Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: API 505 versus IP15

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4

    API 505 versus IP15

    Q(1)
    Has anybody come across a document comparing API 505 with IP 15? What are the major differences between the two standards for hazardous area classification (HAC)? The particular installation I am dealing with is an offshore oil & gas platform.


    Q(2)
    My understanding is that in terms of equipment selection for a particular HAC one should refer to the following standards:
    - NEC chapter 5 (if HAC according API 505)
    - IEC 60079 series (if HAC according IP 15)


    Q(3)
    Would there likely be significant changes in hazardous area classification if the basis for classification is changed from API 505 to IP 15?
    i.e. can one actually say IP 15 is more stringent than API 505 (or vice versa)?


    Thanking you in advance for your comments.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,010
    Quote Originally Posted by pubdj
    Q(1)
    Has anybody come across a document comparing API 505 with IP 15? What are the major differences between the two standards for hazardous area classification (HAC)? The particular installation I am dealing with is an offshore oil & gas platform.


    Q(2)
    My understanding is that in terms of equipment selection for a particular HAC one should refer to the following standards:
    - NEC chapter 5 (if HAC according API 505)
    - IEC 60079 series (if HAC according IP 15)


    Q(3)
    Would there likely be significant changes in hazardous area classification if the basis for classification is changed from API 505 to IP 15?
    i.e. can one actually say IP 15 is more stringent than API 505 (or vice versa)?


    Thanking you in advance for your comments.
    1.) See IEEE Paper PCIC-97-5. It is a bit outdated now with the European Union’s (EU) introduction of the ATEX directive, but it still covers the essential differences. The ATEX directive primarily affects the marking systems of equipment, but not the determination of Electrical Area Classification.

    2.) For a system classified by API RP-505, only electrical equipment is selected per NEC Article 505. Per IP15, mechanical equipment is also selected. Very few countries actually use IEC 60079 directly. Most European countries start from CENELEC EN 60079-10, which is the EU implementation of IEC 60079.From EN 60079-1, each country develops its own specific Standard (Norm).

    3.) There are several significant differences both obvious and subtle. Since the laws of physics don’t change, a given facility will have similarities; but they still will not look quite the same “on paper.” Both systems, when used properly, are safe but they are still different.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4

    IP15 vs API 505

    I could not find the IEEE Paper PCIC-97-5 mentioned.

    But I need find some useful info from the following PCIC site:
    http://www.ieee-pcic.org/archive.html

    In particular Paper No. PCIC-98-2: NEW AREA CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES.

    In any case thanks for the help.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,010
    It is a fine paper. It is basically a discussion of the US implementation of the Zone system. If you are truly trying to compare the NEC and IEC systems, the 98-12 paper gives a better explanation of the "non-unity" of the systems despite the papers name, THE OUTLOOK FOR GLOBAL UNITY FOR HAZARDOUS AREA EQUIPMENT.

    John Propst, author of several of the papers, is more or less the custodian of the PCIC Archive Page; I'll see if he can get a copy of 97-5 on it.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,010
    The paper has been added here.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4

    Smile

    Fantastic! have downloaded both papers. Thank you for the help.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •