Kedward
Member
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
Hello,
I've been working with designs in Class I Division 2 Group B areas for some time, and I've heard a myriad of conflicting information for component selection and requirements. I'm focusing on general-purpose equipment/enclosures.
Let's say I have a random instrument as shown in this link: https://dwyer-inst.com/en/products/pressure/single-pressure/transmitters/series3200g.html
If I needed this device to be explosionproof, I think the installation is pretty straight-forward. However, since it's in a Class I Division 2 Group B area, explosionproof is not required. My past experience with this is that since the device is specifically using the Explosionproof protection technique however, I have to pretty much follow the explosionproof installation outlined in the code. Reviewing some of this and trying to understand General-Purpose Equipment and General-Purpose Enclosures lead me down a different path and I'm hoping I can know if I'm off-base or not.
I start with 501.105(B)(3) and can confirm that the equipment does not have "make-and break or sliding contacts" by removing the mag switches for calibration. Now it's able to be used in a general-purpose enclosure. Then with 500.8(C)(6)(a) the equipment doesn't need to be marked for class, division, group, temperature class, or ambient temperature range.
Now I wire up the components in the provision 501.10(B) with much more freedom because my enclosure is not required to be explosionproof.
My concerns at this point is that I'm not interpreting 500.8(A) appropriately for suitability. I feel like with the mindset that this is a piece of general-purpose equipment that is still approved for it's purpose it can fall under 500.8(A)(1). I also feel like I'm not using a specific protection method listed in 500.7. Maybe it falls under nonincendive equipment, but that doesn't feel like an intentional design decision and I'm unsure if that satisfies the code or not. I compare this to things like RMC/IMC in 501.10(B)(1) or specific motors in 501.125(B)(3) which made me start questioning past rigidity I've experienced in Class I Division 2 areas.
I've been working with designs in Class I Division 2 Group B areas for some time, and I've heard a myriad of conflicting information for component selection and requirements. I'm focusing on general-purpose equipment/enclosures.
Let's say I have a random instrument as shown in this link: https://dwyer-inst.com/en/products/pressure/single-pressure/transmitters/series3200g.html
If I needed this device to be explosionproof, I think the installation is pretty straight-forward. However, since it's in a Class I Division 2 Group B area, explosionproof is not required. My past experience with this is that since the device is specifically using the Explosionproof protection technique however, I have to pretty much follow the explosionproof installation outlined in the code. Reviewing some of this and trying to understand General-Purpose Equipment and General-Purpose Enclosures lead me down a different path and I'm hoping I can know if I'm off-base or not.
I start with 501.105(B)(3) and can confirm that the equipment does not have "make-and break or sliding contacts" by removing the mag switches for calibration. Now it's able to be used in a general-purpose enclosure. Then with 500.8(C)(6)(a) the equipment doesn't need to be marked for class, division, group, temperature class, or ambient temperature range.
Now I wire up the components in the provision 501.10(B) with much more freedom because my enclosure is not required to be explosionproof.
My concerns at this point is that I'm not interpreting 500.8(A) appropriately for suitability. I feel like with the mindset that this is a piece of general-purpose equipment that is still approved for it's purpose it can fall under 500.8(A)(1). I also feel like I'm not using a specific protection method listed in 500.7. Maybe it falls under nonincendive equipment, but that doesn't feel like an intentional design decision and I'm unsure if that satisfies the code or not. I compare this to things like RMC/IMC in 501.10(B)(1) or specific motors in 501.125(B)(3) which made me start questioning past rigidity I've experienced in Class I Division 2 areas.