The object of this paper is to review various methods of determining the extent of hazardous areas in industrial facilities where explosive gas or vapor atmospheres may be present. Three different approaches are analyzed and compared. The first one is recommended in North American Standards, such as APl500 [1], APl505 [2] and NFPA 497 [3]. The second is one of the proposals for the second edition of the International Standard IEC 60079-10-1 [4] (adopted as European standard EN 60079-10-1). The third approach had been previously worked out with the authors' contribution and had been adopted by the Italian Guide CEI 31-35 since 2001 [5]. The last two approaches are analytical, meanwhile the first one is prescriptive. In the second part of the paper both analytical approaches are applied to the releases which are analyzed in NFPA 497 [3] as practical examples. Resulting hazardous area extents are compared and the differences among the three methods are discussed.
Area classification for explosive atmospheres: comparison between European and North American approaches / Tommasini, Riccardo; Pons, Enrico; Palamara, Federica. - ELETTRONICO. - (2013), pp. 1-7. (Intervento presentato al convegno 60th Annual IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference tenutosi a Chicago - Illinois - USA nel 23-25 September 2013) [10.1109/PCICon.2013.6666015].
Area classification for explosive atmospheres: comparison between European and North American approaches
TOMMASINI, Riccardo;PONS, ENRICO;PALAMARA, FEDERICA
2013
Abstract
The object of this paper is to review various methods of determining the extent of hazardous areas in industrial facilities where explosive gas or vapor atmospheres may be present. Three different approaches are analyzed and compared. The first one is recommended in North American Standards, such as APl500 [1], APl505 [2] and NFPA 497 [3]. The second is one of the proposals for the second edition of the International Standard IEC 60079-10-1 [4] (adopted as European standard EN 60079-10-1). The third approach had been previously worked out with the authors' contribution and had been adopted by the Italian Guide CEI 31-35 since 2001 [5]. The last two approaches are analytical, meanwhile the first one is prescriptive. In the second part of the paper both analytical approaches are applied to the releases which are analyzed in NFPA 497 [3] as practical examples. Resulting hazardous area extents are compared and the differences among the three methods are discussed.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
PCIC_area_classification_comparison_free.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: borsa denerg
Tipologia:
2. Post-print / Author's Accepted Manuscript
Licenza:
Pubblico - Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione
438.33 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
438.33 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Area_classification_for_explosive_atmospheres_Comparison_between_European_and_North_American_approaches.pdf
accesso riservato
Descrizione: articolo pubblicato
Tipologia:
2a Post-print versione editoriale / Version of Record
Licenza:
Non Pubblico - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
500.67 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
500.67 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11583/2515899