Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Application of IEC 60079-10-1 Edition 2.0 For Hazardous Area Classification
Application of IEC 60079-10-1 Edition 2.0 For Hazardous Area Classification
Application of IEC 60079-10-1 Edition 2.0 For Hazardous Area Classification
net/publication/321930442
CITATIONS READS
6 23,400
1 author:
Allan Bozek
EngWorks
11 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Allan Bozek on 14 September 2020.
1
III. TECHNICAL REVISIONS INCORPORATED in Fig. 2. A low pressure gas release in contrast will be
INTO IEC 60079-10-1 ED. 2.0 influenced more by material vapour density and atmospheric
conditions. The shape of the hazardous area would likely be
The technical changes incorporated into IEC 60079-10-1 as illustrated in Fig. 3. In contrast, a liquid hydrocarbon
Ed. 2.0 with respect previous editions include: release would likely form a pool near the vicinity of the
release. The extent of the hazardous area and its shape will
A. Recognition of Alternative Area Classification Standards be influenced by vapour pressure of the flammable fluid as it
and Recommended Practices evaporates under ambient conditions. The shape of the
hazardous area would be as illustrated in Fig 4.
IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 recognizes the use of other The standard also provides recommended hazardous area
standards and recommended practices where they provide shapes for liquefied flammable gas release scenarios and
guidance or examples appropriate to the application and discusses how aerosol and hybrid mixtures incorporating
comply with general principles of the IEC standard. flammable gas and combustible dusts may be handled.
Historically, the IEC standard has relied on “source of
release” evaluation methodologies where release scenarios
were modelled using calculations to assess a situation and
determine an appropriate classification. The standard now
recognizes the use of “simplified methods” where the zone
classification and extent are determined using typical
diagrams 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 reference in Annex K of the Fig. 1 High Velocity Jet Release
document. Where such industry codes or national standards
are used, they shall be quoted as the basis 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 facilities 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 release” 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
classifying new facilities. It also implies that existing facilities Fig. 2 High Pressure Gas/Vapour Jet Release Hazardous
may be reclassified based on operating experience. This Area Shape
allows for experience and documented evidence to be
incorporated into a hazardous area classification design with
proper justification.
B. Forms of Release
2
D.1 (Fig. 5) of the standard then suggests an appropriate
zone classification for the location. It should be cautioned that
the zone classification suggested by the table should be
evaluated against the 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 unmonitored facilities; the
assignment of the zone classification may warrant further
evaluation.
3
the LFL of the gas/air mixture and transporting it away. stopped. A low dilution environment typically leads to a Zone
Ventilation turbulence may be caused by momentum of the 1 or even Zone 0 classification based on Table D.1 (Fig. 5).
gas/vapour leak itself, by buoyancy of the release in air or by
wind flow interacting with the release.
For indoor situations, ventilation velocity is calculated by
determining the volumetric flow of the ventilation system
accounting 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
determined by the design of the ventilation system or by
outdoor atmospheric conditions and plotted against the
“release characteristic” 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:
Fig. 7 IEC 60079-10-1 Ed 2.0 Figure C.1 – Chart for
Wg (m3/sec) (1) Assessing the Degree of Dilution
(ρg x k x LFL)
where For enclosed areas, both the ventilation velocity and the
background concentration of flammables entrained in the air
Wg mass release rate of flammable must be assessed. Dilution in an enclosed area may result
substance (kg/s) from the exchange of fresh air from outside the enclosure or
ρg Density of gas or vapour (kg/m3) by the enclosure itself having sufficient volume to allow the
k Safety factor attributed to LFL release to disperse. This makes it possible for large
LFL Lower flammable limit (vol/vol) enclosed areas to have minimal interior/exterior air exchange
rates while still maintaining sufficient ventilation effectiveness
to disperse a release.
To assess the background concentration of an enclosed
location, 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 x Qg (vol/vol) (2)
Xb = Qg + Q1
where
Fig. 6 IEC 60079-10-1 Ed 2.0 Table C.1 – Indicative
Xb Background concentration (vol/vol)
Outdoor Ventilation Velocities
Qg Volumetric flow of flammable gas from
the source of release (m3/sec)
The degree of dilution may then be determined using Fig.
Q1 Volumetric flow rate of air entering the
7. “High dilution” refers to situations where the
room through aperatures (m3/sec)
concentration near the source of release can be quickly
f Degree to which the air inside the
reduced and there will be no persistence after the release is
enclosure is well mixed
stopped. Under the appropriate conditions, this will permit a
f = 1 where the background
“NE” negligible extent that may be used as a basis to
concentration is uniform thoughout the
designate an area “non-hazardous”. “Medium dilution”
enclosure
applies to situations where the concentration of the release is
f ˃ 1 where inefficient mixing inside the
controlled resulting in a stable boundary when the release is
enclosure results in gradients of
in progress and the explosive gas atmosphere does not
background concentration
persist after the release has stopped. For most secondary
grade source release applications, a medium dilution
The criteria for assessment is Xb << Xcrit where Xcrit is the
environment will lead to a Zone 2 classification. “Low
maximum acceptable gas concentration determined by the
dilution” applies to situations where there is a significant
user. Xcrit would normally be the LFL alarm setpoint for gas
concentration while the release is in progress and the
detectors in the area.
flammable atmosphere will persists after the release is
4
For artificially ventilated enclosures, the ventilation properties of flammable materials
velocity used for evaluation is the average flow velocity identification and location of sources of release
caused by the ventilation system accounting for any Area classification design documentation should also
inefficiencies or flow obstructions. For naturally ventilated include plans, elevations or three dimensional models that
enclosures, the ventilation velocity will be a function of the indicate the type and extent of zones as well as the
thermal stack effect, wind effects on the enclosure and the appropriate group classification, ignition temperature and/or
combination effects of both. The concept of dilution and temperature class. The standard also discusses the option to
background concentration is further developed in the context indicate equipment protection levels (EPLs) on drawings to
of several application scenarios in Annex C of the standard. assist with the selection of equipment in hazardous locations.
The standard provides examples of data sheets that may be
F. Estimating the Extent of a Hazardous Zone used for documenting flammable material substances,
Annex D of IEC 60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0 incorporates a sources of release and hatching symbols for designating
structured method for determining the extent of a hazardous hazardous locations on drawings.
zone in outdoor locations. This is a welcome addition to the
standard as previous editions did not provide a means of H. Examples
assessing appropriate extents. The hazardous distances
suggested are based on release characteristic formulae (1) Annex E of the standard provides several examples
discussed earlier. Fig. 8 provides a graphical means of illustrating the use of concepts described. They are not
determining an appropriate extent based on the type of intended to be used as a basis for design but to illustrate the
release expected. Release behavior is characterized as a means of assessment as described in the annex sections of
heavy gas release, typical of a liquid pool release, a diffusive the standard. Examples include:
release resulting from a low velocity gas/vapour release or a pump application in open air
jet release characteristic resulting from a high velocity gas pump application within an enclosed location
release. As always, the distances calculated must be process vessel in open air
evaluated using engineering judgement and an appropriate control valve in a congested location
safety factor applied to account for facility layout and site process piping in an enclosed location
conditions. The method described is for open air situations
compressor facility handing natural gas
and does not apply to indoor low dilution applications.
The compressor facility example is fully documented to
illustrate the level of documentation expected for a given
application. It should be noted that the examples are
intended to show application of the evaluation methods and
are not intended to be used as representative examples for
classification purposes.
5
60079-10-1 Ed. 2.0. This provides the opportunity for the 2) Zone Classification: To determine the appropriate
hazardous area classification design to be optimized to reflect zone classification, the ventilation velocity and the release
the true nature of the hazard. characteristic must be determined. The ventilation velocity
can be determined from Table C.1 of IEC 60079-10-1 (Fig.
A. Natural Gas Release 6). For a lighter than air release in an unobstructed area, a
A hazardous area classification is required for a pressure ventilation velocity of 0.5 m/s at grade would be appropriate.
vessel located in an outdoor location in an upstream gas The release characteristic would then be determined
processing facility. The vessel handles natural gas at a using formula (1). This requires the LFL of natural gas be
pressure of 4500 kPA. Fig. 48 of API RP 505 recommends a determined as well as an appropriate safety factor applied
Zone 2 classification extent of 3 meters as illustrated in Fig. based on the LFL. Given that the LFL of natural gas
9. (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 information 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 application
results in a medium dilution situation.
0.5m/s
6
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
location certification if they do not handle flammable materials
and are outside of the 1 meter Zone 2 classification.
Fig. 13 Mechanically Ventilated Building handing Natural
Gas
7
The calculated ventilation velocity was determined to be for the application would consist of a small amount of leakage
0.004 m/sec. Applying the characteristic of release and the from the pump seal under normal operating conditions. The
ventilation velocity information to Figure C.1 from the IEC pump is surrounded by a 2m x 3m fluid containment dyke
standard results in a medium degree of dilution as illustrated designed to contain any leakage. The standard API diagram
in Fig. 14. used to classify refinery sources of release is illustrated in
Fig. 16. Given that pentane has a vapour density of 2.5 as
compared to air, the application requires a transient vapor
zone. A Zone 2 classification extending 15m in addition to a
15m transient vapour zone would apply.
0.004m/s
0.042
Fig. 16 API RP 505 Figure 20
Fig. 14 Enclosed Location Degree of Dilution Assessing this situation using the IEC source of release
calculation method requires examining the nature of a
Applying the information derived from the calculations to Fig. hypothetical release under normal conditions. A pentane
15 suggests a Zone 2 classification for the building. This release from a pump seal would likely result in some
however requires that the background concentration be flammable material flashing to atmosphere with the bulk of
checked using formulae (3). To do so, a suitable value of f is the release collecting in a pool formation within the
required which is a safety factor applied to account the containment dyke. The pentane fluid within the dyke would
degree of inefficiency of air mixing due to equipment then flash to atmosphere at a rate determined by the ambient
congestion and variable air flow patterns. Since the building air temperature and the vapour pressure of the pentane fluid.
layout is relatively open, an f factor of 2 was selected. The The release rate from an evaporative pool may be
background concentration Xb was then determined to be determined by calculation or by Figure B.2 of IEC 60079-10-1
4.5% LFL which is much less than the Xcrit value defined as as illustrated in Fig. 17. The values obtained from the figure
the 20% LFL gas detection alarm setpoint. Based on this are based on the assumption that the liquid temperature of
result, a Zone 2 classification would be appropriate for the the fluid is equal to the ambient temperature with a wind
application as illustrated in Fig. 15. speed of 0.5 m/sec. Pentane has a vapour pressure of 57
kPA at 20°C and a mole weight of 72 kg/kmole. Referencing
the chart, the volumetric evaporation rate would be
-3 3
approximately 0.5 x 10 m /sec for a pool surface area of 1.0
2
m . Given that the dimensions of the containment dyke in the
2
application is 6.0 m the value obtained from the chart must
be multiplied by the actual surface area yielding an estimated
volumetric evaporation rate of 3.0 x 10-3 m3/sec.
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/sec
sourced from table C.1 (Fig. 18) for a heavier than air release
in an unobstructed area at ground level. Using Figure D.1
from the standard (Fig. 19) for a heavy gas release yields a
hazardous location extent of approximately 6 meters. This is
in contrast the to the 30m extent recommended by API.
The extents determined by the IEC calculations are a
starting point and should be viewed with engineering
Fig. 15 Zone Classification for Enclosed Building judgement. Other factors such as below grade locations
within the classified area and other natural obstacles may
C. Pentane Fluid Release also influence the extent of the classification.
A pump in a refinery process handles pentane at 3000 kPA
at an operating temperature of 20°C. A typical leak scenario
8
V. CONCLUSIONS
VI. REFERENCES
9
[10] Rangel Jr., Estellito, Luiz, Aurélio M. and Madureira Jr.,
Hilton – “Area classification is not a copy-and-paste
process: performing reliable hazardous area
classification studies”. IEEE IAS Industry Applications
Magazine, Jan/Feb 2016, p. 38 – 49.
VII. VITAE
Allan Bozek, P.Eng., MBA, graduated from the University
of Waterloo in 1986 with BSc in Systems Design Engineering
and a MBA from the University of Calgary in 1999. He is a
Principal with EngWorks Inc. providing hazardous location
consulting services to industry. He is a registered
professional engineer in the provinces of Alberta, Ontario,
Saskatchewan and British Columbia, Canada and has been
a member of the IEEE since 1989. Allan’s areas of expertise
include hazardous area classification design, application of
hazardous location codes and standards to facilities and the
design and certification of equipment in hazardous locations.
10