It is currently Sun May 28, 2023 4:38 pm

Author Message

 Post subject: Another Tables vs Calculations QuestionPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:06 pm

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:02 pm
Posts: 19
I understand the comments regarding using the calculations in lieu of the table (130.7(C)(9)) if an arc flash study has been performed. But I am very confused and need some help with interpretation - I am fairly new at all of this. See my scenarios below with my 2 questions.

Scenario 1 - I have a 480V mcc and I need to open the bucket door for troubleshooting - will be using a multimeter. The arc flash study shows that the incident energy for this particular exposed energized equipment is 7.1 cal/cm2. Therefore, using Table 130.7(C)(11) I would use Category 2 PPE. If I had used the table I would need to use Category 2* PPE.
My observation is that Category 2* is not even a possibility by using the calculations. Am I correct?

Scenario 2 - I have a 480v mcc and I want to open the switch while the bucket door is closed. According to the table I would use Category 1 PPE. How do I use my calculation (7.1 cal/cm2 incident energy) information to determine the Hazard/Risk Category when there are no exposed energized parts?

There are numerous tasks listed in the table that are similar to my Scenario 2. I like the concept of using the table because it makes it easier to determine PPE in an industrial facility. Ultimately I would like to have a PPE table for various tasks but I do not know how to do it until someone can shed some light on Scenario 2 above.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:41 pm
 Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
psThomas wrote:
I understand the comments regarding using the calculations in lieu of the table (130.7(C)(9)) if an arc flash study has been performed. But I am very confused and need some help with interpretation - I am fairly new at all of this. See my scenarios below with my 2 questions.

Scenario 1 - I have a 480V mcc and I need to open the bucket door for troubleshooting - will be using a multimeter. The arc flash study shows that the incident energy for this particular exposed energized equipment is 7.1 cal/cm2. Therefore, using Table 130.7(C)(11) I would use Category 2 PPE. If I had used the table I would need to use Category 2* PPE.
My observation is that Category 2* is not even a possibility by using the calculations. Am I correct?

Scenario 2 - I have a 480v mcc and I want to open the switch while the bucket door is closed. According to the table I would use Category 1 PPE. How do I use my calculation (7.1 cal/cm2 incident energy) information to determine the Hazard/Risk Category when there are no exposed energized parts?

There are numerous tasks listed in the table that are similar to my Scenario 2. I like the concept of using the table because it makes it easier to determine PPE in an industrial facility. Ultimately I would like to have a PPE table for various tasks but I do not know how to do it until someone can shed some light on Scenario 2 above.

Here is the thing, you cant use the tables and study results, you pick one or the other. The tables have limitations and there are many, many assumptions made to determine the HRC (And a little "best guess"). Calulations are based on the actual available fault current and clearing times of your system and should superseed the tables if you have a study in place.

There does not need to be exposed live parts to have an arc flash hazard, look at the definition of arc flash hazard in the 70E.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:53 am

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 2
Location: Tennessee
psThomas's point in Scenario 2 is also giving me heartache. I see where the calculation is the best method and I have done the calculations and applied the labels. But my staff asks me about the table. In the table they lower the HRC for various tasks. But if I use the label all tasks on that piece of equipment remains the same. If I understand correctly, there is no "derating" of the HRC by task if you do the calculations. Yet, a large facility is really forced to do the calculations due to the environment. Is this a correct assumption?

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:46 pm
 Plasma Level

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 879
Location: Rutland, VT
Zog wrote:
Here is the thing, you cant use the tables and study results, you pick one or the other.

Zog,

I have seen other posts where it has been said that you can use a study and use the tables. What I'm thinking about is a large industrial facility where a study goes to a certain level where it is determined that items below this level meet the criteria for the use of the tables (short circuit level, clearing time).

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

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:01 pm
 Plasma Level

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

I have seen other posts where it has been said that you can use a study and use the tables. What I'm thinking about is a large industrial facility where a study goes to a certain level where it is determined that items below this level meet the criteria for the use of the tables (short circuit level, clearing time).

Yes, that is fine. Most plants draw the line at the <240V <125kVA point and do the analysis above that and use the tables below that. i meant you dont mix the two on the same equipment.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 7 hours

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

 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Forum Library / Articles The Lounge    Question of the Week - What Do You Think?    Arcflashforum.com Feedback and Announcements    Off Topic Discussions    News in Electrical Safety Arc Flash and Electrical Safety    General Discussion    Electrical Safety Practices    Equipment to Reduce Arc Flash Dangers    Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Arc Flash Studies    General Discussion    Arc Flash Labels    Software for Arc Flash Studies    System Modeling and Calculations    NEW! Electrode Configuration Library â 2018 IEEE 1584 Codes and Standards    CSA Z462 Workplace Electrical Safety    EAWR Electricity at Work Regulations, HSE - Europe    OSHA CFR Title 29    IEEE 1584 - Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations    NFPA 70 - National Electrical Code - NEC (R)    NESC - ANSI C2 - National Electrical Safety Code    NFPA 70E - Electrical Safety in the Workplace    2015 NFPA 70E Share It Here    Arc Flash Photos    Your Stories    What's Wrong Here? by Joe Tedesco
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883