Detronics PG 26-27
Detronics PG 26-27
Detronics PG 26-27
Safety
Early detection of gas leaks and ames can help prevent the escalation of dangerous incidents; therefore, safety engineers must design and implement the most eective detection system possible. Engineers pour over ame and gas detector spec sheets, and they consider safety manufacturer certications. But high-quality detectors that are improperly placed might not meet detection goals. Safety experts have long known that wise placement of the devices into a specic application leads to eective detection coverage, which in turn leads to the best scenario for successful mitigation. Yet UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) statistics indicated that 40% of major gas releases in the North Sea oshore installations were not detected by gas detection methods.
To improve safety, more and more detector placement is being performed by experts using computer modeling. This computer-aided detector placement or mapping is the process of determining where detectors are to be placed for optimal response. Mapping has come into more focus lately for several reasons. Rapid technology development and loss of expertise: In the past, gas and flame detection evolved at a comparatively slow rate while on-site personnel applied their experience to position gas and flame detection. Currently, however, detection technology is evolving at a rapid rate while experienced safety personnel are retiring. The art of detection placement now needs to be combined with and converted to a quantifiable science of mapping. Demands of local authorities: Determining the number of detection points necessary and determining fractional detector coverage (the fraction of an area that is covered by detectors) is a challenge. Health and Safety Engineers might recommend 200 of points of detection for a particular site. The EPC Contractor safety supplier might recommend 100. What is the appropriate quantity? Will the fire and gas detectors sense a leak in time for fire and gas system to mitigate the hazard? These are some of the questions asked by local authorities. Facility management and safety engineers must have quantifiable answers. Engineers need a structured process (mapping) in place to determine detector placement. Expectations of users on detection-device manufacturers: Historically manufacturers of gas and flame detectors have focused primarily on providing the most effective gas and flame detection products. Some manufactures, however, now are becoming more involved in the application of their products. Gas detection manufacturers have intimate knowledge of emerging technology, regulatory changes, detector limitations, knowledge of environmental challenges, and more. Point gas detection, such as catalytic bead sensors or infrared (IR) sensors, relies on the gas diffusing to the sensor. Wind, structures, leak size, gas density, and gas pressure can impact gas dispersion. Diffusion of the gas cloud to the sensor is required to detect gases. Line Of Sight (LOS) or open path gas detection relies on the gas dispersing through the open-path beam that runs between the detector transmitter and receiver, which are placed a given distance (such as 5m to 100m) from each other. These sensors are often placed high enough so that foot or vehicle traffic does not block the path. A typical application for LOS detection is fence-line monitoring. Acoustic gas leak detection has emerged as a complementary technology to the two more conventional methods (point and LOS) because the gas leak does not have to diffuse to the sensor itself. The sound of the leak is more evenly dispersed around a leak, so positioning the detector directly in the gas cloud is not necessary.
When selecting gas detectors, it is important to verify that the specified response times account for delays caused by environmental protection such as rain guards. Below is a list of most commonly available gas and leak detector technologies that are commonly mapped.
Changing the outlook of detector placement and influencing the techniques, ISA TR84.00.07-2010 Guidance on the Evaluation of Fire, Combustible Gas and Toxic Gas System Effectiveness [ref.1] provides guidance about methods of determining fractional detector geographic coverage. Methods that calculate the fraction of an area covered by detectors assume that a hazard can exist anywhere within a hazardous area. Fractional coverage is used in risk assessment to determine the overall performance goals of a gas and flame system. To meet the ISA guidance, consultants are beginning to subscribe to one (or a combination) of the following philosophies or approaches to determine where and how many flame and gas detectors are required.
Safety
Full Quantitative Mapping is a risk-based approach and individually calculates each hazard/risk to determine if risk is reduced to a level below Target Mitigated Event Likelihood (TMEL). These risks can be plotted using computer programs to determine where risk is highest and detector placement is necessary. This is the most thorough method, but is computationally intensive. Semi-Quantitative Mapping is emerging as a more commonly used method to define coverage. It takes into account factors such as Types of Processing Equipment, Level of Occupancy, and Asset Protection Value to categorise each zone into grades of required coverage. The following section will describe in more detail the elements of semi-quantitative mapping. A flame must be significant enough to be in the field of view of multiple flame detectors to initiate an executive action.
27
Many mapping programs do consider and calculate coverage for degrees of voting options. The programs recognise the tradeoffs presented by voting and, therefore, show the differences in coverage for varying degrees of voting.
After zones and grades have been determined, a single zones plot plan is loaded into the mapping application to be evaluated. To map the flame detection areas, the certified cone of vision ranges (provided in manufacturers specifications) for optical flame detectors are loaded into the program to designate covered areas. Combustible mapping programs use a rule of thumb created in 1993 by the UK HSE [ref. 2]. This UK HSE study determined that a 6m propane or methane combustible gas cloud could cause a damaging pressure wave on an offshore platform. The UK HSE determined that gas detectors spaced to detect 5m clouds would minimise damaging combustible gas levels. The semiquantitative method assumes that a tolerable 5m spherical gas cloud, or critical gas cloud, can exist anywhere within the defined hazard area. The programs typically used for detector mapping take into account the number of detectors, location of detectors, and zone parameters then calculate percent of geographical coverage. Toxic gas detector mapping can be performed based on uniform spheres surrounding the hazard, similar to combustible gas mapping. Although the 5m sphere size is a reasonable starting point for the mapping of toxic gases, safety engineers must be aware there is no general rule for toxic gas detector spacing. Each application must be carefully considered prior to mapping toxic gas detection. Be aware that cloud size choice can fine tune the mapping program. Using a smaller cloud size in the mapping program reduces the anticipated hazard size and effectively improves system response and safety. Larger cloud size effectively increases response time in low-grade hazardous areas. Ultimately the safety engineer responsible for the site should carefully consider cloud size used in toxic and combustible mapping. The output of the mapping program for gas and flame detection designates the detected and undetected areas on the plot plan to provide a percentage of geographical coverage (Figure 2).
Many mapping programs do consider and calculate coverage for degrees of voting options. The programs recognise the tradeoffs presented by voting and, therefore, show the differences in coverage for varying degrees of voting. During the walkthrough, consider that the combustible gas detectors will need to be cleaned and calibrated periodically to verify operation, therefore, make sure the detectors are accessible for efficient maintenance. Also consider the situation into which the detector is placed. For example, although locating a catalytic bead gas detector in a ditch around a tank farm will provide a quick response to a hazardous incident, if a flood occurs and the ditch fills with water the sensor will be ruined. If the walkthrough indicates significant deviations from mapped locations, coverage should be reevaluated.
Conclusion
In summary, determining the position of gas and flame detection is a challenging opportunity. Following a systematic approach as described in ISA-TR84.00.07 and documenting each step will provide you with a FGS design philosophy. This documented design philosophy can be used to understand the performance goals of your system and act as an aid when changes are made to your processes.
Figure 2. Example of a flame detection coverage map. Yellow circles are the modeled flame detectors with an arrow indicating their orientation.
References
1. ISA TR84.00.07 2010, Guidance on the Evaluation of Fire, Combustible Gas and Toxic Gas System Effectiveness; January 2010. 2. UK Health and Safety Executive; Offshore Technology Report OTO 93 02; Offshore Gas Detection Siting Criterion Investigation of Detector Spacing; Lloyds Register of Shipping, Lloyds Register House, 29 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR0 2AJ.