Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Transitioning to Zone Approach from Class/Division

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Transitioning to Zone Approach from Class/Division

    I am most familiar with the NFPA 70 2017 approach to Class/Division. I know that alternatively, the Zone approach is acceptable. For Class/Division, I mainly rely on API/RP 500 as a resource, as well as various NFPA document like NFPA 497 and NFPA 30.

    I would like to learn more about the Zone approach. One document that I am looking at is IEC 60079-10.1 Classification of areas - Explosive gas atmospheres. Would this document be helpful in applying the Zone approach, or should I not reference it since it is an international standard?

    I would like to know what standards I should study to educate myself on the Zone approach. My main interest is getting a better approach to classifying areas. I understand that the IEC approach allows for a more accurate/engineered approach to area classification. I am not sure if I am confusing the IEC approach and the Zone approach as a singular thing, or if they are two seperate things and do not mix well.
    Time is of the essence, and I am low on essence. ~ Graham Hill

    #2
    NFPA 497 (latest edition) covers both Divisions and Zones, APR RP505 addresses Zones. However, see NEC Section 505.7; especially Subsections 505.7(A), (B), and (C) - but read the whole section.
    [COLOR=black]"Bob"[/COLOR]
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

    Comment


      #3
      OH BTW - Forget IEC 60079-10.1. IEC Zones are NOT the same as NEC Zones.
      [COLOR=black]"Bob"[/COLOR]
      Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
      Answers based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

      Comment


        #4
        Last, but not least, if you want a more analytical approach, review Appendix D and the following Appendices in API RP505. Quite honestly, I don't believe you will save much in general but there are occasions it's worth the look, especially when you review the fugitive emissions.
        [COLOR=black]"Bob"[/COLOR]
        Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
        Answers based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

        Comment


          #5
          Understood, thank you very much for your words. It sounds like the point source method called out in Appendix D is about as analytical an approach as I will find.
          Time is of the essence, and I am low on essence. ~ Graham Hill

          Comment

          Working...
          X