It is currently Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:06 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: ETAP v7.1 arc flash desc
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 6:43 am 

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:49 am
Posts: 7
I have been using ETAP v7.1 and the descriptions for the labels for each arc-flash category seems to be inaccurate. Anyone else notice that? In some cases it says Cat 3 requires only a min ppe of 4. and Cat 1 requires a min PPE of 8.

I basically deleted those descriptions and just typed up what was in NFPA 70E 130.11? I don't remember if it was 130.. but I just used the descriptions in the NFPA 70E. Seems more accurate.

Anyone else came across this?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 6:47 am 
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
titan wrote:
Cat 3 requires only a min ppe of 4. and Cat 1 requires a min PPE of 8.



PPE of 4? PPE of 8? 4 and 8 what?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 7:18 am 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1630
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
titan wrote:
I have been using ETAP v7.1 and the descriptions for the labels for each arc-flash category seems to be inaccurate. Anyone else notice that? In some cases it says Cat 3 requires only a min ppe of 4. and Cat 1 requires a min PPE of 8.

I basically deleted those descriptions and just typed up what was in NFPA 70E 130.11? I don't remember if it was 130.. but I just used the descriptions in the NFPA 70E. Seems more accurate.

Anyone else came across this?


Good Catch! - Sounds like a potentially troublesome glitch. One more reason people can not "blindly" use software without understanding everything else about arc flash and studies.

I am not familiar with ETAP but I bet there is a data table somewhere within the S/W where you can make a change to the correlation of Categories and Incident Energy.

You are correct in using the NFPA 70E values, i.e.

Cat 1 = Minimum 4 cal/cm^2 PPE
Cat 2 = Minimum 8 cal/cm^2 PPE
Cat 3 = Minimum 25 cal/cm^2 PPE
Cat 4 = Minimum 40 cal/cm^2 PPE

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 8:05 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Posts: 22
Location: Great White North
SKM software has similar confusion around the no. of layers of FR clothing required for the different PPE levels.According to one FR clothing group contacted, theoretically you can be in your birthday suit and put on the 40 cal arc flash suit.(you do not need 3 and 4 layers of FR clothing)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 9:06 am 
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
ghostbuster wrote:
.(you do not need 3 and 4 layers of FR clothing)


Huh??? 3 and 4 layers?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 11:13 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Posts: 22
Location: Great White North
Zog wrote:
Huh??? 3 and 4 layers?



Zog:

Here is the FR clothing info(see attachment) directly from the SKM manual.This info is transferred directly and printed onto each of their arc flash labels.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 11:54 am 
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
ghostbuster wrote:
Zog:

Here is the FR clothing info(see attachment) directly from the SKM manual.This info is transferred directly and printed onto each of their arc flash labels.


Well that is a mess (Don't see any 4 layers, that is what really threw me off). Is that from a current revision of the SKM software? What is with the HRC 5?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 12:13 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
Zog wrote:
Well that is a mess (Don't see any 4 layers, that is what really threw me off). Is that from a current revision of the SKM software? What is with the HRC 5?


It's not HRC 5, it's the fifth row in a Excel-like control.

And the number of layers they quote uses cotton underwear as the first layer (which you can skip, just don't use meltable underwear), and for HRC3 and HRC4, their multilayer approach (including a "Multi Layer Flash Suit") is not the heading of most of the PPE industry that I see, which is a single garment with the required arc rating over non-melting underwear.

Not the best way to put that info in a table...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 12:17 pm 
Arc Level

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:35 am
Posts: 550
Location: Wisconsin
Zog wrote:
Well that is a mess (Don't see any 4 layers, that is what really threw me off). Is that from a current revision of the SKM software? What is with the HRC 5?

Zog,
They do not show an HRC 5, I think you are looking at the row number of the spreadsheet.

The SKM default values are fully editable. You can make them match your company's standards.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 5:28 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:51 pm
Posts: 22
Location: Great White North
Zog wrote:
Well that is a mess (Don't see any 4 layers, that is what really threw me off). Is that from a current revision of the SKM software? What is with the HRC 5?


SKM was contacted in FEB 2010 ,about these apparent mistakes.They said,they were simply following the standard when they created these FR clothing tables.They will not change them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 11:40 am 

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:49 am
Posts: 7
I don't have SKM... my problem lies in ETAP...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:24 am 
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:11 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Connecticut
I use Etap 7.1 and found the same thing with incorrect cal/cm^ ratings. I contacted Etap support and got an answer more confusing than the question. I gave up and use the software "user" option for cal/cm^ values vs. PPE that agree with 70E


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


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:  
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883