BS60080:2020 Technical Note

Guidance on the placement of

permanently installed detection
devices using software tools and
other techniques: Toxic gas detection
F&G MAPPING TECHNIQUES

Historically, the most challenging issue in Fire and Gas In light of this, the BSI working group focused on the
(F&G) detection is answering two primary questions: philosophy behind why a site would require fixed toxic
‘How many detectors do I need, and where do I put gas detection devices, and what the founding principles
them?’ A fair question in the context of a facility should be with respect to where to locate them. From
processing hazardous material where traditional this mindset, the guidance for toxic gas detection differs
detection codes are simply not applicable. How can we slightly from flame and flammable gas detection
adequately position flame and flammable/ toxic gas discussed in previous technical notes. Much of the
detectors, such that target fire sizes and gas clouds of guidance takes the form of considerations which should
concern can reliably, and verifiably, be detected? as a minimum be taken into account to ensure personnel
BS60080 [BSI, 2020] provides guidance on this topic. protection. As the toxic problem can take a vast number
of forms, it is even more important that facilities review
the risks independently and ensure that their fixed toxic
gas detection meets the requirement of a mitigating
TOXIC GAS DETECTION factor for their specific toxic hazard. This is one such area
where the detection of leaks is critical as it may harm
personnel, rather than with flammable gas detection
where leaks are generally not the predominant detection
Despite the publication of ISA TR84.00.07 [ISA, 2018], target [Hilditch, 2019].
toxic gas detection design presents a significant
challenge as there is limited practical design guidance, This guidance includes considerations ranging from the
literature and empirical data which can be used as a standard considerations of set points and voting, but
basis against which to design the placement and quantity focuses more on the relationship between response of
of fixed toxic gas detection devices in a hazardous area. the system, and action which can be implemented
While guidance and data exists which refers to the design (whether this is process isolation, evacuation, stay in
of devices themselves and performance requirements of place etc.), as demonstrated in the following Figure.
such devices, these do not answer the fundamental
questions posed by BS60080 – how many do we need
and where do we place them?

2 micropackfireandgas.com
Technical Note Guidance on the placement of permanently installed detection devices
using software tools and other techniques: Toxic gas detection

Figure 1: Response time from a toxic gas release

As part of this analysis the designer should consider the Adequacy can then be analysed based upon the
occupancy, means of escape, purpose of the area, nature consideration of the specifics and the risk grades and
of the gas (i.e. toxic concentration), inventory size, facility performance targets which are set to meet the facility
geometry, mitigation factors etc. requirements after the risk assessment.

micropackfireandgas.com 3
PRESCRIPTIVE, VOLUMETRIC
OR SCENARIO BASED DESIGN

In practice there are typically three approaches applied. The most important emphasis as prescribed in the
These three different mapping methods are discussed standard is the application of the best method based on
within the standard, with guidance on the strengths and the nature of the facility, the risks present, and the
limitations of each: corporate philosophy regarding risk and detection
• prescriptive; mapping (if applicable).
• volumetric; and
• scenario-based. The mapping methods can be considered analogous to
qualitative (prescriptive), semi-quantitative (volumetric)
Typically, prescriptive methods are the most simplistic and fully-quantitative (scenario-based) applied to risk
with the level of complexity and effort increasing assessment. The concept of proportionality is generally
progressively towards the employment of scenario-based recommended in the standard, with the selected
methods, however the results of the analysis do not methodology chosen based on the level of risk. Detail on
necessarily improve as the method becomes more these approaches is provided in the section addressing
complex [Sizeland, 2019]. toxic gas detection to allow the best method to be applied
specifically to the detection requirements.

References:

1. BSI, 2020, BS 60080, Explosive and toxic 3. Hilditch, R. and McNay, J., 2019, Addressing the
atmospheres: Hazard detection mapping – problem of poor leak detection rates on UK
Guidance on the placement of permanently offshore platforms, Proceedings of Ninth
installed flame and gas detection devices using International Seminar on Fire and Explosion
software tools and other techniques Hazards (ISFEH9), pp. 1198-1209

2. ISA, 2018, TR84.00.07 Guidance on the Evaluation 4. Sizeland, E., and McNay, J., 2019, Using CFD to
of Fire, Combustible Gas, and Toxic Gas System optimise gas detection layouts: Are we barking up
Effectiveness the wrong tree?’, FABIG June 2019

4 micropackfireandgas.com
Technical Note Guidance on the placement of permanently installed detection devices
using software tools and other techniques: Toxic gas detection

Formed in 1996, the Scottish company Micropack (Engineering) Ltd is one of

the world’s leading flame detection manufacturers and suppliers of fire and
gas mapping services, which includes providing F&G software, training,
engineering and consultancy.

To find out how we could support your business with your fire and gas
detection needs, please get in touch.

MICROPACK (Engineering) Ltd MICROPACK Detection (Americas) Inc.

Fire Training Centre, Portlethen, 800 Town and Country Blvd, Suite 300,
Aberdeen AB12 4RR Houston, Texas, 77024
T: +44 (0) 1224 784055 T: +1 346-352-7992
E: [email protected] E: [email protected]
micropackfireandgas.com micropackfireandgas.com

micropackfireandgas.com 5