ATEX/IECEx Certification Training

From Basics to Advanced Hardware Design

Prepared by: Engr. JAVAID MUSA

August 18, 2025

Contents

1 Fundamentals 4
1.1 Introduction to Hazardous Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1 Explosive Atmospheres: Gases, Vapors, Dusts . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2 Ignition Sources: Sparks, Arcs, Hot Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.3 Why ATEX/IECEx Exists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Regulatory Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 ATEX Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 IECEx Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.3 ISO Standards in Ex (ISO/IEC 80079 Series) . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.4 Regional Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Compliance vs Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.1 Compliance (Design Following Rules) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 Certification (3rd-Party Validation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.3 Role of Notified Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Hazardous Area Classification 7

2.1 Zones & Equipment Groups — The Big Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Gas Zones (Zone 0, 1, 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Dust Zones (Zone 20, 21, 22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Equipment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Temperature Classes (Gases: T1–T6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Equipment Protection Levels (EPLs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7 Mapping EPLs to Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8 Practical Design Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.9 Reading Markings (Quick Decoder) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Explosion Protection Techniques 12

4 Hardware Design for Ex i 14

4.1 Intrinsic-Safety Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.1 1.1 Energy limitation (the core idea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.2 1.2 Current limiting, clamping & protection parts . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.3 1.3 Galvanic isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.4 1.4 PCB layout for Ex i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Component Selection for Ex i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1 2.1 Resistors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2 2.2 Capacitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3 2.3 Inductors/Chokes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.4 2.4 Semiconductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1
 4.2.5 2.5 Barriers & isolators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Power & Interfaces (Design Cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.1 3.1 Safe power input (Zone 0/1, Ex ia/ib IIC) . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.2 3.2 Analog inputs/outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.3 3.3 Digital & comms (special cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 Testing & Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.1 4.1 Spark-ignition assessment (what you must prove) . . . . . . . 17
4.4.2 4.2 Thermal ignition analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.3 4.3 Using Annex A/G (practical workflow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.4 4.4 Laboratory methods (build confidence early) . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5 End-to-End Design Example (Ex ia IIC, Zone 0 sensor loop) . . . . . . . 19
4.6 Practical Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7 Closing advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5 System-Level Design (full detail + worked examples) 21

5.1 Associated apparatus & system approval — what, why, high-level flow . . 21
5.2 Entity concept vs FISCO / FNICO — pick the right system model . . . 22
5.3 Cable parameters (Co , Lo ) and system design — the math you must do . 22
5.4 Mixed circuits — combining Ex i and non-Ex electronics on one platform 24
5.5 Rules for galvanic isolation — how to achieve and verify Um . . . . . . . 24
5.6 Mechanical & environmental design — enclosure, IP and more . . . . . . 25
5.7 Design case — complete system example (flow computer project) . . . . 27
5.8 Documentation you must ship with the product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.9 Quick practical checklist (for design reviews) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.10 References / further reading (quick links) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6 Certification Process 29
6.1 Documentation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1.1 Design Dossier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1.2 Safety Assessment Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1.3 Marking Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2 Compliance Testing & Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2.1 Type Tests for Ex i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2.2 Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2.3 Quality Assurance Notifications (QAN / QAR) . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.3 Working with Certification Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.3.1 Test Reports & Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.4 Design Case Walkthrough — certifying an IS analog input board . . . . . 31
6.5 Key Takeaways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

7 Advanced Topics 33
7.1 Global Compliance Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.1.1 ATEX (EU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.1.2 IECEx (Global) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.1.3 UL/FM (North America) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.1.4 EAC (Eurasian Customs Union) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.5 NEPSI (China) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.6 Mutual Recognition Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.2 Integrating ATEX with ISO Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2
 7.2.1 ISO 9001 – Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.2.2 ISO/IEC 80079-34 – Ex Quality System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.2.3 Functional Safety (IEC 61508 / IEC 61511) . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3 Future Trends in Ex Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3.1 Wireless & IoT in Ex Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3.2 Smart Sensors with Ex i Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3.3 Cybersecurity in Ex Certified Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.4 Design Case – Ex i Smart Sensor for Zone 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.5 Key Takeaways from Module 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8 Practical Workshop 37
8.1 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.1.1 Case Study 1 – Designing an Ex i Pressure Sensor Input . . . . . 37
8.1.2 Case Study 2 – Designing an Ex i RS-485 Communication Interface 37
8.1.3 Case Study 3 – Troubleshooting Failed Compliance . . . . . . . . 38
8.2 Mock Certification Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.2.1 Step 1 – Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.2.2 Step 2 – Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.2.3 Step 3 – Fault Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.2.4 Step 4 – Compliance Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.2.5 Step 5 – Mock Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.3 Key Takeaways from Module 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3
Module 1 Fundamentals

1.1 Introduction to Hazardous Areas

1.1.1 Explosive Atmospheres: Gases, Vapors, Dusts
A hazardous area is any environment where flammable gases, vapors, mists, or com-
bustible dusts are present in concentrations that could ignite.
Examples:

• Gases & Vapors: Methane in mines, Propane in LPG plants, Hydrogen in elec-
trolyzers, Ethanol vapors in distilleries.

• Dusts: Flour in food processing, Grain dust in silos, Wood dust in sawmills, Coal
dust in power plants.

Key insight: Explosions often occur in unexpected places — e.g., sugar dust in a
bakery can be just as dangerous as gasoline vapor in a refinery.

1.1.2 Ignition Sources: Sparks, Arcs, Hot Surfaces

Any energy source can ignite an explosive atmosphere if not controlled. Common causes
include:

• Electrical sparks – from switches, relays, or damaged cables.

• Arcs – from connectors, commutators, or switching devices.

• Hot surfaces – motors, resistors, or lamps exceeding safe temperature classes.

• Electrostatic discharge – static buildup during handling of powders or fuels.

• Mechanical sparks – grinding, impact, or friction between metal parts.

Example: In a chemical plant, a small relay spark inside a non-Ex enclosure could
ignite solvent vapors, causing a chain explosion. This is why intrinsic safety and other
Ex protection methods exist.

1.1.3 Why ATEX/IECEx Exists

The main goal is to protect workers, assets, and the environment from explosions.
Before ATEX: Every country had its own rules, leading to expensive and inconsis-
tent approvals.
Now: ATEX (EU law) and IECEx (global scheme) harmonize requirements.
Benefits:

4
 • Reduces accidents and fatalities.
• Ensures trust in certified equipment.
• Enables international trade by standardizing rules.
Real-world example: Without harmonized standards, a pressure transmitter cer-
tified in Germany couldn’t be sold in France. ATEX/IECEx solved this by creating
universal criteria.

1.2 Regulatory Frameworks

1.2.1 ATEX Directives
ATEX 2014/34/EU (Product Directive)
• Covers manufacturers of Ex equipment.
• Requires CE marking + ATEX coding.
• Example: A flow computer used in Zone 1 must be certified to ATEX.
ATEX 1999/92/EC (Workplace Directive)
• Covers end users/employers.
• Employers must assess hazardous zones & use certified equipment.
• Example: A refinery must classify its areas into Zone 0, 1, 2 before installing
sensors.
Key difference: One applies to equipment suppliers, the other to site operators.

1.2.2 IECEx Scheme

• A global certification system managed by IEC (International Electrotechnical Com-
mission).
• Not legally mandatory, but widely recognized.
• Ensures one product tested/certified once → accepted in multiple countries.
• Example: An IS transmitter tested in Germany can be accepted in Australia,
South Africa, or the Middle East without re-testing.

1.2.3 ISO Standards in Ex (ISO/IEC 80079 Series)

• ISO & IEC jointly publish technical rules for explosive atmospheres.
• Examples:
– ISO/IEC 80079-34 → Quality management for Ex equipment (similar to ISO
9001, but Ex-focused).
– IEC 60079-11 → Intrinsic safety design rules.
– IEC 60079-0 → General requirements for all Ex equipment.

5
1.2.4 Regional Certifications
Even with ATEX/IECEx, some regions have their own requirements:
• EAC (Eurasian Conformity) – Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus.
• NEPSI – China’s Ex certification.
• UL/FM – Explosion-proof standards in USA.
• CSA – Canadian certification.
• INMETRO – Brazil’s mandatory Ex scheme.
Example: A device with ATEX approval might still require UL/FM certification for
the U.S. market.

1.3 Compliance vs Certification

1.3.1 Compliance (Design Following Rules)
• Means designing circuits, enclosures, and systems according to ATEX/IECEx stan-
dards.
• Example: A PCB for a pressure sensor uses Zener diodes, resistors, and isolation
barriers per IEC 60079-11 guidelines.

1.3.2 Certification (3rd-Party Validation)

• A notified body (TÜV, DEKRA, Baseefa, PTB, UL) checks the design, performs
tests, and issues a certificate.
• Example: TÜV tests your IS PCB under short-circuit and overload → issues
IECEx Certificate of Conformity (CoC).

1.3.3 Role of Notified Bodies

• Independent organizations authorized to test, inspect, and certify Ex equipment.
• They verify that designs actually meet safety standards, not just on paper.
• Example: A notified body tests your barrier circuit under multiple fault conditions
before certification.

Summary of Module 1
• Hazardous areas exist anywhere explosive gases or dusts are present.
• ATEX (Europe) and IECEx (Global) are the main frameworks.
• ISO standards guide how to design Ex equipment.
• Compliance = following rules in design. Certification = external approval.
• Notified bodies validate safety before market release.

6
Module 2 Hazardous Area Classification

2.1 Zones & Equipment Groups — The Big Picture

Hazardous locations are classified in two dimensions:

• How often an explosive atmosphere is present → Zones

• What the fuel is → Equipment Groups (mining gas, industrial gas, or dust)

Designers must select equipment with the right Protection Level for the Zone and the
fuel Group present.

2.2 Gas Zones (Zone 0, 1, 2)

Zone Presence of explosive gas/vapor Typical places

atmosphere
Design take-
away
Zone 0 Continuous or long periods or frequent Inside gasoline tanks,
solvent tanks, vapor
spaces of process ves-
sels
Use very high
protection (EPL
Ga), e.g., Ex ia
Zone 1 Likely in normal operation (intermit- Around pump seals,
tent) loading/unloading
areas, near venting
points
Use high protec-
tion (EPL Gb),
e.g., Ex ib
Zone 2 Unlikely in normal operation; if occurs, Periphery of Zone 1,
short duration well-ventilated areas,
pipe racks
Use enhanced
protection (EPL
Gc), e.g., Ex ic

7
 Table 2.1: Gas Zone classification and design guidance.

Rule of thumb: If gas is there all the time → Zone 0; Sometimes → Zone 1; Rarely
→ Zone 2.

2.3 Dust Zones (Zone 20, 21, 22)

Zone Presence of combustible dust Typical places

Design take-
away
Zone 20 Continuous or frequent cloud/thick lay- Mixers, mills, filters,
ers inside equipment silos (flour, sugar,
coal)
Very high pro-
tection (EPL
Da), e.g., Ex
ta/tb
Zone 21 Likely in normal operation Bagging lines, chute
outlets, dust collectors
High protection
(EPL Db)
Zone 22 Unlikely, short duration (abnormal Process peripheries,
events) ventilated areas
Enhanced pro-
tection (EPL
Dc)
Table 2.2: Dust Zone classification and design guidance.

Note: Both dust clouds and layers can ignite. Surface temperature limits must be
designed for both conditions.

2.4 Equipment Groups

Group I — Mining (Methane/Coal Dust)
• Intended for underground mines susceptible to firedamp (methane) and coal dust.

• EPLs:

– Ma: Very high (safe even with two faults; can remain energized).
– Mb: High (must be de-energized when explosive atmosphere occurs).

Group II — Industrial Gas/Vapor (Surface Industries)

Divided by gas explosibility:

8
 • IIA: Propane-class gases (easier to protect).
• IIB: Ethylene-class gases (more demanding).
• IIC: Hydrogen/Acetylene-class gases (most demanding). Design to IIC and you
cover IIB/IIA.

Group III — Dust

• IIIA: Fibres/flyings (cotton).
• IIIB: Non-conductive dust (flour, sugar, grain).
• IIIC: Conductive dust (aluminum, carbon black). Design to IIIC and you cover
IIIA/IIIB.
Examples:
• Ex ia IIC T4 Ga → Intrinsically safe for gases, toughest IIC group, T4 surface
temp, Zone 0.
• Ex tb IIIC T120°C Db → Dust-protected “tb”, conductive dust, 120 °C max surface,
Zone 21.

2.5 Temperature Classes (Gases: T1–T6)

T-Class Max Surface Temperature

T1 450 °C
T2 300 °C
T3 200 °C
T4 135 °C
T5 100 °C
T6 85 °C

Table 2.3: Temperature class limits for gases/vapors.

How They’re Used

• Pick a T-class below the Auto-Ignition Temperature (AIT) of the gas.
• Example: If solvent AIT = 210 °C → choose T3 (200 °C) or safer (T4, T5, T6).

Surface Temperature Limits (Dust)

For dust, direct °C values are used instead of T1–T6. The marking shows max surface
temp.
Rules:
• Surface temp ≤ 2/3 × MIT (Minimum Ignition Temperature) of dust cloud.
• Surface temp ≤ (MIT of 5 mm dust layer) – 75 K.
Example: Flour MIT (cloud) 490 °C → 2/3 × 490 327 °C. Flour MIT (5 mm layer)
300 °C → 300 – 75 = 225 °C. Thus, choose device ≤ 225C (e.g., Ex tb IIIC T200 °C Db).

9
2.6 Equipment Protection Levels (EPLs)
Mining (Group I)
• Ma: Very high protection (two faults, remain energized).

• Mb: High protection (de-energize if explosive atmosphere).

Gases/Vapors (Group II)

• Ga: Very high protection → Ex ia (two faults).

• Gb: High protection → Ex ib (one fault).

• Gc: Enhanced protection → Ex ic (no fault).

Dust (Group III)

• Da: Very high protection (Zone 20).

• Db: High protection (Zone 21).

• Dc: Enhanced protection (Zone 22).

2.7 Mapping EPLs to Zones

Atmosphere Zone Typical EPL Protection Type Example

Gas/Vapor Zone 0 Ga Ex ia (intrinsic safety, 2 faults)
Gas/Vapor Zone 1 Gb Ex ib, Ex d, Ex e, Ex p
Gas/Vapor Zone 2 Gc Ex ic, Ex ec
Dust Zone 20 Da Ex ta, Ex ia
Dust Zone 21 Db Ex tb
Dust Zone 22 Dc Ex tc

Table 2.4: Mapping of EPLs to Zones with examples.

Design shorthand:

• Ga/Da → continuous presence (Zones 0/20).

• Gb/Db → normal operation (Zones 1/21).

• Gc/Dc → rare/abnormal presence (Zones 2/22).

If certified to a higher EPL, it is acceptable in lower-risk zones (e.g., Ga in Zone 1 or 2).

10
2.8 Practical Design Examples
• Tank level transmitter in solvent tank headspace: Zone 0 → Ex ia IIC T4
Ga + IS barrier.

• Grain conveyor bearing sensor: Zone 21 → Ex tb IIIC T120°C Db enclosure

or Ex ib IS probe.

• Gas detector in ventilated compressor hall: Zone 2 → Ex ic Gc or Ex ec Gc

device, T-class checked.

2.9 Reading Markings (Quick Decoder)

• Ex ia IIC T4 Ga

– Ex = Explosion protection
– ia = Intrinsic safety (2 faults)
– IIC = Gas group (Hydrogen/Acetylene)
– T4 = Max 135 °C surface temp
– Ga = EPL for Zone 0

• Ex tb IIIC T120°C Db

– t = Protection by enclosure (dust)

– b = Suitable for Zone 21
– IIIC = Conductive dust
– T120°C = Max surface temp
– Db = EPL for Zone 21

Key Takeaways
• Zones = how often hazard is present; Groups = type of fuel.

• T-classes (gas) and °C ratings (dust) prevent hot-surface ignition.

• EPLs encode reliability and map directly to zones.

• Always design to the tougher category (IIC for gases, IIIC for dust, higher EPL).

11
Module 3 Explosion Protection Techniques

Module 3: Explosion Protection Techniques

0) Overview — Picking the Right Concept
Explosion protection methods all pursue the same goal (no ignition), but by different
design principles:

Concept Idea in one line Typical Zones

Ex d – Flame- Let an internal explosion happen, con- Zone 1 (Gb), Zone 2
proof tain it, and cool escaping gases through (Gc)
flamepaths
Ex e – Increased Prevent arcs/sparks and reduce tem- Zone 1 (Gb), Zone 2
safety perature by robust construction & (Gc)
clearances
Ex n – Non- For Zone 2 only: avoid arcs, limit Zone 2 (Gc)
sparking temps, simplified requirements vs Ex e
(legacy; now
“Ex ec” etc.)
Ex p – Pressur- Keep enclosure at safe overpressure Zone 1 (Gb), Zone 2
ization with clean gas; purge before energizing (Gc)
Ex t – Dust (en- Keep dust out (IP-rated) and limit sur- Zone 20/21/22
closure) face temperature (Da/Db/Dc)
Ex q – Powder Bury ignition sources in quartz/sand to Zone 1/2 (Gb/Gc)
filling quench sparks
Ex o – Oil im- Immerse parts in oil so ignition can’t Zone 1/2 (Gb/Gc)
mersion reach the atmosphere
Ex i – Intrinsic Limit electrical energy (V, I, stored E) Zone 0/1/2
safety so sparks/heat can’t ignite (Ga/Gb/Gc)

Note: In modern IECEx/ATEX, Ex nA is largely replaced by Ex ec (increased safety

for Zone 2). If your project targets new certificates, prefer the newer Ex ec/ic notation.

1) Ex d — Flameproof (Flameproof Enclosure)

Principle: If an internal explosion occurs, the enclosure contains it. Hot gases exiting
through precision flamepaths (threaded joints, spigots, flanges) are cooled below the
ignition temperature of the external atmosphere.
Use cases: Motors, switchgear, transmitters with relays/contacts, analyzers—where
arcs/sparks are unavoidable.
Pros:

12
 • Handles high-power, sparking devices.
• Widely available for rotating machines and heavy-duty gear.

Cons / Design watch-outs:

• Heavy, expensive; tight tolerances on flamepaths.

• Cable entries usually need barrier glands.
• Opening the enclosure in a hazardous area often requires gas clearance.

Design case (motor junction box, Zone 1, IIB, T4):

• Select Ex d IIB T4 Gb enclosure rated for your volume and service temperature.
• Verify flamepath geometry (lengths/gaps per group IIB) and corrosion resistance.
• Provide barrier glands for all cable entries; specify compound curing procedure.
• Thermal: ensure surface temp ≤ 135◦ C (T4) at worst case (ambient + load).
• Nameplate: include gas group, T-class, ambient range, warning about opening
energized.

Compliance checks: Flame-transmission test, impact test, IP, thermal test, routine
pressure test on flamepaths.

2) Ex e — Increased Safety
Principle: Use non-sparking components and constructional measures: increased creep-
age and clearance, robust terminals, tight connections, reduced temperatures, strain re-
liefs, fault tolerance.
Use cases: Terminal boxes, lighting, motors (Ex e versions), instrument housings
with only non-arcing parts.
Pros:

• Lighter and cheaper than Ex d; easy maintenance.

• Good for power distribution and junction boxes.

Cons / Design watch-outs:

• No switching/arcing contacts allowed (unless suitably segregated by another con-

cept).
• Thermal design and creepage/clearance are critical.

Design case (terminal box, Zone 1, IIC, T4):

• Use Ex e IIC T4 Gb enclosure with approved terminals.

• PCB: increase creepage/clearance beyond industrial norms; add barriers where
needed.
• Use anti-vibration hardware; torque terminals; add locking features.
• Verify temperature rise at maximum load/ambient stays within T4.
• Provide strain reliefs, crimp lugs, and captive fasteners.

Compliance checks: Clearances/creepage, thermal rise, pull/torque tests, IP rating,

terminations robustness.

13
Module 4 Hardware Design for Ex i

4.1 Intrinsic-Safety Design Principles

4.1.1 1.1 Energy limitation (the core idea)
Goal: even if a user makes/breaks the field wiring (or a fault happens), the available
electrical energy (steady-state + transient + stored) cannot ignite the target atmosphere
(IIC/IIB/IIA or IIIC) at the required protection level (ia/ib/ic).
Key stored-energy formulas:

Capacitor: EC = 12 C V 2

Inductor: EL = 12 L I 2
Design rule: choose topology and components so that, under worst case (including
faults + tolerances), the spark energy at any accessible connection stays below the ignition
limit for the group, with the required safety factor (1.5 for “ia/ib”, 1.0 for “ic”).
Worked check (capacitive): If your IS source has Uo = 16 V (max open-circuit) and
field device + cable present Ctotal = 70 nF, then

EC = 0.5 × 70 × 10−9 × 162 ≈ 8.96 µJ.

You must verify (via Annex A/G method or barrier vendor entity data) that this is below
the allowed spark energy for your group with the correct safety factor.
Worked check (inductive): If loop current could reach Io = 93 mA and total external
L = 1.5 mH, then
EL = 0.5 × 1.5 × 10−3 × 0.0932 ≈ 6.5 µJ.
Again compare against the group’s limit (with safety factor).
Practical tip: designing to Group IIC (most stringent) and ia (two faults) simplifies
product variants and future-proofs the design.

4.1.2 1.2 Current limiting, clamping & protection parts

The classic IS front end (simplified): supply → series resistor(s) → fuse (or current
limiter) → Zener clamp(s)/TVS → field terminals.
Series resistors (Rlim ): set worst-case current under short, and slow down transients.
Size for fault power: P = I 2 R with ambient derating (e.g., 50–70% of rated power at
40–60 °C).
Use flameproof metal-film; consider fusible types if they are part of the protective
chain.
Zener diodes / TVS: cap the line voltage in open-circuit/inductive kick.
Select Vz above normal operating voltage but below dangerous levels.

14
 Check tolerance and tempco; verify surge (IPP) & SOA vs. worst faults.
In Ex i, many barriers use multiple Zeners in series/parallel to meet power and re-
dundancy targets.
Fuse / resettable limiter: ensures Zener(s) don’t overheat in a sustained fault.
Check I 2 t of the fuse ¡ surge energy the Zener can stand.
If using electronic current limiting, assess both steady-state and transient behavior.
TVS vs Zener: TVS offers fast transient clamping; Zener stacks set DC ceiling. Often
both are used: TVS for spikes; Zeners for DC limit.
Worked sizing (outline): Suppose input supply can be 24 Vdc (±10%), your IS output
must not exceed Uo = 16 V. Choose Zener stack Vz total ≈ 15 V at max temp, then pick
Rlim so that at worst short, I ≤ Io (e.g., 93 mA).
24 × 1.1 − 15
Rlim ≥ ≈ 86 Ω → choose 100 Ω
0.093
(power at short: I 2 R ≈ 0.87 W → use 2 W flameproof; verify rise & T-limit).
Fuse: pick a fast-acting part that opens before Zener(s) exceed their non-repetitive
surge rating during a sustained overload.

4.1.3 1.3 Galvanic isolation

Why: break ground loops, satisfy Um separation to other non-IS circuits, and simplify
entity calculations.
Use isolated DC/DC (reinforced insulation) and isolated signal (opto/isolator/transformer).
Maintain clearance/creepage across the isolation barrier for Um (often 250 VACrms is
used; check your certification plan).
Verify isolation test voltage, CTI, and insulation class/temperature.
Design case: an IS 4–20 mA input module with reinforced isolation 3 kVrms (1 min) to
the non-IS side, and PCB slotting to enhance creepage. The transformer and optocouplers
carry approvals (basic/reinforced) matching or exceeding Um .

4.1.4 1.4 PCB layout for Ex i

Segregate IS vs non-IS areas; use silkscreen keep-outs, barriers, and slots where needed.
Respect clearance/creepage across Um interfaces; observe material CTI and pollution
degree.
Route field lines with series R close to the terminal; keep Zener/TVS thermally un-
constrained (don’t bury under potting unless assessed).
Avoid large copper pours tied to IS lines (unwanted C).
Place guard traces at reference potential to reduce capacitive coupling where Ci budget
is tight.
Use blue terminal blocks or marking for IS circuits (as per local practice) and label
connection facilities per control drawing.

4.2 Component Selection for Ex i

4.2.1 2.1 Resistors
Metal-film flameproof; verify pulse and continuous load under faults.
Fusible resistors can provide predictable open-circuit under sustained overload.

15
 Temperature coefficient matters if the resistor defines Uo /Io limits.
Example: If Rlim = 100 Ω forms part of the safety chain and can see 0.9 W under
worst case, choose ≥ 2 W flameproof, verify rise so nearby surfaces stay below T-class
limit (e.g., T4 = 135 °C).

4.2.2 2.2 Capacitors

Every capacitor contributes to Ci. Prefer C0G/NP0 or polypropylene/polyester film for
stability and low loss.
Avoid large electrolytics before the current-limit point; place bulk C behind IS resis-
tors so it doesn’t count toward Ci at the connection facility.
For surge snubbing, use small C (nF range) and include it in Ci.

4.2.3 2.3 Inductors/Chokes

Inductors add Li; common-mode chokes on comms lines can quickly eat Lo budget.
Choose parts with low DC resistance (reduces heating) and documented inductance
vs current.
Evaluate EL during fault currents.

4.2.4 2.4 Semiconductors

If intrinsic safety depends on a semiconductor limiter, you must verify steady-state and
transient limits (with safety factor).
Use de-rated MOSFETs/regulators; verify SOA for surge and short-circuit cases.
Protect IC inputs/outputs with series resistors + low-C TVS; include their capacitance
in Ci.

4.2.5 2.5 Barriers & isolators

Zener barriers: simple, require reliable earth. Entity data given as Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo .
Galvanic isolators: no intrinsic earth required; better EMC; typically more expensive.
Pick barrier rating to IIC, then check entity:
Uo ≤ Ui , Io ≤ Ii , Po ≤ Pi
Ci device + Ccable ≤ Co , Li device + Lcable ≤ Lo
Entity example:
Barrier (IIC): Uo = 16 V, Io = 93 mA, Po = 0.65 W, Co = 83 nF, Lo = 4 mH
Field device: Ui = 20 V, Ii = 100 mA, Pi = 1 W, Ci = 10 nF, Li = 0.3 mH
Cable: C = 60 nF, L = 1.2 mH
Checks → U/I/P OK; Ctotal = 70 nF ≤ 83 nF, Ltotal = 1.5 mH ≤ 4 mH → OK.

4.3 Power & Interfaces (Design Cases)

4.3.1 3.1 Safe power input (Zone 0/1, Ex ia/ib IIC)
Target: IS power spur delivering up to ∼ 12 V/30 mA.
Front end: 24 V plant → fuse → Rlim → Zener stack ∼ 15 V + TVS → IS terminals.
DC/DC (isolated) downstream to generate internal rails; bulk caps AFTER the IS
limit node.

16
 Calc: Choose Rlim to ensure Io ≤ barrier rating under short; verify Zener power until
fuse clears; compute EC of any capacitance seen at terminals.
Voltage budget (4–20 mA loop):

Vsupply(PLC) − Vbarrier drop − Vcable drop − Vtx compliance ≥ 0

Ensure headroom at 20 mA worst case.

4.3.2 3.2 Analog inputs/outputs

AI (4–20 mA): put precision shunt and ADC behind the IS limit. Add input RC (small
C counted in Ci).
AO (4–20 mA): current source must be behind IS limit; limit open-circuit voltage
with Zener; check Po .
RTD/TC: constant-current source with hard I-limit; keep wiring energy low; compute
P in leads under short.
Example (RTD, Ex ia IIC): excite at 0.8 mA through 1 k reference; series R at output
node to cap Io under short; TVS clamps to ∼ 12-15 V; total Ci at terminals ≤ Co .

4.3.3 3.3 Digital & comms (special cases)

RS-485 (Ex ib/ic): Use isolated transceiver; add series 47-100 Ω per line to limit surge
current.
Choose low-C TVS (10–15 pF each side) and include in Ci.
Bias network (fail-safe) increases power; position behind IS limit.
Cable C & L can be large; verify Co/Lo with max bus length.
If Co is tight, reduce length/data rate, or use fiber.
CAN (Ex ib/ic): Similar to RS-485; common-mode chokes add Li—include in Lo
budget.
Validate dominant state current under short (through series R + transceiver).
USB (usually Zone 2, Ex ic, or avoid): Standard USB has high C and hot-plug
transients; intrinsic-safe USB for Zone 0/1 is uncommon.
Prefer Ex p enclosure or move port outside hazardous area. If unavoidable, design a
strict 5 V/limited-I interface with isolation and very short cable; expect severe through-
put/length limits.
Ethernet: Copper 100BASE-TX is difficult to make IS because magnetics cable C/L
breach entity limits.
Use pressurization (Ex p) or fiber (with optical ignition controls), or industry IS
Ethernet profiles (e.g., APL) when applicable to your standard/cert plan.
LVDS LCD / Keypads: LVDS lines carry fast edges → C adds up; keep display inside
safe area or within Ex p/e enclosure.
For Zone 2 “ic”, keep cable short, series R per pair (∼ 22-33 Ω), low-C ESD only, and
account all added Ci.

4.4 Testing & Verification

4.4.1 4.1 Spark-ignition assessment (what you must prove)
Identify every place a make/break can occur (connectors, terminals, switches).

17
 For ia/ib, apply the required faults first (2 for ia, 1 for ib), then assess with the safety
factor (typically 1.5).
Use one (or more) methods:

• Annex A tables/curves with safety factor.

• Annex G limit curves (linear/rectangular sources).

• Spark test apparatus with standard gas mixtures (type test).

• FISCO/EFISCO (for specific fieldbus profiles).

Example (linear source method): Your source is bounded by Uo = 16 V, Io = 93 mA.

A linear I–V rectangle/triangle can be compared to limit curves for the target group. If
fully inside the safe region (with the correct 1.5× factor), the source is compliant.

4.4.2 4.2 Thermal ignition analysis

Any component that can self-heat must keep its surface temperature below the T-class
(gas) or °C limit for dust (including layer heating).
Compute worst-case P in series resistors, Zeners, regulators under faults; then either:

• Show with thermal model/derating that Tsurface < limit, or

• Measure during type tests (more reliable).

Example: Rlim = 100 Ω at I = 93 mA → P ≈ 0.87 W. With a 2 W flameproof resistor

in still air at 40 °C ambient, check datasheet or measure: if surface tends to exceed 135
°C (T4), either increase resistor value/wattage, improve heat sinking, or split dissipation
across two parts.

4.4.3 4.3 Using Annex A/G (practical workflow)

Classify the source (linear/trapezoidal) and the load (C/L/R).
For ia/ib, apply 1.5× to V or I per the rules; for ic, 1.0×.
Compare to limit curves/tables for the group (IIC is most stringent).
Keep a margin to account for part tolerances and analytics uncertainty.

4.4.4 4.4 Laboratory methods (build confidence early)

Spark test rig: tungsten/cadmium pair (or per your lab) at the connection point; cycle
through make/break while sweeping V/I to the required factor.
Fault injection: short/open the protection parts to represent countable faults; vary
supply to max; apply non-countable worst tolerances concurrently.
Transient capture: oscilloscope on the terminals with current shunt; confirm that peak
energy of transients is within safe levels.
Thermal survey: IR camera/thermocouples on hot parts during worst-case conditions.
Insulation tests: across Um barriers (hipot, surge) using the specified test levels and
durations.

18
4.5 End-to-End Design Example (Ex ia IIC, Zone 0 sensor loop)
Goal: 2-wire 4–20 mA pressure transmitter in Zone 0 (Ga), powered from safe area via
an IS isolator.
Given (associated apparatus): Uo = 16 V, Io = 93 mA, Po = 0.65 W, Co = 83 nF, Lo =
4 mH (IIC)
Device under design (targets): Ui ≥ 16 V, Ii ≥ 93 mA, Pi ≥ 0.65 W, Ci ≤ 10 nF, Li ≤
0.3 mH
Cable (installed): C = 60 nF, L = 1.2 mH
Entity check: U/I/P: OK (device limits source).
Capacitance: Ci + Ccable = 10 + 60 = 70 nF ≤ 83 nF → OK.
Inductance: Li + Lcable = 0.3 + 1.2 = 1.5 mH ≤ 4 mH → OK.
Internal design: IS input stage: Rlim = 100 Ω (2 W, flameproof), Zener stack ∼ 15 V
(5 W total), fast TVS ∼ 18 V, fuse 100–200 mA fast-acting with I 2 t < Zener surge.
DC/DC: 12 V→3.3 V/5 V rails after Rlim ; bulk caps on local rails (do not add to Ci).
Sensing chain: instrumentation amp + ADC; outputs limited so the terminal acces-
sible energy stays within limits under faults.
Thermal: at 20 mA, compute worst internal dissipation; verify enclosure temp T4
(135 °C).
Marking & docs: Ex ia IIC T4 Ga, control drawing listing cable type/length, entity
parameters, wiring, and any specific conditions.
Verification: Spark assessment at terminals with faults applied and 1.5× factor.
Thermal test at high ambient; record max surface T.
Insulation tests across Um to non-IS circuits.
Production: 100% functional + selected routine tests per cert.

4.6 Practical Checklists

• Before schematic freeze

– Decide zone/EPL and group; design to IIC, ia if possible.

– Pick barrier/isolator and collect entity data.
– Budget Ci/Lo (device + max cable).
– Size Rlim/Zener/fuse; compute worst-case P & energy.
– Select flameproof resistors, low-C TVS, film capacitors.
– Define isolation (Um) and PCB clearance/creepage.

• Before layout freeze

– Segregate IS vs non-IS; add slots/barriers.

– Keep bulk caps behind IS limit node.
– Minimize Ci at terminals; include ESD parts in budget.
– Place hot parts to avoid heat on walls/lids (T-class).

• Before certification

– Entity worksheet (Uo/Io/Po vs Ui/Ii/Pi; Co/Lo vs Ci/Li+ cable).

19
 – Safety-factor analysis per protection level.
– Spark + thermal pre-tests; insulation across Um.
– Draft marking and control drawing.

4.7 Closing advice

Treat entity math as a requirements gate from day 1.
Keep terminal-visible C and L tiny.
Over-engineer Zener + fuse because that is your last line of defense.
For comms, question whether Ex i is the right tool (Zone 2 “ic”, Ex p, or fiber may
be cleaner).
Validate early with a bench spark rig and thermal mockups—it saves months later.

20
Module 5 System-Level Design (full detail
+ worked examples)

5.1 Associated apparatus & system approval — what, why,

high-level flow
Definition (plain):
An associated apparatus is equipment that contains both intrinsically-safe (IS) circuits
and non-IS circuits (or provides the IS energy); it’s the supply / interface element on the
safe side that guarantees the energy to the field is limited so the field circuit stays safe.
Examples: Zener barrier modules, IS isolators, certified IS power supplies, “entity” style
power blocks.

System approval flow (practical):

1. Decide system topology (entity vs FISCO/FNICO/other).

2. Pick associated apparatus (barrier/isolator) and collect entity data: Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo

(and sometimes Lo /Ro ).

3. For each field device get Ui , Ii , Pi , Ci , Li .

4. Do entity math (Uo ≤ Ui , Io ≤ Ii , Po ≤ Pi , Ci + Ccable ≤ Co , Li + Lcable ≤ Lo ).

5. If entity checks pass, assemble control drawings + installation instructions + allowed

cable list, submit to notified body / test lab for type testing / certificate.

6. Factory tests (routine) + production QA plan (per ISO/IEC 80079-34 or local QAN
requirements).

Why this matters:

Certification is systemic for IS — you cannot treat components in isolation. Your control
drawing and installation constraints are the product’s safety interface.

Reference note:
definition & entity concept background in IEC/EN 60079-11 and industry app notes.
(Control Components, Law Resource)

21
5.2 Entity concept vs FISCO / FNICO — pick the right system
model
Entity concept (classic)
What: Associated apparatus publishes Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo . Field device publishes Ui , Ii , Pi , Ci , Li .
You match them and add the cable (Ccable /Lcable ) to verify limits.
Pros: Maximum flexibility with devices and cable choices; clear engineering math.
Cons: Conservative: limits number of devices on a trunk and may restrict cable
length for digital fieldbusses.

FISCO (Fieldbus Intrinsically Safe Concept)

What: A standardized segment model for digital fieldbus (31.25 kbps FF/HART vari-
ants), with predefined parameters for trunk and spurs and limits for cable types and
device capacitance/inductance.
Pros: Supports more devices and simpler planning on fieldbus segments (pre-approved
parameters). Often used when many devices must be on one segment. (mtl-inst.com,
Eaton)
Cons: Requires approved node/device compliance with FISCO parameters and spe-
cific cable types/lengths.

FNICO (Fieldbus Non-Incendive Concept)

What: A relaxed variant (less restrictive than FISCO) targeted at less-hazardous in-
stallations (e.g., Zone 2 / Division 2). It permits more power but is limited in use cases.
(mtl-inst.com)

How to choose (practical):

• If you’re doing classic analog loops or single device per spur → Entity is flexible.

• If you’re designing digital fieldbus segments with many devices and you can control
device/cable specs → FISCO can simplify life.

• If you operate in permissive Zone 2 and want more power for devices → FNICO
may be an option.

5.3 Cable parameters (Co , Lo ) and system design — the math

you must do
Why cable data matters:
In IS the cable stores energy (C) and adds inductance (L). The entity check is:
Ci + Ccable ≤ Co

Li + Lcable ≤ Lo

If you violate either, a connector make/break or short could release enough energy to
ignite.

22
Typical numbers & behavior (practical ranges)
• Twisted pair instrument cable capacitance: ∼50–150 pF/m (0.05–0.15 nF/m).

• Twisted pair inductance: ∼0.5–1.5 µH/m (0.0005–0.0015 mH/m).

Always use the manufacturer’s datasheet for your chosen cable. If you don’t have one,
measure or get a conservative value from the supplier.

Worked example — maximum cable length for a barrier/device

Given (example from a typical associated apparatus):

• Barrier (entity data): Co = 83 nF, Lo = 4 mH, Uo = 16 V, Io = 93 mA.

• Device internal: Ci = 10 nF, Li = 0.3 mH.

• Cable capacitance per meter (assume): 100 pF/m = 0.1 nF/m.

• Cable inductance per meter (assume): 1 µH/m = 0.001 mH/m.

Step 1 — available cable capacitance:

Co − Ci = 83 nF − 10 nF = 73 nF.

Maximum cable length (capacitance-limited):

length = 73 nF ÷ 0.1 nF/m = 730 m.

Step 2 — available cable inductance:

Lo − Li = 4 mH − 0.3 mH = 3.7 mH.

Maximum cable length (inductance-limited, 1 µH/m):

length = 3.7 mH ÷ 0.001 mH/m = 3700 m.

Conclusion: capacitance is the limiting factor here — you’d be limited to approximately

730 m based on the assumed 100 pF/m cable.

Stored energy check (worst-case spark energy at terminals)

Capacitive energy: EC = 12 CV 2 . With allowed C = 73 nF and V = 16 V:

EC = 0.5 × 73 × 10−9 × 162 = 9.344 × 10−6 J = 9.344 µJ.

Inductive energy: EL = 21 LI 2 . With allowed L = 3.7 mH and I = 93 mA:

EL = 0.5 × 3.7 × 10−3 × 0.0932 ≈ 16.00 × 10−6 J = 16.00 µJ.

Compare these energies to the ignition-energy limits (Annex A/G or test curves) for the
gas group and safety factor required; both must be below the allowed spark energy for
the target group (with the safety factor applied).

23
5.4 Mixed circuits — combining Ex i and non-Ex electronics on
one platform
Common scenario:
control cabinet contains power supplies, PLC, networks (non-IS) and IS associated appa-
ratus feeding field sensors.

Rules & best practice:

• Physical segregation: place IS circuits and terminals on one PCB area / one
DIN-rail block and non–IS circuits on another. Use mechanical separation and
unambiguous silkscreen marking.

• PCB separation: adhere to clearance & creepage per required Um and insulation
class; add a slot (milled board gap) where necessary to increase clearance.

• No direct bridging: do not pass non-IS currents through IS components. All con-
nections to IS circuits must route through the associated apparatus (barrier/isolator)
and be shown on the control drawing.

• Earthing: earth/reference of associated apparatus must follow vendor instructions;

a common building earth is often used, but avoid creating return paths that bypass
the IS barrier.

• Connector policy: provide separate terminal blocks for IS wiring; color code
(blue commonly) and lock them physically (different pitch) to prevent accidental
cross-wiring.

• Software partitioning: non-IS code should not be able to force IS outputs beyond
their entity limits (interlocks on hardware level preferred).

Design case:
In a flow-computer cabinet, put the IS isolator modules on the left rail with blue terminal
blocks labeled “IS terminals — follow entity wiring”; place Ethernet switches and AC
mains PSU on right rail. A printed control drawing in the cabinet lid shows required
cable types/lengths and earthing point.

5.5 Rules for galvanic isolation — how to achieve and verify Um

Why:
Galvanic isolation is used to prevent a non-IS circuit from influencing the IS circuit and
to meet required separation voltages (Um ). Typical isolation methods: transformers,
opto-isolators, digital isolators, isolated DC/DC converters.

24
Design rules:
• Choose isolation rated for the certification Um (often 250 VACrms or the speci-
fied Um in the certificate). Verify the isolation test voltage and required clear-
ance/creepage.
• Insulation type: decide basic vs reinforced depending on the safety function —
reinforced insulation may be required if separation is the only barrier.
• Creepage & clearance: compute required distances using material CTI and pol-
lution degree. For example, at pollution degree 2 and insulation material CTI>400,
the required clearance for X kV is calculated per IEC 60664. (Use standard tables.)
• Guard & slots on PCB: where isolation is tight, add a milled slot to increase
creepage, especially under conformal coat or potting.
• Avoid “weak” return paths: a ground strap or cable should not bypass the
isolation barrier (document exact earthing point).

Verification:
Dielectric (hipot) test between isolated domains at the stipulated voltage and time (per
certification plan), and partial discharge check if required for high-voltage isolation.

5.6 Mechanical & environmental design — enclosure, IP and

more
Enclosure design for hazardous areas
Key priorities: Provide mechanical protection, maintain creepage/clearance, allow heat
removal, provide correct ingress sealing (IP), and keep connectors/glands certified.
Material choices & tradeoffs:
• Plastic (glass-filled polycarbonate / industrial plastics): lightweight, no corrosion,
but confirm long-term heat & UV properties and CTI for creepage calculations.
• Die-cast aluminium / stainless steel: robust, good thermal conduction; heavy;
check for galvanic corrosion and grounding plan.
• Composite enclosures: used where weight & corrosion resistance matter.
Glands and cable entries: Use certified cable glands — they affect IP and may be part
of the flamepath (for Ex d). For Ex i, they must maintain seal and mechanical clamping
and not add unacceptable capacitance/inductance.

IP ratings & ingress protection — mapping to hazardous environments

IP code relevant to dust: for dust zones (20/21/22) choose IP ratings that prevent
dust ingress into electrical compartments:
• Zone 20 (dust inside equipment): design to enclosure types and manufacturer
guidance; typically internal apparatus is fully sealed—often IP6X externally and
internal measures for layers.

25
 • Zone 21: IP5X / IP6X (dust-protected to dust-tight) depending on product and
likelihood of layers forming.

Gas zones: IP rating mainly protects against water ingress (rain/spray) — e.g., IP66
or IP67 often required for outdoor installations.
Important: IP rating doesn’t equal explosion protection; it’s an environmental rating
that must be combined with the Ex concept and T-class.

Thermal management in Ex systems — calculations methods

Why: Components (resistors, Zeners, regulators, power transistors) can generate heat.
In Ex designs you must guarantee surface temps ≤ T class / dust limit under worst-case
ambient and fault.
Thermal budget method (engineering steps):

1. List steady-state & fault dissipation for every component (resistors, Zener chain,
regulators). Include transients that may persist for seconds/minutes.

2. Select component thermal resistances (RθJA or RθJC ) from datasheets. If a resistor

has RθJA = 100 K/W, it will rise significantly under 1 W.

3. Compute ∆T = P × Rθ for each hot component. Add to ambient to get component

temperature estimate.

4. Check enclosure wall temperature: for parts attached to wall or with conduction
paths, compute conduction thermal resistance and convection from outer surface.
If needed use simplified enclosures model or finite-element for tricky designs.

5. Margin: maintain 10–20 K safety margin to account for manufacturing variability

and blocked vents.

Worked resistor example (practical): Rlim = 100 Ω, worst-case current Ifault = 93

mA (0.093 A):

P = I 2 R = 0.0932 × 100 = 0.008649 × 100 = 0.8649 W (≈ 0.865 W).

If resistor RθJA = 50 K/W: ∆T = 0.865 × 50 = 43.25 K. At ambient 40 ◦ C ⇒ surface ∼

83.25 ◦ C (safe against T4 = 135 ◦ C).
If RθJA = 100 K/W: ∆T = 0.865 × 100 = 86.5 K. At ambient 40 ◦ C ⇒ surface ∼
126.5 ◦ C (close to T4, margin small).
Remedies if too hot:

• Increase resistor wattage and choose lower RθJA (mounted on heatsink or spread
across two parts).

• Move heat sources inside enclosure to a thermal path to the housing and increase
surface area or use fins (certified design).

• Use potentiometer adjustment to reduce continuous dissipation; implement thermal

cutout (but check it’s allowed by the Ex concept).

Special notes:

26
 • Fans inside hazardous area require certified Ex fans; otherwise prefer natural con-
vection and conduction to housing.

• Potting increases thermal resistance of components — account for it (potting may

trap heat). Potting can help EMC but increases ∆T .

5.7 Design case — complete system example (flow computer

project)
Scenario:
Flow computer rack outside hazardous area supplies 4 Ex ia pressure transmitters in Zone
0 (IIC). Requirement: longest cable run 600 m, standard instrument cable ∼100 pF/m.

Given / selected:
• Associated apparatus entity data: Co = 83 nF, Lo = 4 mH, Uo = 16 V, Io = 93
mA.

• Device Ci = 10 nF, Li = 0.3 mH.

• Cable Cper m = 0.1 nF/m (100 pF/m).

Checks:
• allowed C = 83 − 10 = 73 nF → maximum cable length = 73 / 0.1 = 730 m → 600
m OK (capacitance margin left).

• allowed L = 4 − 0.3 = 3.7 mH → for cable Lper m = 1 µH/m → max length = 3700
m OK.

• Energies (as earlier): Ecap ≈ 9.34 µJ, Eind ≈ 16.0 µJ — compare to ignition-energy
limits for the gas and safety factor per target level (ia). If energies are below the
limits with safety factor, proceed.

Mechanical & installation notes:

• Provide control drawing with: allowed cable types, allowed cable length, earthing
instructions, terminal block part numbers, entity parameter table, and installation
note “Use only shielded 2-pair instrument cable with ≤100 pF/m; do not replace
cable without re-calculating entity checks.”

• Use separate blue IS terminal block with keyed mechanics to avoid mis-plugging.

• Include routine tests: verify visual marking, resistance test on terminals, and a
functional test per production.

27
5.8 Documentation you must ship with the product
• Entity worksheet (Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo , cable assumptions, example calculations).

• Control drawing showing physical separation and allowed wiring.

• Installation instructions: allowed cable types and length, gland torque, earthing
point.

• Maintenance schedule: gasket checks, gland checks, periodic insulation checks if

required.

• Type test reports and certificates (ATEX/IECEx/other).

• Marking (product nameplate: Ex ia IIC T4 Ga, ambient, manufacturer, serial).

5.9 Quick practical checklist (for design reviews)

• Chosen protection concept documented and justified (entity vs FISCO/FNICO).

• Collected entity data for associated apparatus and device.

• Performed Co /Lo math with worst-case cable and documented max cable length.

• Calculated EC and EL and compared to spark limits (with safety factor).

• Confirmed creepage/clearance and slotting on PCB for Um .

• Specified sealed glands & IP rating tied to zones.

• Completed thermal budget for hot components (steady + fault).

• Created control drawing and wiring rules to ship with the product.

• Drafted production routine test plan for certification body review.

5.10 References / further reading (quick links)

• Entity concept & IS basics: industry guides and IEC 60079-11. (Control Compo-
nents, Law Resource)

• FISCO overview & application notes (Fieldbus) — useful for multi-device segments.
(mtl-inst.com, Eaton)

• FNICO overview (Fieldbus Non-Incendive Concept) — Zone 2 variant. (mtl-inst.com)

28
Module 6 Certification Process

6.1 Documentation Requirements

Certification is 80% paperwork, 20% testing. If the docs aren’t solid, even a flawless
circuit won’t pass.

6.1.1 Design Dossier

ATEX: You need a Technical File that supports your Declaration of Conformity.
IECEx: Equivalent is the ExTR (Ex Test Report) + QAR (Quality Assessment
Report).
Contents typically include:
• General product description (function, model variants, intended use, zone, gas/dust
group).
• Design drawings: schematics, PCB layouts, BOM (with Ex-relevant components
flagged).
• Entity parameter summary (Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo etc).
• Safety calculations (energy limitation, creepage/clearance, thermal analysis).
• Risk assessment / ignition hazard assessment.
• Construction details (housing materials, seals, glands, labeling).
• Installation/operation manual + control drawings.
Design case: For your flow computer IS board, the dossier would include resistor derat-
ing calcs, cable capacitance budget, spark energy analysis, PCB layout zones, and control
drawings for installers.

6.1.2 Safety Assessment Documents

• Ignition hazard assessment: check every potential ignition source (spark, hot
surface, component fault).
• Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA): prove that single/dual faults
don’t cause ignition for Ex ia/ib.
• Thermal assessment report: resistor/Zener temps under worst-case + fault.

Example: If your limiting resistor could hit 126 ◦ C in fault, show that with derating
and spacing, you stay within T4 (135 ◦ C).

29
6.1.3 Marking Requirements
Every certified device must have a nameplate that follows strict rules:
ATEX Marking example: II 1 G Ex ia IIC T4 Ga

• II → Equipment group (non-mining)

• 1 G → Category 1, Gas atmosphere (Zone 0)

• Ex ia IIC T4 Ga → Intrinsic Safety, Gas group IIC, T-class T4, EPL = Ga

IECEx Marking example: Ex ia IIC T4 Ga IECEx DEK 23.0045X

Also required: manufacturer name, year of manufacture, serial number, ambient
range, certificate number, and sometimes “X” conditions (special installation require-
ments). Design case: If your board is mounted inside a cabinet, the cabinet gets the
marking — but the IS board must have internal reference marking and clear identification.

6.2 Compliance Testing & Validation

This is where the lab earns its money.

6.2.1 Type Tests for Ex i

Performed by the notified body or IECEx cert lab:

• Spark ignition test (simulated contacts making/breaking with max fault energy).

• Thermal ignition test (verify no surface exceeds T-class at max ambient + fault).

• Dielectric withstand test (Um across galvanic isolation barriers).

• Component verification (critical parts — resistors, Zeners, isolators).

Example: Your IS power circuit might be subjected to repeated spark tests at 1.5×
calculated energy factor. If it doesn’t ignite the test gas (per Annex A/G curves), you
pass.

6.2.2 Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT)

After type approval, every production unit must follow routine tests defined in IEC
60079-11 §10:

• Visual inspection (layout, markings, barriers present).

• Dielectric test between IS and non-IS parts (usually 500 V–1.5 kV depending on
Um ).

• Functional test (entity parameters verified indirectly, e.g., output voltage/current

limited).

Example: For your IS board, you might test 500 V RMS isolation between Ex i terminals
and chassis ground for every batch.

30
6.2.3 Quality Assurance Notifications (QAN / QAR)
ATEX QAN: Notified body audits your production site under EN ISO/IEC 80079-34.
IECEx QAR: Same idea, but global IECEx scheme.
Purpose: Prove that every unit produced matches the tested prototype.
Audit covers: calibration, incoming inspection, traceability, change control. If you
swap a resistor manufacturer, you may need a variation approval.

6.3 Working with Certification Bodies

Common Ex cert bodies:

• TÜV Rheinland / TÜV SÜD (Germany)

• DEKRA (Netherlands, Germany)

• Baseefa (SGS) (UK)

• PTB (Germany — federal metrology institute, highly respected)

• UL / FM / CSA (North America)

• NEPSI (China)

• INMETRO (Brazil)

Pro tip: Pick a cert body close to your target market. UL is smoother for US, DEKRA
or TÜV for EU, CSA for Canada. For multi-market, start with IECEx then “fast-track”
into ATEX, UL, INMETRO.

6.3.1 Test Reports & Audits

ExTR (IECEx Test Report): The master doc listing all tests + results. Other bodies
can “accept” it for local approvals.
QAR/QAN reports: Audit logs proving your factory complies with Ex QA require-
ments.
Audits: Usually yearly surveillance (check documents, randomly sample devices,
test).
Example: If you claim Ex ia IIC T4 Ga, TÜV will audit your resistor sourcing, PCB
trace width control, soldering QA, calibration logs, and FAT procedures.

6.4 Design Case Walkthrough — certifying an IS analog input

board
• Prepare dossier: schematics, entity calcs, FMEA, BOM with Ex-critical parts.

• Pick cert body: say DEKRA (EU focus).

• Submit for ExTR: they test spark, thermal, dielectric, review calcs.

• Pass → receive ExTR + ATEX Certificate + IECEx CoC.

31
 • Production QA: implement ISO/IEC 80079-34 quality system, audited annually.

• Marking: label board enclosure with Ex ia IIC T4 Ga + certificate number.

• Routine tests: dielectric test on every batch + visual inspection.

6.5 Key Takeaways

• Certification is system + documentation + testing, not just circuit design.

• Dossier quality = faster approval. A weak file leads to endless queries from TÜV/DEKRA.

• FAT + QAN/QAR are as important as type tests — you need a compliant produc-
tion line.

• Choose your cert body strategically depending on target market.

• Expect 6–12 months for first certification cycle if docs & design are solid.

32
Module 7 Advanced Topics

7.1 Global Compliance Landscape

7.1.1 ATEX (EU)
• Scope: European Union, mandatory for all products placed on EU market.

• Based on: EU Directives 2014/34/EU (products) & 1999/92/EC (workplace).

• Marking: Ex ia IIC T4 Ga + ATEX logo + CE mark.

• Key trait: Legal requirement — no ATEX, no EU market.

Example: If you design a methane monitoring sensor for oil rigs, without ATEX you
legally cannot sell it in Germany, France, or Italy.

7.1.2 IECEx (Global)

• Scope: International voluntary scheme (accepted in 30+ countries).

• Marking: Ex ia IIC T4 Ga IECEx DEK 23.0045X.

• Key trait: Easier global access — you test once, then many regions accept the
IECEx Test Report (ExTR).

Example: A sensor certified in IECEx can be fast-tracked into ATEX (EU), INMETRO
(Brazil), or ANZEx (Australia/New Zealand) without full retesting.

7.1.3 UL/FM (North America)

• UL (Underwriters Laboratories) and FM (Factory Mutual): US-based approvals.

• Differences: Use Class/Division system (e.g., Class I, Div 1 Gas) alongside Zone
system.

• Key trait: US OSHA requires UL/FM for hazardous equipment sold in the US.

Example: A flameproof motor marked Class I, Div 1, Group C,D can be used in
petroleum plants in Texas.

33
7.1.4 EAC (Eurasian Customs Union)
• Countries: Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan.
• Marking: EAC Ex logo + GOST standards.
• Key trait: Similar to ATEX but with Russian-specific technical regulations (TR
CU 012/2011).
Example: If you ship gas flow computers to Gazprom, you’ll need EAC Ex instead of
ATEX.

7.1.5 NEPSI (China)

• Authority: National Supervision and Inspection Center for Explosion Protection.
• Marking: Ex ia IIC T4 Ga (CNEx 23.1234X).
• Key trait: Aligns with IECEx but requires local testing in China.
Example: An ATEX-approved board still needs NEPSI re-testing before it can be in-
stalled in a Shenzhen refinery.

7.1.6 Mutual Recognition Differences

• ATEX ↔ IECEx: High overlap. ATEX is legal, IECEx is market-driven.
• UL/FM vs IECEx/ATEX: Different classification systems (Zones vs Divisions).
Some dual-cert devices show both.
• EAC & NEPSI: Require local presence and some retesting even if IECEx exists.
Takeaway: IECEx is the fastest “global passport,” but local approvals are still needed
in US, China, and Russia.

7.2 Integrating ATEX with ISO Standards

7.2.1 ISO 9001 – Quality Management
• Why it matters: Most Ex certs require proof your company runs a structured
QA system.
• Impact: Ensures consistent design, production, and change control.
Example: If you redesign a PCB trace, ISO 9001 ensures it’s documented, reviewed,
and traceable for Ex auditors.

7.2.2 ISO/IEC 80079-34 – Ex Quality System

• Mandatory: For ATEX QAN and IECEx QAR.
• Focus: Special QA for Ex — e.g., controlling soldering processes, component sub-
stitutions, calibration.
Example: If you swap a Vishay resistor with a Yageo one, you must prove it still meets
IS requirements (voltage, power rating, failure mode).

34
7.2.3 Functional Safety (IEC 61508 / IEC 61511)
• Scope: Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) for systems that must actively prevent acci-
dents.

Example: A gas detection sensor with Ex ia protection also needs SIL2 certification to
ensure it triggers shutdown reliably.
Key difference: Ex focuses on preventing ignition, while SIL focuses on preventing
system-level hazards (like explosions due to system failure).

7.3 Future Trends in Ex Compliance

7.3.1 Wireless & IoT in Ex Areas
• Trend: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and LoRaWAN entering hazardous areas.

• Challenge: RF power is energy → must be intrinsically safe.

Example: ATEX-approved smart gas detectors that transmit via Bluetooth LE (with
RF limited to ≤6 dBm).

7.3.2 Smart Sensors with Ex i Compliance

• Trend: Sensors with built-in diagnostics and self-calibration.

Example: A vibration sensor in Zone 0 that not only measures but also sends predictive-
maintenance data over an IS RS-485 bus.
Design challenge: Adding intelligence (MCU + comms) while keeping Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo
limits within IS specs.

7.3.3 Cybersecurity in Ex Certified Devices

• New frontier: Ex devices increasingly connect to control networks (Ethernet,
Modbus TCP, MQTT).

• Threat: A cyberattack could force unsafe behavior (e.g., disabling IS barriers

remotely).

• Future standards: IEC 62443 (Industrial Cybersecurity) being integrated with

IECEx requirements.

Example: Smart gateway in Zone 1 with dual certification — Ex ia for safety + IEC
62443 compliance for cyber resilience.

7.4 Design Case – Ex i Smart Sensor for Zone 0

Imagine you’re designing a smart pressure transmitter for Zone 0 with RS-485 output.
Compliance path:

• ATEX + IECEx for EU/global

35
 • UL/FM Class I, Div 1 for US

• EAC for Russia

• NEPSI for China

Design constraints:

• Intrinsic safety (Uo < 30 V, Io < 100 mA, Po < 1 W).

• Co , Lo matched with cable database.

• Zener barriers + galvanic isolation.

• Enclosure IP66 stainless steel with PTFE gasket.

• Firmware secured with IEC 62443 principles (encrypted Modbus).

Future-proofing:

• RS-485 + optional MQTT over IS Wi-Fi module.

• Cloud diagnostics for predictive maintenance.

This design ticks safety + compliance + innovation, which is where the industry is head-
ing.

7.5 Key Takeaways from Module 7

• ATEX is mandatory in EU, IECEx is the global enabler, but US/China/Russia
need local schemes.

• ISO integration matters — 9001 ensures generic QA, 80079-34 ensures Ex-specific
QA.

• Functional safety (SIL) is often required in addition to Ex certification.

• Future Ex devices must be smart, wireless, and cyber-secure, without compromising

intrinsic safety.

36
Module 8 Practical Workshop

8.1 Case Studies

8.1.1 Case Study 1 – Designing an Ex i Pressure Sensor Input
Scenario: You’re designing a 4–20 mA loop-powered pressure transmitter for Zone 0.
Design Rules Applied:

• Energy Limitation:

– Max supply = 28 V (Uo ).

– Limit Io to ≤ 93 mA using series resistors + fuse.
– Power Po ≤ 0.66 W (Zone 0, IIC gases).

• Components Used:

– Resistors: Flameproof 0.25 W carbon film in series.

– Zener barrier: 28 V clamp (2 × Zeners in parallel for redundancy).
– Fuse: 50 mA slow-blow.
– Galvanic isolator for output.

Calculation Example:

• Supply = 28 V.

• Series resistor = 300 Ω.

• Max current = 28 V / 300 Ω ≈ 93 mA.

• Po = U ×I = 28×0.093 = 2.6 W → must drop further with Zener/fuse so Po ≤ 0.66

W.

Design Case Result: Circuit passes when max stored energy in capacitors ≤ 150 nF
and inductors ≤ 40 µH (IIC limit).
Lesson: Current limiting + Zener + fuse combo is the backbone of IS sensor inputs.

8.1.2 Case Study 2 – Designing an Ex i RS-485 Communication Interface

Scenario: Zone 1 data logger with RS-485 Modbus link.
Challenges:

• RS-485 uses differential signaling (A/B lines).

37
 • Needs to limit spark energy while maintaining high-speed comms.

Design Rules Applied:

• Isolation: RS-485 transceiver behind galvanic isolator (e.g., ISO1452).

• Current Limiting: 47 Ω series resistors on A/B lines.

• Overvoltage: Transient Voltage Suppressor (TVS) diodes to clamp surges.

• Capacitance Control: Keep line capacitance under Co limit (e.g., ≤ 83 nF for

Zone 1).

Calculation Example:

• Transceiver = 5 V, Io = 20 mA.

• Series R = 47 Ω → max short-circuit current = 5/47 ≈ 106 mA.

• Protected by galvanic isolation barrier rated at 1.5 kV.

Design Case Result: Meets IS because Uo , Io , Co , Lo are documented & within entity
parameters.
Lesson: High-speed comms (RS-485, CAN, USB) need careful capacitance and surge
control.

8.1.3 Case Study 3 – Troubleshooting Failed Compliance

Scenario: Your board failed IECEx spark ignition testing because a capacitor discharged
too much energy.
Failure: A 470 nF ceramic capacitor across supply stored > 2 mJ (enough to ignite
IIC gas).
Fix:

• Replace with 100 nF max rated capacitor.

• Add series resistance (10 Ω) to slow discharge.

• Move large decoupling capacitors behind galvanic isolator.

Lesson: Never oversize capacitors in Ex i zones — even small µF values can store
ignition-level energy.

8.2 Mock Certification Project

We’ll simulate the end-to-end process:

8.2.1 Step 1 – Design

• Create a Zone 0 smart temperature sensor with RS-485 comms.

• Apply Uo , Io , Po , Co , Lo limits (Entity parameters).

• Add barriers (Zener + galvanic).

38
8.2.2 Step 2 – Documentation
• ATEX Technical File:
– Circuit diagrams with fault analysis.
– Component selection justification.
– Safety calculations (stored energy, power limits).
• IECEx ExTR:
– Spark ignition analysis.
– Thermal analysis of components.
– PCB layout creepage & clearance check.

8.2.3 Step 3 – Fault Analysis

• Countable faults applied: resistor open, Zener short, fuse bypass.
• Verify IS limits still not exceeded.

8.2.4 Step 4 – Compliance Check

• Compare values with IEC 60079-11 Annex A tables.
• Confirm Po ≤ 1.3 W (ib) or ≤ 0.66 W (ia).
• Confirm Co & Lo within cable database values.

8.2.5 Step 5 – Mock Audit

Certification body (e.g., TÜV) reviews:

• Component derating (resistors at 50% rated power).
• Test records (spark ignition, thermal rise).
• Factory QA (ISO/IEC 80079-34 compliance).
Outcome:
• If successful → issue IECEx CoC + ATEX QAN.
• If failed → redesign loop until all requirements are satisfied.

8.3 Key Takeaways from Module 8

• Intrinsic Safety (Ex i) design = limit voltage, current, energy + use fault-tolerant
barriers.
• Communication interfaces (RS-485, CAN, USB) require capacitance control + gal-
vanic isolation.
• Documentation & QA are as critical as circuit design.
• Certification is iterative — you’ll design, test, fail, fix, and re-submit.

39