the hypothetical volume Vz .Vz was defined as a
volume in which a gas/vapor concentration was equal to a cer-
tain lower flammable limit (LFL) safety threshold depending on
the intended zone classification. A Zone 2 classification incor-
porated a 50% LFL (2X safety factor) safety threshold. A Zone 0
or 1 location incorporated a 25% LFL (4X safety factor) thresh-
old. The Vz calculation was used to differentiate between “high,”
“medium,” and “low” ventilation in enclosed spaces which sub-
sequently influenced the zone classification for the area.
The use of Vz as a basis for determining a zone classifica-
tion was controversial as there was no scientific basis for the
formulae. The calculation of Vz often resulted in very large
volumes up to three orders of magnitude greater than what was
observed through computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling
and real-world experimental testing [7], [8], [9]. There was gen-
eral consensus among users that a new scientifically validated
approach was needed to better reflect reality.
IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 replaces Vz with the concept of di-
lution. Dilution is a measure of the ability of ventilation or
atmospheric conditions to dilute a release to a safe level. It is
influenced by the release rate of the flammable material and ven-
tilation velocity. Ventilation velocity is a measure of turbulence
which is necessary to dilute a gas or vapor release. Air move-
ment is required to promote a turbulent boundary layer between
the release source and surrounding atmosphere. This allows air
to mix with the release reducing the LFL of the gas/air mixture
and transporting it away. Ventilation turbulence may be caused
by momentum of the gas/vapor leak itself, by buoyancy of the
release in air or by wind flow interacting with the release.
1884
Fig. 6. IEC 60079-10-1 Ed 2.0 Table C.1—Indicative outdoor ventilation
velocities.
Fig. 7. IEC 60079-10-1 Ed 2.0 Figure C.1—Chart for assessing the degree of
dilution.
For indoor situations, ventilation velocity is calculated by
determining the volumetric flow of the ventilation system ac-
counting for any release sources and dividing the value by the
cross-sectional area perpendicular to the flow. This results in an
average flow velocity (Uw ) that can be used for assessing the
ability of a ventilation system to control a release.
To perform an assessment, the “ventilation velocity” is de-
termined by the design of the ventilation system or by outdoor
atmospheric conditions and plotted against the “release charac-
teristic” which describes the flammable source of release in the
context of the size and rate of release. The standard provides a
method for determining the ventilation velocity of open areas
using Fig. 6. The release characteristic of a source of release
may be calculated using the following formula:
Wg  3 
m /s (1)
(ρg × k × LFL)
where
Wg mass release rate of flammable substance (kg/s);
ρg density of gas or vapour (kg/m3 );
k safety factor attributed to LFL;
LFL lower flammable limit (vol/vol).
The degree of dilution may then be determined using Fig. 7.
“High dilution” refers to situations where the concentration near
the source of release can be quickly reduced and there will be
no persistence after the release is stopped. Under the appropri-
ate conditions, this will permit an “NE” negligible extent that
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2018
may be used as a basis to designate an area “nonhazardous.”
“Medium dilution” applies to situations where the concentra-
tion of the release is controlled resulting in a stable boundary
when the release is in progress and the explosive gas atmo-
sphere does not persist after the release has stopped. For most
secondary grade source release applications, a medium dilution
environment will lead to a Zone 2 classification. “Low dilution”
applies to situations where there is a significant concentration
while the release is in progress and the flammable atmosphere
will persists after the release is stopped. A low dilution environ-
ment typically leads to a Zone 1 or even Zone 0 classification
based on Table D.1 (see Fig. 5).
For enclosed areas, both the ventilation velocity and the back-
ground concentration of flammables entrained in the air must
be assessed. Dilution in an enclosed area may result from the
exchange of fresh air from outside the enclosure or by the en-
closure itself having sufficient volume to allow the release to
disperse. This makes it possible for large enclosed areas to have
minimal interior/exterior air exchange rates while still maintain-
ing sufficient ventilation effectiveness to disperse a release.
To assess the background concentration of an enclosed lo-
cation, the flow rate from the flammable release source must
be compared to the fresh air introduction rate accounting for
mixing inefficiencies. The standard incorporates a calculation
formula to estimate the background concentration as follows:
f × Qg
Xb = (vol/vol) (2)
Qg + Q1
where
Xb background concentration (vol/vol);
Qg volumetric flow of flammable gas from the source of
release (m3 /s);
Q1 volumetric flow rate of air entering the room through
apertures (m3 /s);
f degree to which the air inside the enclosure is well
mixed f = 1 where the background concentration is
uniform throughout the enclosure f > 1 where
inefficient mixing inside the enclosure results in
gradients of background concentration.
The criteria for assessment is Xb << Xcrit where Xcrit is
the maximum acceptable gas concentration determined by the
user. Xcrit would normally be the LFL alarm setpoint for gas
detectors in the area.
For artificially ventilated enclosures, the ventilation velocity
used for evaluation is the average flow velocity caused by the
ventilation system accounting for any inefficiencies or flow ob-
structions. For naturally ventilated enclosures, the ventilation
velocity will be a function of the thermal stack effect, wind ef-
fects on the enclosure, and the combination effects of both. The
concept of dilution and background concentration is further de-
veloped in the context of several application scenarios in Annex
C of the standard.
F. Estimating the Extent of a Hazardous Zone
Annex D of IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 incorporates a struc-
tured method for determining the extent of a hazardous zone in
outdoor locations. This is a welcome addition to the standard
BOZEK: APPLICATION OF IEC 60079-10-1 EDITION 2.0 FOR HAZARDOUS AREA CLASSIFICATION
Fig. 8. IEC 60079-10-1 Ed 2.0 Figure D.1—Chart for estimating hazardous
area distances.
as previous editions did not provide a means of assessing ap-
propriate extents. The hazardous distances suggested are based
on release characteristic formulae (1) discussed earlier. Fig. 8
provides a graphical means of determining an appropriate ex-
tent based on the type of release expected. Release behavior is
characterized as a heavy gas release, typical of a liquid pool re-
lease, a diffusive release resulting from a low velocity gas/vapor
release, or a jet release characteristic resulting from a high ve-
locity gas release. As always, the distances calculated must be
evaluated using engineering judgment and an appropriate safety
factor applied to account for facility layout and site conditions.
The method described is for open air situations and does not
apply to indoor low dilution applications.
G. Documentation
IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2 recommends all area classification de-
signs be fully documented. This is important in capturing the
rationale used to classify a facility and to maintaining the in-
tegrity of the design over the life of the facility. Information to be
incorporated into a documented design includes the following.
1) Sources of information used (code, national standard, or
calculation).
2) Gas or vapor dispersion calculations.
3) Study of ventilation characteristics with consideration
given to position of openings in buildings for ventilation.
4) Properties of flammable materials.
5) Identification and location of sources of release.
Area classification design documentation should also include
plans, elevations, or three-dimensional models that indicate the
type and extent of zones as well as the appropriate group clas-
sification, ignition temperature, and/or temperature class. The
standard also discusses the option to indicate equipment pro-
tection levels on drawings to assist with the selection of equip-
ment in hazardous locations. The standard provides examples
of data sheets that may be used for documenting flammable ma-
terial substances, sources of release, and hatching symbols for
designating hazardous locations on drawings.
1885
H. Examples
Annex E of the standard provides several examples illustrat-
ing the use of concepts described. They are not intended to be
used as a basis for design but to illustrate the means of as-
sessment, as described in the annex sections of the standard.
Examples include the following.
1) Pump application in open air.
2) Pump application within an enclosed location.
3) Process vessel in open air.
4) Control valve in a congested location.
5) Process piping in an enclosed location.
6) Compressor facility handing natural gas.
The compressor facility example is fully documented to illus-
trate the level of documentation expected for a given application.
It should be noted that the examples are intended to show ap-
plication of the evaluation methods and are not intended to be
used as representative examples for classification purposes.
IV. APPLICATION OF IEC 60079-10-1 ED. 2.0
IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 is intended to be used by competent
personnel who are well versed in the properties of flammable
materials (chemistry knowledge), able to identify potential
release sources (process and mechanical knowledge), assess
ventilation requirements (mechanical knowledge) as well as un-
derstand the implications of a classification design as it applies
to the selection of electrical equipment (electrical knowledge).
The standard encourages the use of a multidisciplinary team
who possess competency in each of these areas to participate in
the design process.
The methodologies described in the Annex sections of IEC
60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 require detailed process information to per-
form an assessment. Often, this information is not available in
the early stages of a project when preliminary area classification
design information is needed for long lead item purchases. This
is where the use of other recognized documents such as API RP
505, NFPA 497, and EI15 may have value. The documents pro-
vide conservative classification by example diagrams that may
be used to determine the degree and extent of a classification
based on preliminary process information. The properties of the
flammable materials handled must be considered to ensure the
diagram used is appropriate for the application.
As additional process information becomes available, the haz-
ardous area classification may be optimized using the calculation
methods described in the Annex sections of IEC 60079-10-1 Ed.
2.0. This provides the opportunity for the hazardous area clas-
sification design to be optimized to reflect the true nature of the
hazard.
A. Natural Gas Release
A hazardous area classification is required for a pressure ves-
sel located in an outdoor location in an upstream gas processing
facility. The vessel handles natural gas at a pressure of 4500 kPA.
Fig. 48 of API RP 505 recommends a Zone 2 classification
extent of 3 m, as illustrated in Fig. 9.
1886 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2018
Fig. 9. API RP 505 Figure 48.
To assess this situation using the methods incorporated into
the annex sections of IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 requires several
steps as follows.
1) Calculation of the release rate: The first step is to model a
typical release scenario. This would be done by applying
the appropriate formulae provided in Annex B of the stan-
dard. For this particular example, a choked gas velocity
(sonic gas) release scenario using the following formulae
would be applicable:
 application results in a medium dilution situation.
 (γ +1)/(γ −1)
M 2
Wg = Cd S p y (kg/s).
Z RT γ +1
(3)
Table B.1 from the standard recommends a hole cross-
sectional area of 0.25 mm2 be applied. Additional process
information required to complete the calculation includes the
following.
1) Operating pressure: P = 4500 kPA.
2) Process temperature: T = 25 ◦ C = 303.15 K.
3) Mole weight of natural gas: 19 kg/kmole.
4) Specific heat at constant pressure: Cρ = 2.22 (kJ/kg K).
5) Polytropic index of expansion : γ = 1.32.
6) Compressibility factor : Z = 1.0.
7) Coefficient of discharge; Cd = 0.75.
8) Atmospheric pressure; pa = 101 kPA.
9) Universal gas constant; R = 8314.
10) Gas density, ρg = 0.764 kg/m3 .
Fig. 10. Degree of dilution.
Using the process information provided, the calculated re-
lease rate would be 1.6 × 10−3 kg/s.
1) Zone classification: To determine the appropriate zone
classification, the ventilation velocity and the release char-
acteristic must be determined. The ventilation velocity can
be determined from Table C.1 of IEC 60079-10-1 (see
Fig. 6). For a lighter than air release in an unobstructed
area, a ventilation velocity of 0.5 m/s at grade would be
appropriate.
The release characteristic would then be determined using
formula (1). This requires the LFL of natural gas be determined
as well as an appropriate safety factor applied based on the
LFL. Given that the LFL of natural gas (methane) is relatively
high at 5%, a k = 1.0 safety factor would be appropriate. In
other situations where the LFL is less than 5%, a k safety factor
of between 0.5 and 1.0 would be applied. Based on the infor-
mation provided, the characteristic of release would be 0.042.
Applying the results of the release characteristic calculation to
the expected ventilation velocity, as illustrated in Fig. 10, the
The zone classification for the application may then be de-
termined from Table D.1 from IEC 60079-10-1 based on a sec-
ondary grade of release, good availability of ventilation (typical
of most outdoor locations), and medium degree of dilution.
Fig. 11 indicates a Zone 2 classification would be appropriate.
Typically, most secondary release applications in open areas
result in a Zone 2 classification unless there are significant im-
pediments to the flow of natural ventilation in the area.
Once the appropriate zone classification has been defined,
the extent of the Zone 2 classification may then be determined.
Given that the release is sonic, a jet release would be most likely
warrant a 1-m Zone 2 classification, as illustrated in Fig. 12.
The results of the IEC source of release calculation would
indicate that a 1-m Zone 2 classification surrounding the vessel
flange connections would be appropriate for the application.
This compares to a 3-m classification extent recommended by
API RP 505.
BOZEK: APPLICATION OF IEC 60079-10-1 EDITION 2.0 FOR HAZARDOUS AREA CLASSIFICATION
Fig. 11. Zone classification.
Fig. 12. Extent of zone classification—gas release.
The difference can be attributed to the nature of the release.
The behavior of a natural gas jet release is such that the momen-
tum of the gas release will mix turbulently with the surrounding
air, as illustrated in Fig. 1. This would limit the extent of the
hazardous radii to a fairly short distance. From an applications
perspective, electrical and instrumentation equipment mounted
on the vessel would need to be certified for a Zone 2 hazardous
location. Electrical and instrumentation equipment on process
equipment adjacent the vessel may not require a hazardous lo-
cation certification if they do not handle flammable materials
and are outside of the 1-m Zone 2 classification.
B. Natural Gas Release in an Enclosed Location
The same natural gas release scenario is evaluated for a 6 m
long × 4 m wide × 3.5 m high enclosed location, as illustrated
in Fig. 13. The location is mechanically ventilated at 0.09 m3 /s
(200 CFM). What would be an appropriate zone classification
for the enclosed area?
API addresses such situations based on the presence of “ad-
equately ventilation” which is defined as “Ventilation (natural
or artificial) that is sufficient to prevent the accumulation of
1887
Fig. 13. Mechanically ventilated building handing natural gas.
significant quantities of vapor-air or gas-air mixtures in con-
centrations above 25% of the LFL.” API also recognizes that
locations ventilated at 6 air changes per hour may be designated
“adequately ventilated.” The ventilation fan provides approx-
imately 4 ACPH of ventilation which is below the 6 ACPH
default API adequate ventilation criteria. To determine if the
building is adequately ventilated in accordance with API rec-
ommendations, a fugitive emission calculation as described in
Appendix B of API RP 505 would be required.
The IEC standard evaluates the zone classification based on
Fig. 5 by evaluating the grade of release, the availability of ven-
tilation, and the effectiveness of the ventilation system. Given
that the application incorporates a secondary grade of release,
the zone classification will be determined by the availability and
the effectiveness of the ventilation system.
The availability of the ventilation system is categorized using
the following criteria from the standard.
Good: Ventilation that is present continuously. Artificially
ventilated locations with power systems redundancy would meet
these criteria.
Fair: Ventilation that is expected to be present during normal
operation with discontinuities occurring infrequently and for
short periods.
Poor: Ventilation that does not meet the standard of fair or
good, but discontinuities are not expected to occur for long
periods.
The application was assessed to meet the criteria of “fair”
ventilation.
The effectiveness of the ventilation system requires evaluation
of the “degree of dilution” and determination of the expected
background concentration for the application. The assessment
of the degree of dilution is based on Fig. 7. The ventilation flow
velocity may be calculated based on the volumetric flow of the
gas/air mixture divided by the cross-sectional area perpendicular
to the flow using the following formula:
Qa
Uw = (m/s) (4)
L×H
where
Uw ventilation velocity (m/s);
Qa air flow rate (m3 /s);
L length of the enclosed area (m);
H height of the enclosed area (m).
The calculated ventilation velocity was determined to be
0.004 m/s. Applying the characteristic of release and the
ventilation velocity information to Figure C.1 from the IEC
1888 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 54, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2018
Fig. 14. Enclosed location degree of dilution.
Fig. 15. Zone classification for enclosed building.
standard results in a medium degree of dilution, as illustrated in
Fig. 14.
Applying the information derived from the calculations to
Fig. 15 suggests a Zone 2 classification for the building. This,
however, requires that the background concentration be checked
using formulae (3). To do so, a suitable value of f is required
which is a safety factor applied to account the degree of ineffi-
ciency of air mixing due to equipment congestion and variable
air flow patterns. Since the building layout is relatively open,
an f factor of 2 was selected. The background concentration
Xb was then determined to be 4.5% LFL which is much less
than the Xcrit value defined as the 20% LFL gas detection alarm
setpoint. Based on this result, a Zone 2 classification would be
appropriate for the application, as illustrated in Fig. 15.
C. Pentane Fluid Release
A pump in a refinery process handles pentane at 3000 kPA
at an operating temperature of 20 °C. A typical leak scenario
for the application would consist of a small amount of leakage
from the pump seal under normal operating conditions. The
pump is surrounded by a 2 m × 3 m fluid containment dyke
designed to contain any leakage. The standard API diagram used
Fig. 16. API RP 505 Figure 20.
Fig. 17. Volumetric evaporation rate estimate.
to classify refinery sources of release is illustrated in Fig. 16.
Given that pentane has a vapor density of 2.5 as compared to
air, the application requires a transient vapor zone. A Zone 2
classification extending 15 m in addition to a 15 m transient
vapor zone would apply.
Assessing this situation, using the IEC source of release cal-
culation method requires examining the nature of a hypothetical
release under normal conditions. A pentane release from a pump
seal would likely result in some flammable material flashing to
atmosphere with the bulk of the release collecting in a pool for-
mation within the containment dyke. The pentane fluid within
the dyke would then flash to atmosphere at a rate determined
by the ambient air temperature and the vapor pressure of the
pentane fluid.
The release rate from an evaporative pool may be determined
by calculation or by Figure B.2 of IEC 60079-10-1, as illustrated
in Fig. 17. The values obtained from the figure are based on the
assumption that the liquid temperature of the fluid is equal to
the ambient temperature with a wind speed of 0.5 m/s. Pentane
has a vapor pressure of 57 kPA at 20 °C and a mole weight of
72 kg/kmole. Referencing the chart, the volumetric evaporation
rate would be approximately 0.5 − 10−3 m3 /s for a pool surface
area of 1.0 m2 . Given that the dimension of the containment
dyke in the application is 6.0 m2 the value obtained from the
BOZEK: APPLICATION OF IEC 60079-10-1 EDITION 2.0 FOR HAZARDOUS AREA CLASSIFICATION
Fig. 18. Outdoor ventilation velocity for a pentane pool release at ground
level.
Fig. 19. Extent of zone classification—pentane release.
chart must be multiplied by the actual surface area yielding an
estimated volumetric evaporation rate of 3.0 × 10−3 m3 /s.
Calculating the release characteristic using formula (1) yields
a value of 0.4 based on a k safety factor of 0.5 (Pentane has a
LFL of 1.5%) and a wind speed of 0.25 m/s sourced from
Table C.1 (see Fig. 18) for a heavier than air release in an
unobstructed area at ground level. Using Figure D.1 from the
standard (see Fig. 19) for a heavy gas release yields a hazardous
location extent of approximately 6 m. This is in contrast the to
the 30 m extent recommended by API.
The extents determined by the IEC calculations are a starting
point and should be viewed with engineering judgment. Other
factors such as below grade locations within the classified area
and other natural obstacles may also influence the extent of the
classification.
V. CONCLUSION
The IEC 60079-10-1 Edition 2.0 standard is a significant up-
date to previous editions. It addresses many of the shortcomings
of previous editions and the rationale and design approaches are
based on scientific analysis supported by testing and verification.
The new document acknowledges the use of alternative publi-
cations including API RP 505, NFPA 497, and EI 15 to classify
1889
locations and recognizes the value in observing the behavior of
existing facilities when classifying new or reclassifying existing
facilities.
The classification methods described in the annexes of IEC
60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 standard require a high level of competency
to perform a hazardous area classification. The calculations re-
quire detailed process information to perform an analysis which
may not available in the early stages of a project. While employ-
ing the methods described will help to achieve an optimized de-
sign, the results should always be applied with good engineering
judgment taking into account the nature of the flammable re-
lease, the working environment and the potential consequences
of an ignition event.
REFERENCES
[1] Explosive Atmospheres – Part 10-1: Classification of Areas – Explo-
sive Gas Atmospheres, International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC
60079-10-1/Ed:2, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
[2] Explosive Atmospheres – Part 10-1: Classification of Areas – Explo-
sive Gas Atmospheres, International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC
60079-10-1/Ed:1, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
[3] Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres – Part 10 Classifica-
tion of Hazardous Areas, International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC
79-10, Geneva, Switzerland, 1972.
[4] Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical In-
stallations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone
1, and Zone 2, American Petroleum Institute, ANSI/API RP 505,
Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
[5] Model Code of Safe Practice Part 15: Area Classification Code for
Installations Handling Flammable Fluids. London, U.K.: Energy Inst.,
2015.
[6] ANSI/NFPA 497, Recommended Practice for the Classification of
Flammable Liquids, Gases, or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified) Lo-
cations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, National
Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA, 2012.
[7] D. M. Webber, M. J. Ivings, and R. C. Santon, “Ventilation theory and
dispersion modelling applied to hazardous area classification,” J. Loss
Prevention Process Ind., vol. 24, pp. 612–621, Sep. 2011.
[8] “Area classification for secondary releases from low pressure natural gas
systems,” Health and Safety Executive, Liverpool, U.K., HSL Res. Rep.
RR630, 2008.
[9] P. Persic, Hypothetical Volume of Potentially Explosive Atmosphere in
the Context of IEC Standard 60079-10-1, IEC Standard 60079-10-1, 2012.
[10] E. Rangel Jr., A. M. Luiz, and H. L. de P. M. Filho Jr., “Area classifica-
tion is not a copy-and-paste process: Performing reliable hazardous area
classification studies,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 28–39,
Jan./Feb. 2016.
[11] A. J. Bozek, “Application of IEC 60079-10-1 edition 2.0 For hazardous
area classification,” in Proc. IEEE Petroleum Chem. Ind. Tech. Conf., 2017,
pp. 451–460.
Allan Bozek (SM’14) received the B.Sc. degree
in systems design engineering from the University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, in 1986, and
the MBA degree from the University of Calgary,
Calgary, AB, Canada, in 1999.
He is currently a Principal with EngWorks Inc.,
Calgary, providing hazardous location consulting ser-
vices to industry. His research interests include haz-
ardous area classification design, application of haz-
ardous location codes and standards to facilities, and
the design and certification of equipment in hazardous
locations.
Mr. Bozek is a registered Professional Engineer in the provinces of Alberta,
Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, Canada.