French German English
Welcome to E2E Engineer Discussion Forum Sign in | Join | Help

Welcome to the E2E Community Discussion Forum!

  • You are among the first to view this thought-provoking and educational networking tool for design engineers looking to discuss integrating electrical components into their products.
  • The forum is open to all who seek, or wish to share useful and meaningful information.
  • We encourage constructive dialog and independent thinking free from promotional innuendo.
  • For more information on the rules and guidelines, read our discussion forum guidelines

Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

Last post 08-18-2005, 8:27 PM by SWerickson. 8 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  04-04-2005, 10:33 AM 25

    Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    Does anybody know the difference between explosion proof and intrinsically safe? Geeked [8-|]
    "We are the dream makers and the dreamers of dreams..."
  •  04-04-2005, 4:18 PM 30 in reply to 25

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    Explosion proof, according to the National Electrical Code, applies to an apparatus enclosed in a case that is capable of withstanding a gas or vapor explosion. It means that, should there be an explosion, it will be contained within an enclosure.

    The definition from FM Global says:

    Intrinsically Safe Circuit:  A circuit in which any spark or thermal effect, produced either normally or in specified fault conditions, is incapable of causing ignition of a mixture of flammable or combustable material in air in the mixture's most easily ignited concentration. 

    Therefore, Intrinsically safe means that an apparatus, such as a temperature transmitter is not capable of causing an explosion.  Explosion proof means that should an explosion occur, it will be contained within an enclosure.

    Paradise [ip]

  •  04-05-2005, 3:36 PM 40 in reply to 30

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    If you are not sure which is required, you can use intrinsically safe devices in an explosionproof assembly and cover all the bases. Typically, a barrier is also required; companies like Stahl, Pepperl & Fuchs, and MTL make those.
    Good enough rarely is
  •  04-06-2005, 11:46 AM 53 in reply to 40

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

     MktgGenius wrote:
    If you are not sure which is required, you can use intrinsically safe devices in an explosionproof assembly and cover all the bases. Typically, a barrier is also required; companies like Stahl, Pepperl & Fuchs, and MTL make those.

    What exactly is a barrier? Why is it needed?

  •  04-07-2005, 8:14 AM 61 in reply to 53

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    A barrier is a device, usually zener diode based, that prevents voltage spikes from entering the safe zone.
  •  04-21-2005, 8:16 AM 141 in reply to 30

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    Confused [*-)] Color me "confused". How does a spark NOT cause "ignition of a mixture of flammable or combustable material in air in the mixture's most easily ignited concentration"? I thought that intrinsically safe meant that the energy to a circuit was limited, so that a spark could never form in the first place. I thought that the function of the barrier was to prevent accidental voltage spikes from propagating to the hazardous area.

  •  04-21-2005, 1:46 PM 145 in reply to 141

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    We have both here(United States) with processes and equipment from all over the world SO we've had to learn both. Intrinsic safety basically means one can go into a plant, disconnect the IS wiring(blue colored here), make and break the wiring connection all day long and nothing will go KA-BOOM Lightning [li] because there is not enough energy. Here are some links for reading:

    One GOOD one I use to explain it to new designers when they ask "Why do I have to....?". Note the wiring layout with dividers as the separation/barriers ARE important to prevent wire placement making the I.S. stuff NOT safe!

    http://www.automation.com/pdf_articles/Applying_Intrinsic_Safety.pdf

    From the WalMart of instrumentation:

    http://www.omega.com/techref/intrinsic.html

    From P&F(with advertisements!):

    http://www.am.pepperl-fuchs.com/techresources/pdf/IS_in_a_nutshell-InTech-Dec2002.pdf

    Since this facility is in the U.S., we have more ex-proof than I.S. installations. One overseas trip to Germany opened my eyes to the advantages of I.S. as the plant had NO CONDUIT!! All wire was underground(control room to process area) and then in wireways(Europe's equivalent of a cabletray?). Lots of bare wires from wireways(overhead) to field devices. Their operators must be more "careful" on the job than some I've seen here Big Smile [:D].

    Also about I.S.: make sure your plant handheld radios(if you use them) are labeled by the manufacturer as I.S or approved for use in hazardous areas so they don't cause a boom when used.

    Cell phones are a gray area BUT a close friend has relayed a tale of a vendor service engineer getting flash burns when hydrocarbon vapors around a compressor caught fire when the vendor answered his cell phone. I've turned mine off before entering a process area after my friend's story and it is now a plant safety rule here. I also leave my cell phone in my car when pumping gas(Class 1 Div 1 mostly, nice dose of benzene exceeding PEL).

    Explosion proof has been covered already in this thread. Hope this helps.


    Always thankful.
  •  04-22-2005, 10:44 AM 152 in reply to 141

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

     Gilligan wrote:

    Confused [*-)] Color me "confused". How does a spark NOT cause "ignition of a mixture of flammable or combustable material in air in the mixture's most easily ignited concentration"?

    Some sparks or thermal effect are incapable of causing ignition of a mixture of flammable or combustible material in air in the mixture's most easily ignited concentration.  FM standard FM3610 contains appenidices B, and C that deal with quantifying a spark.  The spark ignition test is outlined in section XII of FM3610.

    (http://www.fmglobal.com/approvals/resources/approvalstandards/3610.pdf

  •  05-25-2005, 6:36 AM 217 in reply to 145

    Re: Explosion proof vs. Intrinsically safe

    Make sure you use "No Spark" flashlights also.  Ray-o-vac makes one.
View as RSS news feed in XML
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems