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.
2013
978-1-4673-5110-2
File in questo prodotto:
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11583/2515899