Re: Intrinsic safety for factory communication?
Joe, There truly are standards for factory automation for the US and Europe (although I have to dig into my files to tell you the standards). For ITE, industrial control, robotic or any other equipment for use in hazardous locations, the equipment must either be intinsically safe or protected such as by purging or locating within explosion-proof enclosures. You can refer to the US National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) and the European regulations to get an idea of what is a hazardous location (Classes and Zones). Depending on the Classes and/or Zones, various protection schemes are allowed. To cut the story short, factory automation equipment does not necessarily have to be intrinsically safe and/or explosion-proof. This depends on the factory environment in which it is placed. Have a good day. Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help me gain an understanding of the requirements for intrinsic safety for communication wiring that is used in a manufacturing environment. My background is in telecom and ITE, not factory automation. However, I have been asked to assist a client with developing some communication technology that will be used for sensors and controls on a factory floor. My client tells me that for communication wiring that is used in a factory, there are requirements for intrinsic safety of the wiring. Among other things, there is reportedly a test where connections are made and broken in an atmosphere that contains explosive gases. Since any sparks generated from the make/break of the connections could ignite the gases, it is reportedly necessary to design the communication scheme in such a way that no sparks are generated. When I asked where these requirements are documented, I was told that there is no written standard for intrinsic safety. Rather, the system must be submitted to an independent agency for review, and this agency will evaluate the system according to their own (internal) criteria. Now, coming from a background in ITE, I find this hard to believe. In the ITE world, we have documented standards for safety such as UL 1950 in the USA and EN 60950 in Europe. I find it hard to imagine that there are no comparable standards for factory automation. Can any of you clarify this issue for me? Where does the concept of intrinsic safety come from, and how is compliance determined? I am interested in addressing this issue for both North America and Europe. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2840 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). PETER S. MERGUERIAN MANAGING DIRECTOR PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD. HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211 OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL TEL: 972-3-5339022 FAX: 972-3-5339019 E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Intrinsic safety for factory communication?
In addition to the very good info already offered, you might consider purchasing an excellent text from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.nfpa.org/ The text is Electrical Installations in Hazardous Locations and is intended for the beginner and the practitioner. I purchased my copy about 10 years ago, but I visited their catalog site and it appears that the current revision is 1998. This text was tremendous help to me way back when I started my haz loc learning curve. The book will describe the spark ignition test you refer to. My revision also touched upon international compliance and the EU Zone ratings. Your best contacts for information are likely to be Factory Mutual for North America (781-255-4822, Bill Lawrence) and BASEEFA for the EU (United Kingdom, Ron Sinclair, 44-1298-28-203). Carl Newton Xycom Automation From: j...@aol.com on 09/02/99 04:59 PM GMT Please respond to j...@aol.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Carl Newton/XYCOM) Subject: Intrinsic safety for factory communication? Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help me gain an understanding of the requirements for intrinsic safety for communication wiring that is used in a manufacturing environment. My background is in telecom and ITE, not factory automation. However, I have been asked to assist a client with developing some communication technology that will be used for sensors and controls on a factory floor. My client tells me that for communication wiring that is used in a factory, there are requirements for intrinsic safety of the wiring. Among other things, there is reportedly a test where connections are made and broken in an atmosphere that contains explosive gases. Since any sparks generated from the make/break of the connections could ignite the gases, it is reportedly necessary to design the communication scheme in such a way that no sparks are generated. When I asked where these requirements are documented, I was told that there is no written standard for intrinsic safety. Rather, the system must be submitted to an independent agency for review, and this agency will evaluate the system according to their own (internal) criteria. Now, coming from a background in ITE, I find this hard to believe. In the ITE world, we have documented standards for safety such as UL 1950 in the USA and EN 60950 in Europe. I find it hard to imagine that there are no comparable standards for factory automation. Can any of you clarify this issue for me? Where does the concept of intrinsic safety come from, and how is compliance determined? I am interested in addressing this issue for both North America and Europe. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2840 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Intrinsic safety for factory communication?
Intrinsically Safe apparatus. USA Standards Factory Mutual Research Corp Standard 3610 Intrinsically Safe Apparatus for use in Class 1, 2, and 3, Division 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations. Also for reference with this standard, 3600 Electrical Equipment for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations General Requirements Underwriters Laboratories UL 913 Intrinsically Safe Apparatus Canadian Standards CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 157 Intrinsically Safe Apparatus IEC 79 series Electrical apparatus for Explosive gas atmospheres. EN50020 EN50039 Factory Automation Equipment UL 508, C or UL31010-1 CAN/CSA 22.2 No. 14, 142, or 1010-1 IEC 1131 Series Programmable logic control IEC 1010-1 Industrial, Scientific and Measurement Sincerely, John Merrill Product Safety Engineer Schneider Automation Inc. j...@aol.com on 09/02/99 12:59:54 PM Please respond to j...@aol.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: John Merrill/Aut/Schneider) Subject: Intrinsic safety for factory communication? Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help me gain an understanding of the requirements for intrinsic safety for communication wiring that is used in a manufacturing environment. My background is in telecom and ITE, not factory automation. However, I have been asked to assist a client with developing some communication technology that will be used for sensors and controls on a factory floor. My client tells me that for communication wiring that is used in a factory, there are requirements for intrinsic safety of the wiring. Among other things, there is reportedly a test where connections are made and broken in an atmosphere that contains explosive gases. Since any sparks generated from the make/break of the connections could ignite the gases, it is reportedly necessary to design the communication scheme in such a way that no sparks are generated. When I asked where these requirements are documented, I was told that there is no written standard for intrinsic safety. Rather, the system must be submitted to an independent agency for review, and this agency will evaluate the system according to their own (internal) criteria. Now, coming from a background in ITE, I find this hard to believe. In the ITE world, we have documented standards for safety such as UL 1950 in the USA and EN 60950 in Europe. I find it hard to imagine that there are no comparable standards for factory automation. Can any of you clarify this issue for me? Where does the concept of intrinsic safety come from, and how is compliance determined? I am interested in addressing this issue for both North America and Europe. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2840 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Intrinsic safety for factory communication?
Hi Joe, Start with UL 913. Then go to CSA, UL or FM sites and search on the topics, intrinsic safety hazardous locations hazloc. Also, on the Safety Link, you will find a link to a 6-part tutorial on this subject . Search on the term intrinsically safe or crouse-hinds www.safetylink.com Regards, Art Michael * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * International Product Safety Bookshop * * Check out our current offerings! * * http://www.safetylink.com/bookshop.html * * * * Another service of the Safety Link* * www.safetylink.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --- On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 j...@aol.com wrote: Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help me gain an understanding of the requirements for intrinsic safety for communication wiring that is used in a manufacturing environment. My background is in telecom and ITE, not factory automation. However, I have been asked to assist a client with developing some communication technology that will be used for sensors and controls on a factory floor. My client tells me that for communication wiring that is used in a factory, there are requirements for intrinsic safety of the wiring. Among other things, there is reportedly a test where connections are made and broken in an atmosphere that contains explosive gases. Since any sparks generated from the make/break of the connections could ignite the gases, it is reportedly necessary to design the communication scheme in such a way that no sparks are generated. When I asked where these requirements are documented, I was told that there is no written standard for intrinsic safety. Rather, the system must be submitted to an independent agency for review, and this agency will evaluate the system according to their own (internal) criteria. Now, coming from a background in ITE, I find this hard to believe. In the ITE world, we have documented standards for safety such as UL 1950 in the USA and EN 60950 in Europe. I find it hard to imagine that there are no comparable standards for factory automation. Can any of you clarify this issue for me? Where does the concept of intrinsic safety come from, and how is compliance determined? I am interested in addressing this issue for both North America and Europe. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2840 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Intrinsic safety for factory communication?
Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help me gain an understanding of the requirements for intrinsic safety for communication wiring that is used in a manufacturing environment. My background is in telecom and ITE, not factory automation. However, I have been asked to assist a client with developing some communication technology that will be used for sensors and controls on a factory floor. My client tells me that for communication wiring that is used in a factory, there are requirements for intrinsic safety of the wiring. Among other things, there is reportedly a test where connections are made and broken in an atmosphere that contains explosive gases. Since any sparks generated from the make/break of the connections could ignite the gases, it is reportedly necessary to design the communication scheme in such a way that no sparks are generated. When I asked where these requirements are documented, I was told that there is no written standard for intrinsic safety. Rather, the system must be submitted to an independent agency for review, and this agency will evaluate the system according to their own (internal) criteria. Now, coming from a background in ITE, I find this hard to believe. In the ITE world, we have documented standards for safety such as UL 1950 in the USA and EN 60950 in Europe. I find it hard to imagine that there are no comparable standards for factory automation. Can any of you clarify this issue for me? Where does the concept of intrinsic safety come from, and how is compliance determined? I am interested in addressing this issue for both North America and Europe. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2840 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
