It is currently Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:22 am

Author Message

 Post subject: Picking a AFB Minimum?Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:53 pm
 Arc Level

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:49 pm
Posts: 510
Location: New England
If we want to simplify our labelling, and pick one value as minimum for the Arc Flash Boundary, and one value for the Restricted approach Boundary - what would you use.
Originally, I would have gone with this:
Flash boundaries:
Up to 600 volts: 4.0 ft
601 volts and over: 15.0ft

Limited Approach Boundary:
Up to 600 volts: 4.0 ft
601 volts and over: 15.0ft

But now, I am thinking this is more appropriate:

Up to 600 volts: 10.0 ft
601 volts and over: 20.0ft

Limited Approach Boundary:
Up to 600 volts: 10.0 ft
601 volts and over: 20.0ft

Obviously, if the calculated value comes up higher, then that is the value that goes on the label. But I think it helps in the learning process to have a standard minimum that covers 99% of the applications. There is a good probability that in many cases these values will cover 100%. I keep the Limited Approach Boundary the same as the AFB. I think there is little value in having a person dressed in AF PPE, able to cross the AFB but stop at the Limited Approach Boundary. But for teaching and implementation purposes, it helps to have them the same.

I assume the 'over 601V' stops in typical petro/chem type installations of 13.8KV, with an upper limit of 23KV. If I had 369KV I'd be extending it.

What do you think of this concept and what values would you choose.

Remember, the purpose is to protect the worker, there is nothing wrong with the label stating a value higher than calculated - it just can't be lower than calculated.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:20 am

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 9
Our company has adopted a ten foot policy both the LAB and AFB. Seems a lot safer and simpiler for everyone involved.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:46 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 201
Location: St. Louis, MO
I don't like the idea of having a one-size-fits-all boundary. I've seen several calculated out to 30 or 40 feet.

But yes, I set the minimum AFB equal to the greater of the calculated boundary (rounded up to the nearest foot) or the Limited Approach Boundary (as determined by the NFPA).

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:58 am
 Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1620
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
I believe standardized is better similar to what Haze suggests. I have been pitching larger uniform boundaries for years, typically 8 to 10 feet for the arc flash protection boundary. I met a lot of resistance in the early years when I brought this up. A few people thought I should have my head examined and then slowly people seemed to realize it was a much better way. Slowly I began to see companies adopting the 8 or 10 foot boundary. I published this concept in the NEC Digest Article "How to Perform and Arc Flash Study in 12 Steps" a while ago. There is a link to the article somewhere on this forum.

The concept is very simple. Instead of getting into a calculation contest and trying to figure out if the AFPB is 3.4 feet, 3.2 feet or 3.14159 feet, pick a larger standardized number. The AFPB is just the boundary from the prospective arc source where you need PPE. If you don't have on PPE, get out of the way - Period! 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet etc. just back up. Making this the Limited Approach Boundary also simplifies things. Unprotected and Unqualified people get out of the way. Of course there are exceptions if the larger boundary impacts pedestrian traffic lanes etc. but those issues tend to be exceptions.

The best way to handle this is to perform the calculation study, evaluate the AFPB's at each voltage level, select the largest AFPB within reason and then round it up. The "within reason" part is because as many know, the IEEE 1584 formulas, can yield some pretty unrealistic boundaries if you have a very long clearing time. Like WDN mentioned, I have also seen boundaries of 30 feet and even 100 feet with a low short circuit current. You need to evaluate the clearing time and settings if you have one of these very large AFPB's. If you have a very large one and it is legitimate, keep it separete as an exception and keep the 8 or 10 ft boundary as the standard for the other locations.

K-I-S-S really needs to be applied here for PPE, and the AFPB or the end users will become more confused, ignore it, or get it wrong.

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 4 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 – 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
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883