PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT SPECIALREPORT Select the best protection method for electrical apparatus in hazardous areas Here are the trade-offs between safety and cost-of-ownership Z. STANLEY, Servomex Group Ltd., Crowborough, East Sussex, England thankfully, the science of how to operate safely in hazardous areas with porendally explosive atmosphorsis now wellunder- stood, though knowing how best to comply withthe requize- ‘ments is something that stl causes widespread confusion. Particular ‘areas to be taken with elecrical apparatus because of ts potential for creating sparks and hotspots that could ignite a gas, vapor, mist ‘or dust-laden atmosphere, Regulations in the EEA, gas groups and risk zones. Ja the Buropean Economic Area (EEA), hazardous gases are classi- fied in EN 50014: 1997 (Elecrieal apparace for porensiall explosive ecrmosplere—Generl requirements which isa harmonized sxandard under Directive 94/9/EC (Exuipment and protective stems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres) or, as icis commonly known, the ATEX Directive. This standard is about ro be super- seded by EN 60079-0:2004, which is based on the IEC standard TEC 60079-0:2004 (Blctrical apparatus for explasive gas atmospheres ‘Pare 0: General requiremens). BN 50014 divides potentially explo- sive gases into wo groups: Group [relates to mines susceptible to fire damp (methane) and Group II relates to other places. Because of the specialise nature of mining, his article considers Group TI areas only. ‘Group II is further subdivided into three subgroups to reflect the different flammability of gases (and vapors and mists). Group IAs for che least flammable gases (such as propane), while Group IB is for medium-flammability gases (such as ethylene) and Group IIC is for the mose flammable (such as hydrogen). How- ever it should be remembered that, in general, guses on their own are not flammable; they also need oxygen or another oxidanc with ‘which they can react in combustion. (The exception is acerylene, which can decompose explosively in the absence of oxygen into ‘atbon and hydrogen.) Furthermore, specifiers of apparatus for hazardous areas need to know the likelihood of the explosive gas-air mixture being present, so chree zones of risk are defined in EN 60079-10: 2003 (Bletrcal apparatus for explosive gas armorpheres—clasifcaion of ‘hazardous ares). In Zone O the vsk is greatest, with the hazard continuously present—usually due t0 2 continuous source of release. In Zone 1, the risk is lower but the hazard i likely ro be present under normal operating conditions—normally due to 2 primary source of release. In Zone 2, however the hazard is tunlely co be present and, ifso i wil be present only for short periods or due to a fault condition (normally stemming from a secondary source of release). Asa guide, in Zone 0 the hazard will be present for moze than 1,000 br per year and in Zone 2 for less than 10 hr per year. Suitable protection methods for each zone. Having ‘established the nature of the hazard and the lev! of isk associated with ita protection method needs to be selected to suit. For Zone 0 the preferred method is intrinsic safety type “ia” (wo-faule tolerant), though special procecrion can be employed if, specifically ceriied for chia se; and ie is poisble co use encapaulae tion in some limited circumstances. Nonetheles, intrinsic safety is almost always the only practical option, especially for sophisticaed, apparatus such as instrumentation, “There isa much wider choice for applications in Zone 1 arcas Inuinsic safety (type ia, which is ewo-faule olerant—or type ib, ‘which i single-Faltcolerant is often the preferred method, though flameproof protection, increased safety and purge/pressurization protection are also commonly used, Less frequently encountered are sand/poveder filling, oil immersion, encapsulation and special proceztion. ‘Within a Zone 2atea any ofthe previous methods may be used, ‘or Type-n (nonincendive) protection—in which the apparatus is not capable of causing ignition through the creation of spars or hot surfaces during normal operation (though fault conditions could potentially cause ignition). Inall cases the requirements to provide the necessary protection level ara reasonable cost, though specifiers should be aware that a Tovrer purchase cost will almosc always lead to a higher cos-of-own- ership. For Zone 0 we have seen that the only practical option is, intrinsic safe and for Zone 2 the considerably lower purchase cost of Typen protected apparatus will often make replacement more cost-effective than repeis, 0 cost-of-ownership is less of an issue, However the choice is nor so saightforwar for Zone I Zone 1 protection: pros and cons of alternative pro- tection methods, Several protection methods will be examined. in terms of sfery and coseof-ownership. Intrinsic safety. An intrinsically safe apparatus is designed and constructed such that, even under fale conditions, the elecrial ‘energy within the circ is less than the minimum ignition energy ‘of the flammable atmosphere in which ic is wo operate. One of the main benefits of intrinsically safe equipments that ive maintenance ‘within che hazardous areas permed, which greatly reduoes che costSPECIALREPORT cof-ovmership. Ifmaineenanceis required, che equipment can be leftin place, which saves time and minimizes plant downtime. Furthermore cables can be installed without additional mechanical protection, and this helps to seduce installation costs compared with using ocher protection methods. Then, literally, intrinsic safety ofthis method of protection means that many users view this asthe safest option. ‘European specifiers have favored intrinsically safe equipment for some time, ye chs mature masker is sill growing at an estimated 3.4% per yea. In contrast, the North American market i starting to swing from using flameproof to intrinsically safe apparatus; hence, an annual growth rate of 6.5% is estimated and elsewhere, growl rates in the Middle East and Asia arc timated at 7.3% and 11.2%, respectively Issues to be aware of with intrinsic safey are the fact that some associated apparatus will avays be required to connect the appars- ‘usco the nonhazardous area (typically by means ofa safety interface ‘unit—such asa zener safety batier or galvanic isolator—located in the nonhazardous area) and the purchase cost is often higher than for other protection methods due to the greater design effort, the anced for low-power clecronic components and the higher degree of fault-tolerance that is bil in, Flameproof protection, Flmeproof protection esentilly rele tw the placement ofall electrical apparatus within a special enclosure thats capable of containing an explosion tat initiates inside. In some ‘cases, the enclesure has a complete and perécr meral-to-metal seal at allopenings and the enclosure i capable of withstanding an internal ‘explosion. Other designs use special wide flanges that enable any flare escaping through a joint gap to be quenched before it reaches the potentially flammable atmosphere outside the enclosure. ‘Except for some component enclosures, certification is generally required for each specific application. Furthermore, some fame- proof enclosures are suitable forall gas groups, whereas others are only certified for gas Group ILA or IIB, for example. Installation and maintenance ceasy require grat care to ensure thac che flameproof characeristes of the enclosure are noc com ‘promised. Similarly, cable glands and conduit must be correctly specified and installed to provide adequate physical and fameprooF protection. Because of the nature of the components within the enclosure, live maintenance is forbidden, which can add signi ‘antl tothe cxe-of ownership. Moreover, che concept allows for the ingress of flammable gases into the enclosure from outside, and accepts that combustion will occur, Where flammable gas is continually supplied into the enclosure this creates the tsk of the ‘enclosure itself heating to the poine that its external temperature say present an ignition risk even ifthe combustion is contained inside. For this reason, ic is understandable why many users prefer the philosophy appertaining to intrinsic sfey. Increased safety. Another alternative protection method for ‘Zone 1 areas i increased safey. This relies on safeguards applied during design and construction that ensure the apparatus contsins ‘no normally arcing or sparking devices or horsusfaces that could cause ignition. Measures taken include the use of high-integriy insulation, temperature derating of insulation materials, enhanced ‘recpage and clearance distance, careful attention to terminal design, protection against the ingress of solids and liquids, high-impact srength for the enclosure and control of maximum temperatures. Tincreased safety is generally considered to be suitable for rmedium-power apparatus, with typical applications being small rotors, luminaries and junction boxes Purge/pressurization. The last ofthe popular protection meth- ‘ods for Zone I hazardous areas is over-pressurization of the appa- 6o | movennen 2005 ronocaraon RocssNG PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT ratus enclosure using clean air or an inere purge gas. Depending con the exact procedure employed, the region inside the cabinet becomes either 2 nonhezardous or a Zone 2 area, with resukant {implications for the design and construction of the electrical equip- ‘menccontained therein Purge/pressuizatin is often used where the funtion of the elec trial equipment makes ic ificl o redesign ito that iis intrns- cally ae. Iris also an easy concept to understand, and itis human nue o trust whats eadily understood. Another advantage of using, the purge/presurizaton method is tha the cost ofthe core apparatus is relatively speaking, lower than the intinsially safe equivalent. However, the complesicy and cost associated with a purge/pres- surization system should not be underestimated. Ifthe purge gas is so be clean ais this may have to be piped from some considerable dlsrance, and there sa nee to install the pumping system outside the hazardous ara, plus protected pipework must be run through the hazardous area to che apparacus, Correct connection of the pipework to the apparatus enclosure is also essential. All of cis hardware needs to be maintained and suitable failsafe monitoring and alarm systems need to be in place to detec any pressurization failure system and shut down the apparatus. Tfson the other hand, an inert purge gas is used, this can reduce the insallaion cos, bur there isan additional ongoing cost associated ‘with the consumable gu. Furthermore, whichever purge/presuriz- ton method is used, lie maintenance of the apparatus itself is pro- hibited, which ean add co maintenance costs and lead 10 significantiy longer downtime when the appararus needs o be mainrained. Other methods. Other methods that can be used, such as oil immersion, encapsulation and filing with sand or powder are only suited ta limited range of applications —in particule, those where maintenance isnot likely to be required, ‘Combination methods. Having outlined the alternative meth- ‘ods for protecting electrical apparatus in hazardous areas, i has to be pointed our chat is noe always «case of using one or another in isolation; in some circumstances cis beneficial co combine methods ‘0 optimize protection ofan overall system. Some instruments use a ‘combination of intrinsic safety and a flameproof enclosure cogether ‘0 give what is thought by many to be the ideal combination oF safey, reliability and eost-oFownership. ‘With this sytem of protection, the equipments suitable for use in demanding environments (Zone 1 hazardous areas and high- flammability group TIC gis), yet the principle of intinsc sufery is only applied tothe elements of the apparatus that require it. For instance, ina gas analysis system there may be a requirement to proces flammable sample gs, which means thar the sensors must, by definition, be suitable for use in a Zone 0 hazardous area. But power the instrument, the mains supply must be fed into @ lamne- proof enclosure—which wil typically be sited in a Zone 1 area Some hazardousarea oxygen analyzer snanulactures use purge! pressurization ofthe senor and power supply, ot house everything ina flameproof enclosure. However, because of the posible need to Jnoduoea fammable sample ges, exreme measures need tobe talen to ensure that a leak will nor escape from the sample path into the lameproof enclosure. HP Zarina Stanley's maxet manage forthe ysrearbon proces ing nny a Sevomex ra Seeger for erconleg the sate plan for Sermo, ine wih markt dives ersutiog that Seremex develope ttl value eéded solutions by woking sey wth Ry customers nse dust achieve tis