Installing equipment inside intrinsically safe housing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canderson

Member
Hello All,

I am currently working with various organizations to recommend and deploy surveillance equipment inside various hazaradous areas of Petroleum Refineries. In this endevour we have been asked to provide information and solutions which adhere to the rules and regulations of such locations. In researching equipment that is available in the marketplace which meets these specifciations, I have found very few IP based camera systems which can be powered by PoE and meet the rest of this customers needs. I am unsure if this is due to difficulties of certifying this type of technology for these locations or another reason. We have also come across other methods of acheiving this goal, which would require third party integration of separate components.
I was curious if the forum could clear up a question that I'd come up with in doing this research. I would like to know if it is possible to take a piece of equipment (IP camera) and have this installed into a housing which is already rated to be intrinsically safe, thus making the entire solution intrinsically safe? I assume that either the product would have to be installed or certified by an individual or organization which can approve the Class and Div ratings the 'integrated' component meets? We are looking at providing these recommendations to our customer, and requiring their 'buy-off' on the integrated component, as well as thier installation of this equipment and any related cabling and etc which would connect to this equipment. Hopefully this is an OK question, as i'm trying not to ask "how-to" but "is it possible" and get any additional information which could be provided.

Thank you in advance for your help and consideration.

Canderson.
 
Like this?

http://www.ivcco.com/products/Special%20Products.html

untitledvv.jpg
 
This product is close

This product is close

Thank you for your reply KentAT. I've checked these out before they seem to be a great option for some, but unfortunately there are two caveats with these for the current question.

Unless I missed something I didn't see the abilitiy to power these over ethernet (PoE), which is a requirment (Solar is potentially another option).

Also the IP video managment and alarm software which is used (Milestone Xprotect) doesn't appear to support these cameras. Fortunately Milestone does support a vast number of cameras, but this one isn't on the list. This is another reason I was asking about integration as it may be difficult to find IP cameras in EX Proof housings which are on the list (about 500 cameras are supported).

Thanks for the Link!
 
Well, you mentioned intrinsically safe.

I don't know how much power either Ethernet or POE requires but it might be possible to get an intrinsically safe barrier system for such a setup. I seem to recall there is an Ethernet cabling IS barrier system available. Don't know if it extends to POE.

There may be other options such as installing the camera in a pressurized or explosion proof enclosure.

You may even be able to mount the camera in areas that are unclassified or classified to a lesser extent (think height as well as X/Y location).
 
The housing has nothing to do with the interinsically safe rating...that is based on the circuit energy. I doubt that PoE can be made to meet the IS rating as it has too much energy (power) available.
 
Distinction between Explosion Proof and Intrinsically Safe

Distinction between Explosion Proof and Intrinsically Safe

Hello

I apolgoize for my ignorance, I didn't realize there was specific differences between Intrinsically safe and explosion proof. I suppose I should do more research in this area.

I am going to get clarification as to exactly which standards need to be met for the installations, and definately am looking at raising the systems out of the X/Y area by elevating the systems if at all possible.

If we look at using an explosion proof housing rated to a certain standard, and that housing is pressurized and sealed after installation of third party equipment - the explosion proof ratings should still be intact and maintained, correct? I am positive the installer would know and follow all wiring specifications to make sure that passing ethernet cabling into the box was also performed correctly and maintained those same ratings. Does this sound feasable?

Thank You,
 
pressurization and explosion proof are two different techniques for reducing the risk of explosion. normally they would not be combined together.

a camera system that did not have a motor in it might not require anything other than a standard enclosure as at least some are UL listed for use in Div 2 areas.

many plants have very limited areas that are classified as div 1, with the majority of the area being classified div 2. div 2 areas are a much simpler and cheaper problem than div 1 areas.

no offense meant to you, but it does not seem like you have the expertise to even know what questions to ask. i would suggest finding someone who has that expertise. 500 cameras that had to be redone would be unpleasant.

incidentally, by X/Y, I meant at ground level as might be shown on a plot plan. often the classified area does not extend all that far above ground level.
 
I doubt that PoE can be made to meet the IS rating as it has too much energy (power) available.

I am pretty sure that standard POE has too much energy but I seem to recall there is a variant of the standard that someone has come out with that has reduced the energy and voltage level enough that it can work at IS levels. It just won't work with all POE devices.
 
Petersonra,

No offense taken, however I would like to clarify some of the points and comment on what you mentioned. I am in the fact finding portion of this project and am looking to various sources for information on the methods to acheive our goal. Your suggestion is a good one, regarding finding and individual whom has the expertise that is needed for such a project - however I am not to the stage that would require that interaction yet. I would prefer not to retain an engineer until I have gone further down the path of discovery on this project, and it makes sense to do so. That said I would welcome any suggestions that you can provide as to a direction to take in finding this type of individual or organization.

I originally asked the question to see if I could get an idea whether or not the possibility of approaching this project in the manner I mentioned (integrating an explosion proof housing with a non explosion proof camera) not because I planned on taking the entire job on myself, but to see if it is possible. The next step was to find out what or whom needs to integrate or certify this system to rate it as explosion proof - which would likely mean the project is moving forward and retaining an expert would be appropriate. I have since had discussions with individuals involved with this project and been informed that they could likely certify whatever type of equipment we provide as explosion proof. I would still like to know definitively if the regulations and codes allow for this type of integration while maintaining a class 1 div 2 rating.

Also we would always deploy a single test unit, have it tested or certified by the approriate entities before moving forward on any large product and trust me, we definately cannot be responsible for the liability and cost behind a non-conforming solution.

I have verified that the solution does indeed need to be Class 1 Div 2 Rated.

I believe I understood the X/Y portion of this as well, and was trying to say if we can elevate the system above the classified area we may be able to use less strictly rated enclosures. I have been told that it does not matter, the entire area including what I would call the Z axis does not change the required classification.

Certified installers would be retained to install all equipment to meet Class 1 Div 2 and any other ratings required.

I have been told that PoE power is available (although I am unsure of wattage available, this is being inquired about now) from wireless AP infrastructure equipemt - so I am unsure of how or what that affects related to the energy levels that have been also described here.

These cameras will be fixed (no pan/tilt motor - although I have seen motors that meet the proper classification).

Thanks again this is all very good information!

Please keep sending suggestions or information as you see fit.
 
If you insist on a DIY type installation, you might want to contact a UL698a panel shop and have them install the cameras in an explosion proof housing for you. It would then be listed.

I don't know what you mean by "certified". It is not a meaningful term.

My guess is whatever do-it-yourself solution you come up with will cost more than just buying the cameras already mounted in XP enclosures from someone who already does it.

Not a recommendation, just an example.

http://www.ivcco.com/products/Special Products.html
 
Hello

I apolgoize for my ignorance, I didn't realize there was specific differences between Intrinsically safe and explosion proof. I suppose I should do more research in this area.

I am going to get clarification as to exactly which standards need to be met for the installations, and definately am looking at raising the systems out of the X/Y area by elevating the systems if at all possible.

If we look at using an explosion proof housing rated to a certain standard, and that housing is pressurized and sealed after installation of third party equipment - the explosion proof ratings should still be intact and maintained, correct? I am positive the installer would know and follow all wiring specifications to make sure that passing ethernet cabling into the box was also performed correctly and maintained those same ratings. Does this sound feasable?

Thank You,

Elevated locations, where video equipment is often mounted, is usually away from areas where classification is required. Usually classification drawings show a blanket area for classification but when looked at closely there is no source of potential leak in the area, where the cameras would be installed, within the described diagrams of NFPA 497.

So my suggestion is to locate the cameras in non-hazardous locations, clearly document EACH and EVERY location with dimensions from the hazardous area and elevation. PTZ will let you 'see' into the hazardous areas without the camera needing to be there. The power supply, controls and signal wires would still pass through hazardous areas, so appropriate boundary isolation between the haz/nonhaz areas will still be required. Wireless, fiber, etc. could be economic alternatives.
 
Elevated locations, where video equipment is often mounted, is usually away from areas where classification is required. Usually classification drawings show a blanket area for classification but when looked at closely there is no source of potential leak in the area, where the cameras would be installed, within the described diagrams of NFPA 497.

So my suggestion is to locate the cameras in non-hazardous locations, clearly document EACH and EVERY location with dimensions from the hazardous area and elevation. PTZ will let you 'see' into the hazardous areas without the camera needing to be there. The power supply, controls and signal wires would still pass through hazardous areas, so appropriate boundary isolation between the haz/nonhaz areas will still be required. Wireless, fiber, etc. could be economic alternatives.


In a previous post the OP said:

I have verified that the solution does indeed need to be Class 1 Div 2 Rated.

I believe I understood the X/Y portion of this as well, and was trying to say if we can elevate the system above the classified area we may be able to use less strictly rated enclosures. I have been told that it does not matter, the entire area including what I would call the Z axis does not change the required classification.

One of my first sugegstions involved getting it above the classified area. I wonder how far above ground the classified area exists?
 
In a previous post the OP said:



One of my first sugegstions involved getting it above the classified area. I wonder how far above ground the classified area exists?


Yep, they seem to be just too lazy to do a proper classification review. There were times when entire plants were classified as Div. 1. Who can afford to continue to operate this way? They are going outspend themselves of profit and shut down. Seen it so many times.
 
Intrinsically safe equipment would not require XP enclosure.

Yes, I know that, you know that, and most others do also, but the OP clearly did not understand the difference between IS and EXP, since he asks about placing equipment in an IS housing in order to make it IS.

I simply pointed the OP to an EXP housing solution, in case that's what he meant, which turned out to be true.

kent
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top