Thread Content
When obtaining explosion-proof certification for their products, many customers hesitate between choosing the intrinsically safe design or the flameproof design, and ask me whether it is better to opt for the intrinsically safe option or the flameproof one The explosion-proof type that a product can adopt is determined by the standards according to which it is designed and manufactured; the product’s appearance and internal circuitry are the two most crucial factors. Firstly, in accordance with the **GB3836 series of explosion-proof standards**, explosive hazard areas are classified based on the frequency and duration of the presence of explosive hazardous substances. GB3836.1 divides explosive gas hazard areas into 3 categories: Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2. Zone 0: Areas where explosive gas mixtures are present continuously or for an extended period of time under normal conditions. Zone 1: Areas where explosive gas mixtures may occur under normal conditions. Zone 2: Areas where, under normal conditions, explosive gas mixtures are not likely to occur, or if they do occur, only for a short period of time. In terms of applicable areas, flameproof electrical equipment can only be installed in hazardous areas classified as Zone 1 or Zone 2, whereas intrinsically safe electrical equipment can be used in all such areas. (1) E*a: Devices that maintain their explosion-proof properties even in the presence of failures in two components or other types of faults. Intrinsic safety equipment can be installed in Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2 hazardous areas. E*a intrinsically safe devices are also widely used as explosion-proof electrical equipment in Zone 0 (encapsulated Ex ma and specially designed explosion-proof types can also be used in Zone 0). (2) E*b: Devices that can maintain their explosion-proof properties even in the event of a failure in a component or some other type of fault. E*b intrinsically safe devices can be installed in Zone 1 and Zone 2 hazardous areas. (3) E*c: Can be installed in Zone 2 hazardous areas. It can be seen that intrinsically safe electrical equipment is applicable in a wider range of areas than explosion-proof equipment. Although intrinsically safe electrical equipment boasts advantages such as a wide range of applicable areas, high overall efficiency, and excellent selling points, it is highly attractive to customers. However, compared to intrinsically safe electrical equipment, explosion-proof equipment has higher technical requirements in terms of product design and circuit specifications. This is also a technical bottleneck for many enterprise customers. For example, it is necessary to determine whether the product’s circuitry has been designed in accordance with intrinsically safe principles, or in compliance with standards such as GB3836.1 and GB3835.4; furthermore, it is required to identify which level of ia, ib, or ic the circuitry meets. This can only be determined through testing experiments. The explosion-proof rating assigned to the product must ensure safety at the installation site, and there should be no misclassification or fraud. Flame isolation and intrinsically safe are different types of explosion protection methods; they are not comparable to each other. As long as the product meets the explosion protection requirements, both are safe. Original articles only; plagiarism is strictly prohibited. When reproducing, the source must be indicated.
If both can meet the requirements, of course I’d choose both~
First, consider the usage scenario, and second, think about the cost
As long as it works, that’s fine. In suitable application scenarios, choose the low-cost explosion-proof version.
It’s sufficient as long as the product performs well, but the explosion-proof version provides a visible sense of safety
Everyone is welcome to discuss together: handshake