Are explosion-proof lights or lighthouse lights better for chemical processing plants?
Thread Content
Our company has newly installed a set of petrochemical facilities. The original design firm recommended the use of explosion-proof and corrosion-resistant fluorescent lights for lighting these facilities. However, when we went on site inspections with our company’s management, we saw that some similar companies had installed lighthouses around their facilities instead of those explosion-proof lights (with only some explosion-proof fluorescent lights installed under the platforms and pipe racks). This approach makes the facilities look neater, and it also reduces the need for maintenance significantly. But I’m always worried about the issue of illumination; what if… the consequences could be terrible, after all, the investment in just the lighting for the lighthouse exceeds 1 million. I would appreciate help from colleagues with experience in this area.
I think, from the perspective of investment and energy savings, it’s better to use explosion-proof lights
It is still recommended to use explosion-proof lights for lighting; after all, most chemical processing facilities make use of such lights. From a safety perspective, explosion-proof lights do not pose any safety risks, as the technology available today meets the safety requirements of chemical production environments!
Don’t you do illuminance calculations when designing lighting? Once the calculation is done, we’ll know everything
I think explosion-proof lights are good; it seems that most companies use them!
If it’s not explicitly specified by the standards, it is recommended to use explosion-proof lights – it’s better to be cautious.