It is currently Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:30 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm2?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:16 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 89
Location: San Antonio, TX
If the AFIE calculation method is used, there appears to be no restrictions on the type of clothing to be used if the AFIE is below 1.2 cal/cm2. Before, when the PPE table was in Appendix H, there was a range between 0 and 1.2. That range has been eliminated in 2018.

The old range allowed for non treated clothing but had some restriction like it couldnÔÇÖt be flammable or meltable.

Are those restrictions eliminated? If the calculated AFIE is, for example, 1.1 cal/cm2, can I use flammable or meltable clothing? What about safety glasses? All references to clothing and equipment below 1.2 cal/cm2 seemed to have been deleted.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1878
Location: North Carolina
No restrictions.

Keep in mind most untreated clothing hits ATPV 6-10 (just like the treated version) until it melts or ignites. ATPV by itself has to do with thermal properties. FR just keeps it from sustaining a flame.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:28 am 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 265
Location: Louisville, KY
These were deleted due to the philosophy of "risk assessment". The issue is that IF there is NO hazard, there is NO risk but if there is a small hazard, the risk must still be assessed. Companies which have operators who only operate equipment less than 1.2 cal/cm┬▓ equipment MAY do the risk assessment and decide clothing is not an issue and provide a glove and sleeve to protect the hand and arm which will enter the AFB since the calculations may be done at 18 inches. However, risk assessment doesn't mean we don't have to look at the issue and assess risk when the calculation is below 1.2 cal/cm┬▓

Another thing to consider is if SOME equipment is >1.2 cal/cm┬▓. Then do I want people in melting clothing since they will have to change to natural fibers for garments UNDER AR gear? Probably not. HRC 0 is long gone but non-melting clothing should always be required for those who operate anything >1.2 cal/cm┬▓ and AR gear should be the rule for electrical workers.

Remember 1.2 cal/cm┬▓ is second degree burn onset at the distance calculated (theoretically) so closer distances should still be considered.

Not a fan of melting or ignitable clothing but some conditions don't justify AR for non-electrical workers. Companies using this change to get rid of AR clothing or cotton may wind up with a huge issue if something doesn't go "according to calculations".

Hugh Hoagland
Sr. Managing Partner
e-Hazard | http://www.e-hazard.com




RECS wrote:
If the AFIE calculation method is used, there appears to be no restrictions on the type of clothing to be used if the AFIE is below 1.2 cal/cm2. Before, when the PPE table was in Appendix H, there was a range between 0 and 1.2. That range has been eliminated in 2018.

The old range allowed for non treated clothing but had some restriction like it couldnÔÇÖt be flammable or meltable.

Are those restrictions eliminated? If the calculated AFIE is, for example, 1.1 cal/cm2, can I use flammable or meltable clothing? What about safety glasses? All references to clothing and equipment below 1.2 cal/cm2 seemed to have been deleted.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:33 am 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 265
Location: Louisville, KY
Technically there is NO ATPV, in the standards, for ignitable or meltable clothing, due to the requirement to ONLY test fabrics passing a vertical flame test. Some want to remove this but it would be confusing in the market. ASTM F1506 (in the new 2018 notes) requires vertical flame AND Arc Rating (either ATPV or EBT). Never trust an ATPV of non-FR materials since ignition is much more affected by current than arc rating. Raise the current in an open arc test or put the garment in a box test and ignition will occur at a much lower incident energy. You have the concept right Paul but there is more to it unfortunately.

Dang this science stuff is hard. No one told me when I started 23 years ago!

Hugh Hoagland
e-Hazard.com

PaulEngr wrote:
No restrictions.

Keep in mind most untreated clothing hits ATPV 6-10 (just like the treated version) until it melts or ignites. ATPV by itself has to do with thermal properties. FR just keeps it from sustaining a flame.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1878
Location: North Carolina
I just switched over from incident energy since we are talking about fabrics. ATPV means passes vertical flame test...noted.

My basic problem with arc rated / non-arc rated fabrics and the concept of non-meltable fibers is simply that when we do the calculation or look at the arc flash boundary or any of that, there is the issue that the definition of the working distance looks at the distance to the face/chest area. So just because my face/chest is outside of that boundary, my hands and arms aren't. Not only that but the 18" rule seems kind of screwy in terms of anatomical considerations which is why OSHA in 1910.269 moved it back to 15" to match the normal "working distance" between the hands and the body. It's only 3" but if you are working near the 1.2 cal/cm2 threshold, it's pretty easy to be over/under it. So I'm probably just making the nonmeltable clothing argument here in reality. As I sit here and write this I just took off my arc rated work shirt and pants and got comfortable but I'm still wearing a cotton undershirt. I specifically avoid anything that is meltable when I'm doing electrical work. Besides it's a lot cheaper than Under Armor!!

Second Hugh I get your idea that it is somehow connected to current but I think that gets into the hot gas issue. I know it has been called plasma and just due to the temperatures and what I would expect to happen I'm not sure that we can call the hot gas cloud "plasma" but there is definitely something going on with that. It has completely different effects when it comes to textiles especially with regards to permeability for instance, and it is much more affected by equipment configuration. Let me just throw this out there. Heat transfer by radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature difference. Thus relatively small increases in temperature result in dramatically increased heat transfer.

As I recall from the physicists working on arcs, basically the things that are going on inside the arc column are pretty much well settled science at this point and the diameter of the arc column which 100% contains the plasma that does exist is also well defined because there is a magnetic force pulling the plasma in towards itself which drastically restricts the rate of growth of the arc column, and the arc column is very small on the order of a few millimeters under the most extreme circumstances. So this is the reason that I'm not buying arguments about effects of "plasma" at all. The arc column temperature is around 20,000 K, and that number can be calculated from the physics equations. So there is a definite boundary between the plasma that does exist and the rest of the air around it. You can't have huge glowing clouds of plasma because it would be magnetically attracted to itself and form columns which we refer to as arcs. Plasma itself is really strange stuff because it is highly conductive and magnetic. The electrons are completely blown out of the outer "shell" or shells and the electrons and nuclei simply float around in a cloud-like structure. The concept of a molecule or even semi-ordered molecules that we see in liquids and gasses is gone.

But then we enter a huge amount of relatively unknown territory outside the arc column itself which is simply not well understood. None of the physics studies on arcs attempt to do anything to understand it. It even has a lot to do with upper atmosphere physics which is also not understood at all. Air begins to dissociate at only 4,000-6,000 K at surface pressure (1 atmosphere) so somewhere close to the arc we can expect the normal forms of O2, CO2, N2, and H2O to crease to exist and replaced with O-2, CO+2, H+, and N-. Since it is chemically and physically different I would not be surprised to see different physical heat transfer effects since other than CO (carbon is the one element that actually gets more aggressive towards bonding with oxygen as temperature increases), there won't be any diatomic molecules. Needless to say, thermal as well as electrical conductivity will get a lot better but nowhere near the metal like state of plasma. Convective heat transfer also obvious gets better with increases in temperature as well. But the big reason that above 4,000-6,000 K vs. below it is important is that air has to absorb energy in order to break chemical bonds so this process is inherently endothermic and will limit temperatures from increasing much beyond this point as well as being kind of unstable and rapidly reverting back to under those temperatures whenever there is not a source of energy driving it (the arc). I don't know about air molecules either but metals are generally luminuous only above about 800-1,000 F and people that work around kilns use this as a reference point for visually detecting where temperatures in the structure have gotten excessive. So I'd expect that somewhere in that temperature range, the air would tend to "glow" which explains what you see in arc flash videos and has been attributed to "plasma" although I'm going to contend that this is not what it is. Rather it is simply air or other fumes that are hot enough to emit light.

Sorry...I had 3 physics majors as house mates in college. I learned a lot about physics and a lot about why I don't want to be a physicist. But it comes in useful sometimes. One of my housemates was specifically studying how nitrogen's excited states operate in the 1990's such as how quickly they recombine/reform after you use a laser to blow away an energy state...something you would think would be well known but can't be determined mathematically.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:02 am 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 265
Location: Louisville, KY
I agree with you Paul, nothing melting EVER for electricians (unless AR in blends).
Distance of 18 in. is a problem ESPECIALLY when looking at ignition.
Plasma RARELY reaches a worker in normal equipment and will destroy anything, pretty much.
Hot gas balls can ignite and cause burn under AR garments in a small area but are in a focused area and not life threatening (IF clothing doesn't ignite).

The physics of plasma is very well understood but arc flash is a combination of several issues and I don't think this was an improvement by removing PPE for IE <1.2 but we have to live with it.

i think risk assessment will be successful most of the time as long as people consider what enters an AFB. Just takes a little more thinking with this removal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:55 am
Posts: 2
I find this discussion most elucidating. As a poor hillbilly engineer, I want to make sure I understand the 2018 NFPA 70E requirements. Are you gentlemen intimating that I can now do energized work on equipment under 600 volts with a total energy exposure of less than 1.2 cal/sq cm while wearing a polyester short sleeve shirt, polyester shorts, flip-flops and no safety glasses?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 265
Location: Louisville, KY
As a fellow hillbilly engineer, I think that doing work on any three phase equipment whatever the calculation is in polyester or even cotton is evidence of a Darwin Award Nominee. Just MHO.

Hugh Hoagland
ArcWear/e-Hazard


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1878
Location: North Carolina
I've got no claims on family relations in the Appalachians so not a hillbilly. Just an ordinary redneck I guess.

In 2009 two rednecks from Georgia that were in flip flops and tank tops according to the accounts on the story were there to remove a temporary construction panel. They didn't want to wait for the lineman to get there so they started taking the panel apart live. One died and one was hospitalized in a burn unit. No shock/electrocution mentioned at all only burns so this was pure arc flash. It doesn't say but I think it goes without saying that this was clearly a 240/120 panel just based on what it is so I think we can conclude that it's rare but possible to die from arc flash at 240 V. Not sue if the tank tops contributed to their injuries or not either.

Yesterday I spent most of the day working on a 25 HP DC starter fed from a 125 VDC battery power system at a utility generating station. Incident energy wasn't posted but is probably under 1.2 cal/cm2. I had on an FR welder's shirt over a cotton long sleeve undershirt, cotton insulated long johns, and jeans. The plant was deep in the hills about an hour's drive from Charlottesville, VA.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:11 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Illinois
Hi All,
Please tell me where my logic (understanding of the 70E requirements) lets me down here. Lets make the following assumptions. My arc flash risk analysis indicates that an arc flash event is within the realm of possibility. The Incident Energy at the 18" working distance is 1.19 cals. My arms therefor should see energy levels greater than 1.2 cals. 130.7(C)(7)(3)(b) says "Arc Flash protection. Hand and arm protection shall be worn where there is possible exposure to arc flash burn.... Arm protection shall be accomplished by the apparel described in 130.7(C)(6)." This article says "Body protection. Employees shall wear arc rated clothing wherever there is possible exposure to an electric arc flash above the threshold incident energy level for a second degree burn [1.2 cal..." My take away from all this would be that if the arc flash boundary encompassed any part of the arm and my arc flash risk analysis indicated the likely hood of an arc event, than arc rated arm protection would be required. Cotton would not be acceptable because of the standard specifically calling for arc rated protection. Am I also correct in thinking that if my analysis showed the likelihood of an arc event to be next to non existent than I could wear short sleeves or even a long sleeve polyester shirt?
Thanks in advance for any insights you may be able to share on this matter,
Jerry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 70E 2018 No restriction for clothing for less 1.2 cal/cm
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1878
Location: North Carolina
graino wrote:
Hi All,Please tell me where my logic (understanding of the 70E requirements) lets me down here. Lets make the following assumptions. My arc flash risk analysis indicates that an arc flash event is within the realm of possibility. The Incident Energy at the 18" working distance is 1.19 cals. My arms therefor should see energy levels greater than 1.2 cals. 130.7(C)(7)(3)(b) says "Arc Flash protection. Hand and arm protection shall be worn where there is possible exposure to arc flash burn.... Arm protection shall be accomplished by the apparel described in 130.7(C)(6)." This article says "Body protection. Employees shall wear arc rated clothing wherever there is possible exposure to an electric arc flash above the threshold incident energy level for a second degree burn [1.2 cal..." My take away from all this would be that if the arc flash boundary encompassed any part of the arm and my arc flash risk analysis indicated the likely hood of an arc event, than arc rated arm protection would be required. Cotton would not be acceptable because of the standard specifically calling for arc rated protection. Am I also correct in thinking that if my analysis showed the likelihood of an arc event to be next to non existent than I could wear short sleeves or even a long sleeve polyester shirt?
Thanks in advance for any insights you may be able to share on this matter,
Jerry


It's a common problem. As another example, consider the fact that the standard calls for uniform ATPV at a fixed level at the face/chest area which has a nominal distance of 18". Keep in mind of course that this is all a very theoretical and very tenuous model overall. So let's just consider open air so things are easy to visualize. If I cut the distance in half to 9", the incident energy quadruples since it varies with the inverse of the square of the distance (exponent = 2). So even if the incident energy is say 10 cal/cm2 at 18", it becomes 40 cal/cm2 at 9" and then 160 cal/cm2 at 4.5"...high enough that I don't think that even Oberon has gloves rated that high, and well past even the most optimistic testing on leather protected rubber gloves. By this logic we should progressively have higher and higher ATPV as we get closer to the hands when performing any work at all. For that matter it should probably be acceptable to design cooler multilayer flash suits by provided thinner, maybe even some kind of multilayer mesh "vents" in the back which is shielded from the rest of the body, among other things. But that's not what the standard says. If the incident energy is 4 cal/cm2, the entire body head to toe meets 4 cal/cm2. If it's 1.2 then nothing is required.

So this really isn't an argument about protecting the hands at 1.2 cal/cm2 or really at ANY incident energy value at all. It's a general problem with the theoretical nature of the standard. That's why I've repeated many times that the standard is all about protecting from fatalities, NOT from injury. That's the easy way to explain it and I think any of the researchers involved would agree with that. But the reality and the Dupont data shows it, is that the situation is actually much better than the theoretical calculations would suggest. We have a model for estimating protection and if you look too closely at the theory, it falls apart. But if you just use it regardless of whether the theory is pure and utter crap or not, it works. In fact I've gone further in looking at the Dupont data set and found that in cases where PPE was worn but was significantly under-rated, it still managed to provide adequate protection about 50% of the time and no fatalities were recorded at all. So this is even more evidence that the "theory" is highly overly conservative.

Taking your specific question on then, at the threshold of 1.2 cal/cm2 or below, you can wear whatever you want. Looking at it from a slightly more conservative view point I would think that as we get closer to the point of danger (hands) where the theory breaks down perhaps we need to be a little more conservative but not at the face/chest distance, particularly knowing that both nonmeltable and meltable fibers pass the Stoll curve by a wide margin up until they actually start to melt or burn. So with that point of view probably ANY short sleeve shirt would be acceptable but the long sleeve polyester one might be taking a lot of unnecessary risk. But that's just my thinking about something that we can agree is pretty much a wild guess anyways.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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