It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:25 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: AF PPE for ballast replacement?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:10 am
Posts: 36
Hello all,

I have seen posts referencing this but not directly.
1) Would it seem correct that if I am using the tables from 70E that I am required to don HRC 2* PPE to test if a 277V ballast in a light fixture is de-energized?
2) Would only HRC 2 be required for 120V ballast?
3) If my AF study is complete and the panelboard feeding these fixtures is determined < 1.2 cal/cm2 then HRC 0 is required to check for a de-energized ballast?

Thank you for any information.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:26 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 711
Location: Rutland, VT
MIEngineer wrote:
Hello all,

I have seen posts referencing this but not directly.
1) Would it seem correct that if I am using the tables from 70E that I am required to don HRC 2* PPE to test if a 277V ballast in a light fixture is de-energized?
2) Would only HRC 2 be required for 120V ballast?
3) If my AF study is complete and the panelboard feeding these fixtures is determined < 1.2 cal/cm2 then HRC 0 is required to check for a de-energized ballast?

Thank you for any information.


1. AF is a 3 phase hazard and 277V is single phase. Not applicable.
2. Same as for #1
3. Again are you testing on single phase circuit?

_________________
Barry Donovan, P.E.
www.workplacesafetysolutions.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:19 am 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:35 am
Posts: 445
Location: Wisconsin
wbd wrote:
1. AF is a 3 phase hazard and 277V is single phase. Not applicable.
2. Same as for #1
3. Again are you testing on single phase circuit?


Not quite.

AF is a hazard even on single-phase circuits, so PPE is required.
It is just that IEEE-1584 does not contain a methodology for determining the incident energy of a single phase fault.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:36 am 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 411
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
MIEngineer wrote:
Hello all,

I have seen posts referencing this but not directly.
1) Would it seem correct that if I am using the tables from 70E that I am required to don HRC 2* PPE to test if a 277V ballast in a light fixture is de-energized?
2) Would only HRC 2 be required for 120V ballast?
3) If my AF study is complete and the panelboard feeding these fixtures is determined < 1.2 cal/cm2 then HRC 0 is required to check for a de-energized ballast?

Thank you for any information.


1) Yes.
2) Wouldn't you use "Panelboards or Other Equipment Rated 240V and Below - Work on energized...fed directly by a branch circuit..." HRC = 1?
3) Yes. Strictly speaking, the calculations are for 3├ś only, but if the single phase fault current is enough to trip the MCCB on instantaneous, then the IE calculation should be conservative.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:04 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 711
Location: Rutland, VT
I am not saying that there are not hazards but if you refering to strictly arc flash hazards, which are only calculated on a 3 phase system, then the single phase arc is not included. That is not to say that a single phase arc could not happen.

A lot of facilities will have basic PPE requirements for the electrician that should suffice for single phase work.

_________________
Barry Donovan, P.E.
www.workplacesafetysolutions.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:51 am 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:35 am
Posts: 445
Location: Wisconsin
wbd wrote:
I am not saying that there are not hazards but if you refering to strictly arc flash hazards, which are only calculated on a 3 phase system, then the single phase arc is not included.

Duke, among others, has a method of calculating incident energy for single phase systems.

If incident energy is not calculated, 70E requires you to use their task tables.

No where do I see an arc flash exemption for single phase.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:10 am
Posts: 36
I want to say that working on a single phase ballast (120 or 277V) would be HRC 0. But I do not see how I can justify that as I am using the tables to dictate my arc flash PPE at this time.

I am wary about going outside of the tables if I do not have my full study done.

Does most work not listed fit into the "work performed on energized...fed from circuit" category?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:26 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
for 4 phase systems, as per standard if equipment is below 240V and fed by transformer 125kVA and below, then HRC = 0, so if this 277V system is fed by a transformer of 125kVA and below, which is likely, and since it is single phase (likely resulting in smaller arc flash energy than 3 phase), then I would say it is safe to assume HRC=0, but I see no problem in the extra protection in the tables if the client and electricians wish so, as standards only provide minimum protection requirements


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:26 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
3 phase not 4 phase*


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:47 am 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 411
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
mahan4 wrote:
for 4 phase systems, as per standard if equipment is below 240V and fed by transformer 125kVA and below, then HRC = 0, so if this 277V system is fed by a transformer of 125kVA and below, which is likely, and since it is single phase (likely resulting in smaller arc flash energy than 3 phase), then I would say it is safe to assume HRC=0, but I see no problem in the extra protection in the tables if the client and electricians wish so, as standards only provide minimum protection requirements


What you say might make sense for the 120 volt ballasts, but 277 > 240. Even so, NFPA 70E does not say that equipment below 240V is HRC=0. It says that an arc flash hazard analysis is not required. It is not clear whether HRC=0 can be used or if the task tables should be used, which would require HRC=1.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883