AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO HAZARDOUS AREA CLASSIFICATION –

THREE DIMENSIONAL (3D) MODELING OF HAZARDOUS AREAS

Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. PCIC-(do not insert number)

Vaibhav Shrivastava, PE Ganesh Mohan, PE Nir Feinstein, CEng UK Neeraj Bhatia, PE

Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Senior Member, IEEE
Bechtel OG&C Bechtel OG&C Bechtel OG&C Bechtel OG&C
3000 Post Oak Blvd 3000 Post Oak Blvd 3000 Post Oak Blvd 3000 Post Oak Blvd
Houston, TX 77056 Houston, TX 77056 Houston, TX 77056 Houston, TX 77056
USA USA USA USA
vshrivas@bechtel.com gmohan@bechtel.com nfeinste@bechtel.com nbhatia@bechtel.com

Abstract – This paper establishes an innovative flammable liquids and gases within petrochemical facilities
approach to represent hazardous areas as true volumes in create flammable atmospheres that can last for significant
a plant 3D model and demonstrate increased safety. periods of time. Catastrophic explosions initiated by
Examples from an Australian project have been used to electrical equipment within petrochemical and mining
compare the classical 2D vs innovative 3D approach. The facilities over the past century have led to the development
2D approach relies on plan and elevation drawings to show of technical standards and explosion protection technology
the hazardous areas from various sources of flammable for electrical equipment. Evaluating the chemical
release. Whereas, the 3D approach utilizes data rich 3D composition, likelihood and spatial extension of flammable
models used for the design of petrochemical plants. atmospheres from sources of release within a
Industry standards (IEC, AS/NZS) require identification of petrochemical facility allows for the determination of
all sources of release including piping (vents, flanges, etc.), hazardous areas. Visually depicting hazardous areas
identification of Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas allows for the design of safer petrochemical facilities by
(EEHA), preparation of Hazardous Area Verification locating electrical equipment outside hazardous areas or
Dossier (HAVD) and completion of detailed inspections. selecting electrical equipment that are designed for
Such requirements may get adopted in North America as hazardous application.
evidenced with the acceptance of IEC standards in Canada The applicable technical standards are significantly
and Gulf of Mexico Offshore facilities [2][3]. The 3D prescriptive and ample with regards to determining
approach automates the generation of EEHA list vs the hazardous areas. They provide guidance for the scope and
error-prone manual identification using 2D layouts. The 3D form of deliverables in which hazardous areas are depicted
approach allows capturing hazardous areas from piping to support the design, construction and maintenance of
sources, whereas, the 2D approach generally uses a note petrochemical facilities. The current industry practice to
referencing a typical detail from a standard. The 2D classify hazardous areas, denoted as the classical
approach requires man hour intensive physical walk downs approach in this paper, is to identify the types of sources of
and remedy of non-compliances during the construction release, utilize typical details and guidance from technical
phase. However, the 3D approach allows performing virtual standards for shapes and extents of hazardous areas, and
walk downs of the facility to mitigate non-compliances delineate the plan and elevation views of hazardous areas
during the detailed design phase, thus preventing schedule on 2D drawings.
delays, design rework and replacement of equipment. The The application of the approaches discussed in this
3D approach presented sets an effective methodology for paper pertain to the flammable gas and vapor
hazardous area classification thereby delivering safer atmospheres. However, this approach can also be
petrochemical installations. extended to the atmospheres containing combustible dusts
or ignitable fibers and flyings as well.
Index Terms — Innovative, 3D, 2D, Dossier, EEHA,
Zone, Division, IEC, AS/NZS, API, NFPA, 60079, II. OVERVIEW – TECHNICAL STANDARDS
Hazardous, Electrical, Classification, Safety, CEC. FOR HAZARDOUS AREAS
I. BACKGROUND There are two widely recognized systems to classify
hazardous areas: NFPA-based Division system and IEC-
Electrification of coal mines in the early 20th century based Zone system. The Division system prevails in North
introduced a whole new set of ignition hazards initiated by America, whereas the rest of the world generally uses the
electrical equipment. For example, a 1913 British mine Zone system.
explosion in Senghenydd Colliery led to over 400 fatalities The technical standards utilized worldwide for the
caused by the ignition of firedamp (methane) build up when classification of flammable gas and vapor atmospheres are
an electric spark occurred from the electrical bell signaling shown in Table I.
gear [1]. Releases, including fugitive emissions, of

1
 TABLE I the use of 3D modeling for the delineation of the hazardous
GLOBAL TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR areas.
HAZARDOUS AREA CLASSIFICATION
United States* Outside United States III. PREPARATION OF HAZAROUS AREA
(Division System and (Predominantly Zone System) DELIVERABLES
Zone System)
API RP 500, API RP 505, IEC 60079-10-1, API RP 505,
It is important to understand the work process for the
NFPA 497 AS/NZS 60079.10.1
preparation of Hazardous Area deliverables and
(Australia/New Zealand),
verification of electrical installations in hazardous areas,
EI 15 (UK) formerly known as
Institute of Petroleum IP 15 viz. from Sources of Release (SoR) schedule to the
* The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for the compilation of HAVD. This allows appreciating the steps for
safety and security in the US Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS). the preparation of the deliverables and their application.
USCG allows use of electrical equipment certified under IECEx Furthermore, this draws distinct trade-offs between the 2D
Certification Scheme in the Gulf of Mexico Offshore facilities. and 3D approaches for Hazardous Area Classification. A-
Nationally Recognized Test Lab (NRTL) registered with the IECEx 1 illustrates a generic overview of this work process that is
Certification Scheme utilizes the IEC 60079 series of design discussed subsequently.
standards for testing and certifying explosion protected (Ex)
electrical equipment. Refer to Section 110.10-1 and 111.105-3 of
[2].
A. Components of SoR Schedule

The US and Canada recently revised installation codes The SoR Schedule dictates Hazardous Area
to recognize the Zone system for Hazardous Area Classification of the various sources of release using
Classification. Canada has introduced the design criteria and details from the applicable technical standards.
requirements of IEC 60079 [3] and all new installations in The SoR Schedule includes but is not limited to the
Class I hazardous locations must use the Zone system of components shown in Table II.
classification [4]. Existing Canadian installations may
continue to use the Division system or opt to re-classify TABLE II
using the Zone system. In the US, all existing and new SOURCE OF RELEASE COMPONENTS
installations can either continue to use the Division system SoR Description
or re-classify using the Zone system [5]. Outside the US Components
and Canada, IEC 60079 series of standards are Hazardous Process equipment (pumps, compressors,
Equipment List etc.) handling flammable gases or liquids
predominantly utilized for the classification of hazardous including associated stream data
areas, design, selection, certification, installation, (composition, pressure, temperature, etc.).
inspection and maintenance of EEHA. Australia and New Hazardous Piping streaming flammable gases or
Zealand utilize AS/NZS 60079 standards which have been Lines List liquids. This captures classification from
reproduced from the IEC 60079 standards. Furthermore, small sources of release including flanges,
the Local Regulatory Authorities of Queensland State valves, drains etc. associated with the
(Australia) require a third party hazardous area compliance hazardous piping.
audit prior to energizing electrical equipment on a new Hazardous Vents (including pressure relief devices)
petrochemical facility. Vents List associated with piping and equipment
releasing flammable gases.
Section 4.2 of IEC 60079-14 [6] mandates the
Hazardous Buildings handling flammable gases or
requirements of the verification dossier to be prepared for Buildings List liquids e.g. analyzer houses, battery rooms
EEHA. HAVD consists of hazardous area classification inside electrical substation buildings,
documentation, electrical equipment documentation laboratories, etc.
including certification and other design documents for the
verification of electrical installations in hazardous areas. B. Classical 2D Approach
Section 4.3 of IEC 60079-14 [6] requires that an initial
inspection of “detailed” grade (detailed inspection) be The classical approach depicts the hazardous area
carried out on EEHA in accordance with IEC 60079-17 [7] extents on a 2D drawing using the SoR Schedule.
prior to its first use. Detailed inspection is defined as Consideration must be given to the drawings scale to
“inspection which encompasses those aspects covered by accurately represent all hazardous areas and identify
a close inspection and, in addition, identifies those defects, EEHA.
such as loose terminations, which will only be apparent by For large petrochemical facilities such as liquefaction
opening the enclosure, and/or using, where necessary, facilities or refineries, it is not practical to show all
tools and test equipment.” [7]. To meet these requirements, hazardous areas, especially from small piping sources of
it is necessary to accurately identify all EEHA and compile release such as vents and individually scattered flanges,
the HAVD. valves, etc. Capturing these would require a drawing scale
Section 9.2 of IEC 60079-10-1 [8] states “Area resulting in an impracticable number of drawings. To keep
classification documents may be in hard copy or electronic the number of drawings manageable, common practice is
form and should include plans and elevations or three to reference typical details from technical standards via a
dimensional models, as appropriate, which show both the note placed on drawings. An example of such note is “All
type and extent of zones, equipment group, ignition continuously discharging vents shall be classified per
temperature and/or temperature class.”, thereby allowing Figure 14B of API RP 505:1997.”

2
 EEHA are identified upon completion of Hazardous Area hazardous area volumes. The automation takes into
Classification drawings. It is straightforward to visually account the actual shape of hazardous area volumes
identify electrical equipment located within the hazardous (spherical, cylindrical, etc.) in determining the EEHA. A
areas of large process equipment. However, it is customized software code constructs a tight (rectangular)
challenging to do likewise for small piping sources such as box around electrical equipment and tests each corner of
vents, flanges, etc. For example, per Figure 14B of API RP the tight box with hazardous area volume. If all corner
505 [9], continuously discharging vents have concentric points are determined to be inside the hazardous area
spheres of Zone 0 (0.5m radius), Zone 1 (1.5m radius) and volume, electrical equipment is determined to be engulfed
Zone 2 (3m radius) hazardous areas. If the vent volume is and flagged as “Full” in the output report. If some corner
not individually shown on 2D drawings, electrical points are determined to be inside hazardous area volume
equipment such as light fixtures rated only for Zone 2 but and others are not, then such electrical equipment is
located within the Zone 0/1 hazardous area of the vent may flagged as “Partial” in the output report. Equipment flagged
end up being neglected and pose an ignition hazard. as “Partial” requires virtual walk downs to verify if the
In order to avoid installing electrical equipment with electrical equipment is inside hazardous area volume or
inadequate explosion (Ex) protection rating, rigorous man not.
hour intensive physical walk downs are required during the The generated Clash Report can contain abundant data
Construction phase to identify such unsafe non- about the EEHA such as name (or tag), equipment type,
compliances. The walk down during construction stage of plant area, coordinates, etc. The corresponding clashing
the project could be a time consuming affair which not only hazardous area volume name can also be reported. The
require recording of all such non-compliances and remedial format of a Typical Clash Report is shown in A-2.
effort required to correct the non-compliances but also The 3D modeling software provides users the ability to
update of design documents and HAVD database. Small generate 2D drawings from the 3D model. The method to
delays during construction stage could cause huge generate the 2D drawings could vary between different
commercial impacts. If there is stringent start-up deadlines software. However, latest 3D modeling software are highly
associated with a project, such delays could possibly cause customizable and typically have a “filter” function which
delay in commissioning of the plant, consequently affecting allows extraction of various types of objects on 2D
commercially not only the project Contractor but also the drawings. These objects may include interference
Client. volumes, piping and its components, process equipment,
electrical equipment, etc. Tailored drawing scales can be
C. Innovative 3D Approach used for various plant locations to produce even the
smallest hazardous areas.
The advancement of commercially available 3D Delineating hazardous areas in the 3D environment not
modeling software technology for industrial applications only adds accuracy of EEHA identification but also provides
has led 3D design of petrochemical facilities to become an the opportunity to perform virtual walk downs during the
industry norm. Data rich plant 3D models bring vast design phase for early identification of hazardous area
benefits to delivering projects by allowing all engineering clashes, consequently early resolution and mitigation of
disciplines (electrical, mechanical, piping, civil/structural, hazardous area issues. 3D modeling software has the
etc.) to interface and integrate their designs within a virtual capability to generate Clash Reports, which report clashing
environment and allow virtual walk downs that provide between various objects. This is a really powerful function
design assurance. Physical structures are 3D modeled to generate a list of equipment which clash with the
including but not limited to mechanical equipment, hazardous volumes, thus automating identification of
interconnecting piping, electrical and instrument EEHA and avoiding error prone manual identification.
equipment, buildings, and pipe racks. Once the plant 3D
model has taken its shape, various types of virtual IV. EXAMPLE AUSTRALIAN LIQUIFACTION
interference volumes are typically created such as egress, PROJECT – 3D APPROACH
maintenance, material handling paths pertaining to the
operational safety of the facility. In a similar fashion, it is The advantages of the 3D approach are most
also possible to create hazardous area volumes around appreciated when realizing their true potential on projects.
sources of release and realize the benefits of this data rich The project example selected is for a liquefaction
environment. processing facility in Australia comprising of liquefaction
The hazardous area classification details presented in trains, power generation, process utilities, storage tanks
the SoR Schedule was utilized to create the hazardous and export facilities. The findings discussed highly
area volumes in the 3D model. First the hazardous area recommend 3D modeling of Hazardous Areas for large
volumes associated with the process equipment were petrochemical projects.
created and then virtual walk downs of all hazardous piping After the creation of hazardous area volumes in the plant
was carried out to create the hazardous area volumes 3D model, a virtual walk down was carried out to validate
around the associated small sources like flanges and the automated Clash Report results, especially for clashes
vents. flagged as “Partial”. This was to ensure that electrical
Upon completion of the hazardous area volumes in 3D equipment is correctly rated and recorded in the HAVD.
model, software automation is used to generate the Clash Significant man hours were spent during the design phase
Report. This automation process takes hazardous volumes to create the hazardous area volumes, carry out model
as input and creates an output spreadsheet describing reviews, and perform virtual walk downs. The observations
information about the electrical equipment inside

3
made and design mitigations carried out are recorded in Detailed Grade is required for new electrical installations in
Table III. hazardous areas, i.e. prior to energizing the EEHA. Late
identification of EEHA during the Construction phase of a
TABLE III project will cause additional costs to the project with
OBSERVATIONS AND MITIGATIONS potential schedule impact.
Observation Mitigation
Several prefabricated pipe All EEHA were found to be V. BENEFITS OF 3D OVER 2D
rack modules, previously rated for Zone 2 already
classified as non-hazardous, due to the project
The Table IV compares the benefits of 3D over 2D
were identified as hazardous standardization, however,
(Zone 2) due to the presence design efforts were required approach.
of small hazardous piping to update the HAVD. TABLE IV
sources. The pipe rack TABULATION OF BENEFITS OF 3D OVER 2D
modules had numerous 3D Approach 2D Approach
electrical equipment including Accurate representation of It is possible to show hazardous
piping instruments, light large as well as small areas from small piping
fixtures, electrical junction hazardous area volumes, sources, however for a large
boxes, etc. e.g. Zone 0 and Zone 1 facility, the drawing scale
Few mechanical equipment All EEHA were found to be around hazardous vents required to show all such
skids, previously identified as rated for Zone 2 already (See A-3). sources will result in an
located in non-hazardous due to the project Capability to perform impracticable number of
areas, were found to be standardization, however, virtual walk downs during drawings. To avoid this, a
located within the Zone 2 design efforts were required detailed design phase and typical detail (See A-4) is
hazardous areas volumes of to update the HAVD and proactive design mitigation conventionally referenced as
adjacent pipe racks. gather additional efforts to avoid locating previously discussed. A design
documentation from electrical equipment with team can use these drawings to
suppliers. inadequate explosion (Ex) manually identify EEHA. All
A small number of light fixtures The light fixtures were protection rating. steps involved are manual and
rated for Zone 2 hazardous relocated in the 3D model prone to human error.
area were found to be located and design layouts to move Alternate solution: -
within Zone 1 hazardous area them outside the Zone 1 Construction representatives
volumes from hazardous hazardous area volumes. perform physical walk downs of
piping vents. hazardous lines to identify
Some instrument devices The instrument devices EEHA falling within the
rated for Zone 1 hazardous were relocated in the 3D hazardous areas of small piping
area were found to be located model and design layouts to sources. Consequently,
within Zone 0 hazardous area move them outside the remedial actions may be
volumes from hazardous Zone 1 hazardous area required due to EEHA non-
piping vents. volumes. compliances found during the
A large number of mechanical The 3D model accuracy walk downs. This will result in
equipment skids were found to allowed verifying during the additional costs and potential
have partial clashes with virtual walk down that the delays, e.g.:
adjacent Zone 0 or Zone 1 actual electrical equipment Long lead time for equipment
hazardous area volumes. on the skids were not within replacement, installation
the hazardous area rework, review of additional
volumes. Hence, no design supplier documentation, HAVD
impact. revision and detailed
A small number of instrument The purchase orders with inspections.
devices not rated for the suppliers were revised Automated Clash Reports Only manual identification of
hazardous area, were found to to substitute the non- can be generated to EEHA can take place.
be located within Zone 2 hazardous rated instrument record EEHA within
hazardous area volumes from devices with Zone 2 various zones, 0, 1, and 2.
small hazardous piping hazardous area rated (See A-2)
sources. instrument devices prior to Automated generation of Hazardous areas are manually
their shipment. Design 2D drawings is possible delineated on 2D drawings.
efforts were required to directly from the 3D
update the HAVD. model.
Numerous electrical All EEHA were found to be Renders greater Accuracy can be compromised
equipment such as light rated for Zone 2 already confidence and safety of due to manual verification of
fixtures, sockets, junction due to the project the electrical installation in EEHA and errors may occur
boxes, instrument devices, standardization, however, hazardous areas, for e.g. leading to missing EEHA and/or
previously identified as located design efforts were required even the partial clashes of unnecessary classification.
in non-hazardous areas, were to update the HAVD. electrical equipment with
found to be located within the the hazardous area
Zone 2 hazardous areas volumes can be accurately
volumes. captured. (See A-3, A-5
and A-6)
In accordance with Section 4.3 of IEC 60079.14 [6] and
Section 4.3.1 of IEC 60079.17 [7], an initial inspection at a

4
 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR [3] M. Cole, W.G. Lawrence, D. Adams and T. Driscoll,
IMPLEMENTATION “The Canadian Electrical Code for Hazardous
Locations Has No Class – But It Does Have
Based on the challenges encountered in the example Significant Changes”, IEEE PCIC Conference
project using the innovative 3D approach, the following Record, 2015.
recommendations were noted: [4] Part 18, Appendix J, C22.1, 2015 Canadian Electrical
1. Early engagement with mechanical skid suppliers is Code, Part I (23rd edition), Safety Standard for
required to obtain their 3D model compatible with Electrical Installations.
one’s software platform. [5] NFPA 70, 2014 National Electrical Code, NFPA.
2. A decision to implement the 3D approach needs to [6] IEC 60079-14:2013, Explosive atmospheres – Part
be aligned with the project procurement strategy 14: Electrical installations design, selection and
and schedule. erection, IEC.
3. Equipment tags and descriptions must be correctly [7] IEC 60079-17:2013, Explosive atmospheres – Part
completed in the 3D model to avoid erroneous 17: Electrical installations inspection and
identification in Clash Reports. maintenance, IEC.
4. The availability of expertise to maintain the 3D [8] IEC 60079-10-1:2015, Explosive atmospheres – Part
model by the Operating Company needs to be 10-1: Classification of areas – Explosive gas
discussed early with the EPC Contractor which will atmospheres, IEC.
define the final deliverable format, 2D versus 3D [9] API RP 505:1997, API Recommended Practice for
Model. Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations
5. Engage a 3D database administrator with electrical at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone O,
systems knowledge to set up and support the 3D Zone 1, and Zone 2, API.
model work. [10] AS/NZS 60079.10.1:2009, Explosive atmospheres –
Part 10.1: Classification of areas – Explosive gas
VII. CONCLUSION atmospheres (IEC 60079-10-1, Ed.1.0 (2008) MOD),
Australian/New Zealand Standard™.
[11] AS/NZS 60079.14:2009, Explosive atmospheres –
3D modeling of petrochemical plants has become an
Part 14: Electrical installations design, selection and
established practice within the industry, allowing various
erection (IEC 60079-14, Ed. 4.0(2007) MOD),
engineering disciplines to interact, interface and develop
Australian/New Zealand Standard™.
the design within a virtual environment. Although the
[12] AS/NZS 60079.17:2009, Part 17: Electrical
classical 2D approach can be utilized for the identification
installations inspection and maintenance (IEC 60079-
of EEHA, it is apparent from the project example discussed
17, Ed.4.0 (2007) MOD), Australian/New Zealand
in this paper that the innovative 3D approach has the
Standard™.
potential to deliver accurate results. Additional design
efforts are required to perform the 3D approach however
the benefits of the 3D approach presented in the paper
IX. VITAE
recommend that this design effort be undertaken to evade
Vaibhav Shrivastava is a Senior Electrical Engineer at
potential rework during the construction phase. The 3D
Bechtel OG&C Houston. He received his MSEE from
approach renders accurate delineation of hazardous areas,
Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly
identification of EEHA early in the project and therefore
the University of Missouri-Rolla) at Rolla where he also
designing a robust electrical installation. The 3D modeling
worked as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for Electro
approach to hazardous area classification provides a
mechanics laboratory. He joined Bechtel OG&C Houston
solution to effectively use plant 3D models to comply with
as a college hire in 2006, and has 10 years of electrical
the technical standards requirements to identify EEHA and
engineering experience working on engineering and design
develop an HAVD. Industry standards are recognizing
of large oil, gas & chemical projects. He is a licensed
further the safety assurance benefits to identify rigorously
Professional Engineer in the state of Texas and a member
all hazardous sources of release and exposed electrical
of IEEE IAS.
equipment. The global acceptance of IEC standards is
evident by the adoption of IEC 60079 in Canada. Innovative
Ganesh Mohan has over 10 years of business, people,
3D approach allows designing and building inherently safer
technical safety & risk management experience including
electrical installations for complex petrochemical facilities
but not limited to offshore & onshore industries. He is
while also meeting stringent EEHA HAVD requirements of
currently an Engineering Group Supervisor of Process
IEC 60079.
Safety Engineering department at Bechtel OG&C,
Houston. He received his MS in Mechanical Engineering
VIII. REFERENCES from the Texas A&M University, College Station and
Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering from
[1] A. McMillan, Electrical Installations in Hazardous
the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India. He has
Areas, Elsevier, 1998
several peer reviewed publications in his area of expertise.
[2] 46 CFR J, Oct 1, 2001, Title 46 of Code of Federal
He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of Texas
Regulation, Chapter I – Coast Guard, Department of
and a member of IEEE.
Transportation, Subchapter J, Electrical Engineering.

5
 Nir Feinstein graduated from Imperial College London in USA and is an IEEE Senior Member and serves as IEEE
2006 with an Electrical and Electronic MEng degree. Since USA Co-Chair in multiple committees. He is also an active
joining Bechtel in 2006 he has gained design engineering member of the Technical code committees of IEEE (Power
and construction experience by working across numerous & Energy, Transformers & Nano Technology). Neeraj is
countries (UK, India, Canada, Australia, USA) on presently Chief Electrical & Telecom Engineer of the Oil
petrochemical projects and is presently an Engineering Gas & Chemical GBU of Bechtel Corporation in Houston,
Supervisor for Electrical and Telecommunications Texas, USA, and has worked over 25 years in the field of a
Engineering. He is a registered Charted Engineer (CEng) variety of Oil, Gas, Chemical & Power Facilities, Power
in the United Kingdom and a member of IEEE. plants and Industrial Plants. He has worked in engineering
management, engineering, supervision, field construction
Neeraj Bhatia has a Master of Technology (Management and commissioning of electrical power generation,
& Systems), Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India & distribution, control and automation systems.
Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Electrical), and is a
licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of Texas,

6
 APPENDIX A

A-1 PROCESS MAPPING OF CLASSICAL 2D & INNOVATIVE 3D APPROACHES

A-2 EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL CLASH REPORT FORMAT

7
A-3 SNAP-SHOT FROM 3D MODEL SHOWING VENT HAZARDOUS AREA VOLUMES &
ENCROACHMENT ON AN ADJACENT LIGHT FIXTURE

A-4 PROCESS VENT PER FIGURE 14A AND 14B OF API RP 505 [9]

8
A-5 SNAP-SHOT FROM EXAMPLE PROJECT 2D DRAWING USING 2D APPROACH

A-6 SNAP-SHOT FROM EXAMPLE PROJECT 3D MODEL USING 3D APPROACH