Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: PPE

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Union city Ga USA
    Posts
    2

    PPE

    We have arc flash ratings labeled on our switch gears and one of them say 40.38 cal. Should we buy a 50 cal? And anything pass 40 cal ( even if it's that .38 ) is that pretty much a major kaboom ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (19 Hrs. 22 Min. from Winged Horses)
    Posts
    6,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray83 View Post
    We have arc flash ratings labeled on our switch gears and one of them say 40.38 cal. Should we buy a 50 cal? And anything pass 40 cal ( even if it's that .38 ) is that pretty much a major kaboom ?
    40 cal. is the peak level breakpoint.

    what i was told by the fellow who gave me my arc flash training
    is that ppe levels above 40 calorie didn't accomplish much, as a
    level much above 40 calorie will result in an explosion that will
    kill you from the concussion.

    if you are, for whatever reason, in a hot work situation with an
    arc flash rating above 40, you really need to pause and rethink this.
    ~New signature under construction.~
    ~~~~Please excuse the mess.~~~~

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Fulthrotl View Post
    what i was told by the fellow who gave me my arc flash training
    is that ppe levels above 40 calorie didn't accomplish much, as a
    level much above 40 calorie will result in an explosion that will
    kill you from the concussion.

    This type of 'fear statement' was commonly taught more than 10 years ago. However, the concussion force, arc blast, and the incident energy, arc flash, are not directly related.
    It is very easy to have incident energy levels >40cal/cm^2 when the protective device does not clear due to relatively low arcing fault currents. This is why many people use a 2 sec cut off for their calculations.
    Even levels <40cal/cm^2 can have an 'explosive force' which can produce shrapnel and concussions.

    I believe the 40cal/cm^2 clothing 'limit' is likely to be removed in the 2018 edition of NFPA70E.
    Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    231
    A calorie is a measure of heat energy--in this case, heat energy at the arc. Energy of an arc in open air will be released omnidirectionally. An arc in a box will be contained until the box ruptures, producing a greater concussive wave, particularly when copper inside the box expands when it melts, possibly moving to its plasma phase.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (19 Hrs. 22 Min. from Winged Horses)
    Posts
    6,141
    Quote Originally Posted by jim dungar View Post
    I believe the 40cal/cm^2 clothing 'limit' is likely to be removed in the 2018 edition of NFPA70E.
    granted that there was an applied fear factor in the training i was given,
    and it was 10 years ago.

    so then levels of protection may be calculated above 40 cal, and required?

    note to self: if a level of protecting above 40 cal. is required, i don't need
    a thicker suit. someone else needs a thicker suit.
    ~New signature under construction.~
    ~~~~Please excuse the mess.~~~~

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    WI, USA
    Posts
    190
    As noted by others, 70E pretty much tells you to de-energize above 40. Have you filled out an energized work permit for this to validate the need?

    Is there a maintenance mode for arc energy reduction? Or access to the study software files to understand levels when the instantaneous is dialed all the way down?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    15,652
    If you stood an extra inch farther away you'd probably be under 40 calories but I don't think you're allowed to take credit for that extra inch. I think at some point NFPA 70E is going to have to take practicality into account. I think NFPA is afraid of being sued so they are making it almost impossible to do anything.
    Bob

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,788
    Quote Originally Posted by petersonra View Post
    I think at some point NFPA 70E is going to have to take practicality into account. I think NFPA is afraid of being sued so they are making it almost impossible to do anything.
    NFPA70E-2015 says that a risk analysis (e.g. sanity check) must be performed to determine if the hazard will occur. After the risk analysis is done, steps be taken in order to mitigate the hazard. The very last thing to do is select appropriate PPE, partly because of limitations on it effectiveness.

    An argument can likely be made that NFPA-70E wants to reduce, if not out right ban, energized work.
    Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    WI, USA
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by jim dungar View Post
    An argument can likely be made that NFPA-70E wants to reduce, if not out right ban, energized work.
    Agree. Really, the only live work that should be justifiable is IR scanning.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,788
    Quote Originally Posted by publicgood View Post
    Agree. Really, the only live work that should be justifiable is IR scanning.
    There is also some troubleshooting that requires energized equipment.
    Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •