Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Various regulatory agencies throughout the world have increased their emphasis on eval-
uating the “hazardous area” created by the potential leakage of flammable fluids (liquids
and gases). The General Electric Power Systems (GEPS) Product Safety group has
reviewed NFPA 70, NFPA 497, API/RP 500, API/RP 505, EN 60079-10 (equivalent to IEC
79-10), and other related sources (such as EU Directive 94/9/EC and EU Directive
1999/92/EC) regarding hazardous areas and methods to determine the extent. GEPS
uses a third approach based upon a newly created, robust computer modeling program,
which like the above listed approaches uses sound engineering judgment.
One consistent item of guidance in all the documents is for the use of sound engineering
judgment in evaluating potential hazardous areas. This confirms the opinion that blind
application of the information in the documents may yield results that are less than opti-
mum.
API/RP 500 contains similar language to emphasize the importance of “sound engineering
judgement” when evaluating the existence and extent of hazardous areas.
of Chemical Engineers, 1990. Cox, Lees and others have conducted extensive research
into the leak history of the chemical, oil and gas industries. This research provides insight
into both potential leak sizes as a function of the component and rate of leak occurrence
for those various components. From this information, realistic estimations are possible
regarding the potential of a given component to leak and the “worst credible” manner of
leak that would be associated with the component. This information when combined with
established fluid dynamic principles allows the development of computer models that will
quickly estimate:
■ the likelihood of a component leaking
■ the quantity of fluid emitted by a given leak source
■ the likely hazardous range of a leaked flammable fluid (gas or liquid)
GEPS contracted with the Atkins consulting firm, London, UK to develop a robust comput-
er modeling program that would combine fluid dynamic equations with ground rules
developed from the industry experience surveys to provide a realistic estimation of poten-
tial hazardous areas. The ground rules incorporated into the model logic select the “worst
credible” piping leak scenarios as deduced from the historical experience. This establishes
the area of the leak sources for the follow-on calculations.
The calculations for leak rate use classic fluid dynamic equations for flow considering fluid
properties (density, viscosity, etc.) for the type of fluid (liquid OR gas) compensated for
temperature of the fluid and the surrounding atmosphere and system operating pressure.
The leak rate is calculated by presuming a circular hole of an area equivalent to the esti-
mated leak area of the source. This is a conservative approach as a circular hole has the
highest predicted leak rate of any geometric opening.
Once the leak source is evaluated, the computer program uses a dispersion model that has
been calibrated with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and the commercial
“Aeroplume” software. The accuracy of the model has been validated by comparison with
historical empirical data of leaking fuels. The model accounts for the fluid properties plus
the momentum imparted by the pressure differential at the leak source, assuring the maxi-
mum potential hazardous area extent is estimated.
Estimating the hazardous area starts with a survey of all leak sources. For each category of
leak source (type component, component size, and failure mode leading to leakage) the
leak rate and free air hazardous range is calculated. This establishes the “outdoor” extent
associated with each leak source. If an enclosure is involved, GEPS assumes that the extent
will be to the walls of the enclosure regardless of the ventilation capability. IEC 79-10
allows declassification of interior areas based on estimated hazardous range if ventilation is
adequate; however, CFD studies of our equipment enclosures reveals the potential for
pockets of gas buildup well away from the leak sources. Therefore, GE takes the conserva-
tive position that the entire enclosure is considered a hazardous area.
In Comparison
Comparing the results obtained from the GEPS computer model with the hazardous areas
suggested by NFPA/API or IEC 79-10 shows the model is consistent with or conservative in
nearly all cases where the conditions of the area are close. Those cases in which the GEPS
model is less restrictive are limited to attempting to use NFPA/API pressurized system dia-
grams and methods or IEC methods with low pressure systems. At high pressure or with
larger leak sources, the GEPS model generally suggests a hazardous area that is larger than
reflected by the other methods. A detailed comparison of the results obtained by the vari-
ous methods is included at Attachment 1.
Summary
The NFPA/API and IEC 79-10 approaches to hazardous area definition provide a degree of
safety from fire/explosion incidents in areas subject to leakage of flammable fluids. The
technology now available to the sophisticated analyst allows methods that enhance the pre-
cision of the hazardous area evaluation. The use of these improved analytical tools follows
the spirit and intent of the previous approaches and applies “sound engineering judg-
ment” to achieve a realistic result that retains an appropriate level of conservatism.
ATTACHMENT 1
Sample Problems Comparing
FLAVIC Tool with NFPA 497
and API/RP 500 and IEC 79-10
Hazardous Area Estimates
The following conditions are analyzed for both Natural Gas and Hydrogen at ambient
temperature:
Pressure: 25 PSIa
100 PSIa
500 PSIa
2000 PSIa
“Common” 0.25 mm2 (Leakage from Valve Stems and small bore –
Hole Sizes: “NPT” / “Compression” connections)
2.5 mm2 (Minor leakage from flange gaskets – common
leak)
25 mm2 (Major leakage from flange gaskets – Credible
maximum leak source in most instances)
250 mm2 and larger (Leakage from a pipe crack –
typically limited to flex hose installations)
All estimates based on an outdoor location (full natural ventilation) with dilution of the
gas to the 50% of Lower Explosive Limit concentration.
“Hand” Calculations for the Class I, Division 2 / Zone 2 hazardous area extent given a
Natural Gas leak through a 25 mm2 hole with a 100 PSIa supply pressure. Presumes the
leak is from a pipe that is 0.2 meters above grade. Temperature is 21°C.
FLAVIC output:
Fuel Leak Rate: 30.0 grams/Sec
Hazardous Range: 1.3 meters for a “free jet” condition
Hazardous Range: 2.2 meters for a “wall jet” condition (along the ground)
API RP-500, Figure D-2 (Category 1 material, release rate 50 to 100 gallons per minute –
from FLAVIC)
Fuel Leak Rate: Not estimated
Hazardous Range: 15.2 to 30.4 meters
IEC 79-10
Flow Leak Rate: Although the IEC 79-10 method uses leak rate, it does
NOT provide a method for calculating flow. Since
FLAVIC uses classic orifice flow calculations, use FLAV-
IC flow rate here then follow IEC method: 0.03 kg/s
Critical Volume =
Vz =
f• ( )
dV
dt min
Where: C0
(dV/dt)min = (dG/dt)max × Ta
k × LEL × 293
With:
(dG/dt)max = Gas Release (kg/s) = 0.03
Ta = Ambient temperature (°K) = 294.15
k = Safety Factor for “Secondary” release = 0.5
LEL = Lower Explosive Limit (mass/volume) = 0.0295 kg/m3
(equivalent to 4,24% by volume)
(dV/dt)min = (0.030 × 294.15)/(0.5 × 0.0295 x 293) = 2.04
Vz = (1 × 2.04)/0.03 = 68.05 m3
Hazardous Range = radius of a sphere encompassing
Vz = (3 × Vz/(4 × Pi))^0.333
= (3 × 68.05/4 × Pi))^0.333 = 2.53 m