A technical deep-dive into Fire and Gas (F&G) mapping studies, detailing the methodologies, international standards (ISA/BS), and 3D modeling techniques used to verify detector coverage and ensure industrial safety compliance.
A Fire and Gas (F&G) Mapping Study is a quantitative engineering analysis used to verify that the placement of flame, gas, and toxic detectors effectively covers hazardous areas. The primary objective is to ensure that any potential release—whether a gas leak or an ignited fire—is detected early enough to trigger alarms or automatic executive actions (such as Emergency Shutdown or ESD) before it escalates into a catastrophic event. This process moves design validation from “engineering judgement” to demonstrable, auditable data .
Modern mapping studies utilize advanced 3D simulation software (such as Detect3D or HazMap3D) to import the facility’s CAD geometry. This allows engineers to visualize “cones of vision” for flame detectors and gas cloud intersection points for gas detectors. Unlike 2D drawings, 3D modeling accounts for physical obstructions like piping, cable trays, and vessels, identifying “blind spots” where a hazard might go undetected due to line-of-sight blockage.
ISA TR 84.00.07 is the globally recognized standard for evaluating the effectiveness of F&G systems. It shifts the focus from prescriptive “rules of thumb” (e.g., placing detectors every 5 meters) to a performance-based approach. It requires the system to achieve a specific “coverage target” (e.g., 90% detection probability) based on the risk level of the zone, integrating F&G effectiveness into the overall functional safety lifecycle.
Published in 2020, BS 60080 provides detailed guidance on the placement of permanently installed detection devices. It emphasizes the necessity of mapping studies for both new designs and existing facilities (brownfields), ensuring that the detection layout is robust against environmental variables and facility changes over time. It specifically outlines the requirements for utilizing software tools to model detector placement effectively.
The Geographic (or Volumetric) approach is the most common method. It divides the facility into 3D volumes (zones) and calculates what percentage of that volume is monitored by detectors. For example, a target might be set to ensure that a 5-meter diameter gas cloud is detected anywhere within the zone. It is efficient for general area coverage but does not account for specific leak sources or wind direction [2, 4].
The Scenario-Based approach uses Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to model specific leak scenarios (e.g., a high-pressure flange leak). It simulates how gas disperses under various wind conditions and checks if the detectors are placed in the path of the plume. While more computationally intensive, this method provides higher accuracy for high-risk equipment by focusing detection where leaks are most likely to travel rather than just covering empty space.
The process begins with reviewing P&IDs and Plot Plans to identify potential release sources (valves, compressors, pumps). Areas are then “graded” based on risk. A high-risk zone (Grade A) may require 90% coverage, whereas a lower-risk zone (Grade B) may only require 60%. This grading defines the performance targets against which the study will be measured.
The facility’s 3D model is imported into mapping software. Engineers verify the model for accuracy, removing unnecessary details (like small bolts) while retaining significant obstructions. Detectors are then digitally placed into the model according to the proposed design or existing site conditions, with specific parameters for field-of-view (FOV) and sensitivity.
The software runs thousands of “ray-casting” simulations for flame detectors and volumetric checks for gas detectors. The output is a color-coded map (often a heatmap) showing areas of high visibility and, crucially, the blind spots. If the target coverage is not met, the engineer adjusts the detector layout and re-runs the simulation until compliance is achieved.
Mapping studies must account for the system’s voting logic. 1ooN (1 out of N) means the alarm triggers if a single detector activates—useful for early warning but prone to false alarms. 2ooN (2 out of N) requires two detectors to see the hazard simultaneously to trigger a shutdown. Mapping for 2ooN is more challenging because it requires overlapping fields of view, ensuring two detectors monitor the same area to prevent spurious trips.
One of the primary commercial goals of an F&G study is optimization. Over-designing a system with too many detectors increases maintenance costs and false alarm rates. A proper study identifies redundant detectors that contribute little to overall coverage, allowing them to be removed without compromising the required Safety Integrity Level (SIL) or coverage targets .
Regulatory bodies and insurance auditors increasingly demand quantitative proof that F&G systems work as intended. A mapping study report serves as an auditable document demonstrating that the design meets international standards (ISA/BS) and corporate safety philosophies, protecting the operator from liability .
By scientifically determining the optimal number of detectors, companies can avoid the “spray and pray” approach of covering every inch of a facility. This significantly reduces Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) on hardware and cabling, as well as Operational Expenditure (OPEX) regarding future maintenance and calibration.
A Fire & Gas Detection Mapping Study is not just a regulatory checkbox; it is a fundamental engineering exercise that bridges the gap between theoretical safety design and real-world protection. By leveraging 3D modeling and adhering to standards like ISA TR 84.00.07, facility owners can ensure their personnel and assets are protected by an optimized, compliant, and effective detection system.
Aura Safety Risk Consultant Delivering comprehensive HSE management and engineering consultancy solutions to ensure safety, compliance, and sustainable industrial growth.
Contact Number: +919999402106
+91 99994 02106
Comprehensive fire protection solutions ensuring safety, compliance, and asset protection.
Fire safety audit to assess compliance, risks, and system effectiveness.
Evaluation of fire protection adequacy based on risk and regulations.
Calculation of combustible fire load to determine fire risk levels.
Fire water demand calculation for effective firefighting system design.
Hydraulic calculations ensuring adequate pressure and fire system performance.
Accurate fire line sizing for optimal water flow efficiency.
Spray sprinkler system design for rapid industrial fire suppression.
Automatic fire sprinkler system for reliable fire detection and suppression.
Fire risk assessment identifying hazards and preventive control measures.
Fireline sizing to ensure sufficient flow during fire emergencies.
Fire protection system maintenance for compliance, reliability, and safety.
The most common industry-standard software tools include Detect3D, HazMap3D, Phast, and in:Flux. These tools are specifically designed to handle complex 3D geometries and perform ray-casting or CFD dispersion analysis.
It should be conducted during the Detailed Design phase of a new project (greenfield) to freeze the layout before construction. It is also critical for existing facilities (brownfield) whenever there are significant layout changes or as part of a 5-year safety review cycle.
2D mapping uses flat drawings and simple circles to estimate coverage, often ignoring height and obstructions. 3D mapping uses the facility's actual geometry, accounting for walls, vessels, and elevation, providing a much more accurate and realistic analysis of blind spots.
A coverage target is the required probability of detection set for a specific zone. For example, a Grade A (High Risk) zone might have a target of 90% coverage, meaning 90% of the possible gas leaks or fires in that area must be detectable by the system.
No, it complements it. A Risk Assessment (like HAZOP or LOPA) identifies what can go wrong and how bad it could be. The F&G Mapping study validates that the safeguards (detectors) are in the right place to mitigate those risks.
There is no single standard height; it depends on the gas density. Detectors for heavy gases (like Propane or H2S) are placed low (typically 0.3m - 0.6m from grade), while detectors for light gases (like Methane or Hydrogen) are placed high or directly above potential leak sources.
If a facility requires 2ooN (2 out of N) voting for executive action (shutdown), you generally need more detectors than a 1ooN system. This is because you need overlapping coverage—every hazard point must be "seen" by at least two detectors simultaneously.
