It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:01 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: FR hard hat liner
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:18 am
Posts: 6
Location: Louisville, KY
What is meant by "FR hard hat liner (AR) in table 130.7(C)(10)? Is this the balaclava sock hood? Is a balaclava sock hood required under a Category 3 and 4 arc-rated arc flash suit hood? I didn't think this was the requirement, but I am not sure what it is refering to. A Cat. 3 and 4 arc flash suit hood comes with a hard hat. Is this simply the padding on the hard hat to protect the forehead?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:19 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
scottnimon@powersourceeng wrote:
What is meant by "FR hard hat liner (AR) in table 130.7(C)(10)? Is this the balaclava sock hood? Is a balaclava sock hood required under a Category 3 and 4 arc-rated arc flash suit hood? I didn't think this was the requirement, but I am not sure what it is refering to. A Cat. 3 and 4 arc flash suit hood comes with a hard hat. Is this simply the padding on the hard hat to protect the forehead?


Yes, that is the balaclava, and also required for 2* and anytime you do an analysis.

I have to say this, you have asked some questions of late that suprise me from someone that has thier company listed as arc flash analysis experts and consultants for10 years, just an observation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:18 am
Posts: 6
Location: Louisville, KY
Balaclava sock hood

When we think we know all the answers we can get ourselves in trouble. The Salisbury Cat.3 and 4 arc flash suits do not come with a balaclava sock hood. According to Salisbury, the balaclava sock hood is not required under the arc flash hoods on these PPE kits, such as the SK 31 and SK40. I understand the Cat.2* can be covered with the balaclava sock hook and face shield each with minimum 8 cal rating. Therefore, it makes sense that their Cat. 2 kit, SKCA 11 does come with the balaclava sock hood.
Any other thoughts on this?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:18 am
Posts: 6
Location: Louisville, KY
Balaclava sock hood

When we think we know all the answers we can get ourselves in trouble. I don't think it is good for open and honest dialog to state that someone ought to know better than to ask a certain question. The Salisbury HRC 3 and 4 PPE kits, such as SK 31 and SK 40 do not come with a balaclava sock hood. According to Salisbury, it is not required.
Any other thoughts?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:55 am
Posts: 44
Location: Connecticut
Zog:

In the spirit of debate to the above question, can you define what the AR (as required) with reference to the hard hat liner in the standard means, with reference to HRC 3

Also, what is your interpretation of Note 8 in the table. If a supplier of PPE can guarantee an ARC rating of 25 cal/cm2, would a balaclava still be require for HRC 3 under the switching hood?

John


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:54 am 
Offline
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
scottnimon@powersourceeng wrote:
When we think we know all the answers we can get ourselves in trouble.


You can say that again :) Sorry, that didnt come out right, your questions are good ones. Little case of PWI on my part.


scottnimon@powersourceeng wrote:
The Salisbury HRC 3 and 4 PPE kits, such as SK 31 and SK 40 do not come with a balaclava sock hood. According to Salisbury, it is not required.
Any other thoughts?


Hmmm, maybe they know something we don't. Mine dosent have one either.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:57 am 
Offline
Plasma Level

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

In the spirit of debate to the above question, can you define what the AR (as required) with reference to the hard hat liner in the standard means, with reference to HRC 3

Also, what is your interpretation of Note 8 in the table. If a supplier of PPE can guarantee an ARC rating of 25 cal/cm2, would a balaclava still be require for HRC 3 under the switching hood?

John



Good question, the OP was about 2*, that seems obvious, I have to say I don't wear the balaclava under my 40 cal hood, not that it means I am right, just never considered it. Sounds like a question for Hugh.

Hugh?? Ring, ring......


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:55 am
Posts: 44
Location: Connecticut
Balaclava

An interpretation is definitely in order. Any takers to this task?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:06 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Louisville, KY
This is an AR (As Required). If you wear a hard hat liner (i.e. for winterwear) it must be an arc rated one (FR is sometimes used with little definition by the committee. FR IS arc-rated in the mind of the committee. The sometimes say "non-melting, FR". That doesn't exist except in something that can be arc-rated. If something isn't arc rated for an arc exposure it isn't FR). This is not for extra protection but to avoid ignition of a hard hat liner. Thanks for the heads up Zog.

Hope this helps,


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:18 am
Posts: 6
Location: Louisville, KY
That answers my question.

Thanks guys.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 9
Face Shields

Some of our workers are having a hard time adjusting to the fact that the amber colored face shield distorts the actual color of the wires. For instance a blue color coded wire, normally a 'hot' color, looks like a green ground when viewed through the face shield. Does anyone know of a face shield that has the same properties as the 'instant switch' welding hoods?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:01 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
blackdog wrote:
Some of our workers are having a hard time adjusting to the fact that the amber colored face shield distorts the actual color of the wires. For instance a blue color coded wire, normally a 'hot' color, looks like a green ground when viewed through the face shield. Does anyone know of a face shield that has the same properties as the 'instant switch' welding hoods?


There are no auto-dimming arc rated facesheilds, they dont pass the required testing. However, salisbury has a new line of replacement facesheilds that are much clearer than the older ones. I have tested them and you can tell blue from green, yellow from white, etc..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:54 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Louisville, KY
Instant Switch Hoods

I have tested two auto-dimming ones in arc flash according to ASTM F2178 but they have issues. They have less visible light transmission than the shaded ones.

No one fully rated them because of several reasons.

There are two types.

The chemical ones weren't fast enough.

The electrically operated ones are usually flat (no side vision). The electrical ones are usually pretty small too.
They also depend on batteries so if the batteries are down they don't work but there is no fool proof, inexpensive way to assure they work. They are much more costly than a regular arc flash shield.

For welding they work very well but no one has brought them to market for arc flash shields or hoods.

All shaded ones are not created equal. Try the newer ones from the major manufacturers. Paulson and Salisbury have the latest ones and hold a patent on the shields. I prefer to honor patents and the other shields are still in court to my knowledge.

Paulson and Salisbury's are among the best but ones older than 2 years are not nearly as good as the newer ones. Make sure the shield is rated to your hazard. Getting extra light helps too.

Disclosure: I am on the patent but signed away the money before the patent was issued. I made nothing but my testing time on the shield (OK so I'm not the best business person but folks got protected!).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:13 am
Posts: 31
FR Hard Hat liner update

Good day,

To update the group, we recently tested foam lined hard cap's (CSA Type II) at Kinectrics. We were responding to ignition questions within the industry. The two caps we tested (as per attached) provided encouraging results.

We presented the test results to the CSA Z462 TC at our last meeting in Calgary a few months ago.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Jim


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:22 am 
Offline
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
Thanks Jim, good stuff.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 21
Jim Pollard wrote:
Good day,

To update the group, we recently tested foam lined hard cap's (CSA Type II) at Kinectrics. We were responding to ignition myths within the industry. The two caps we tested (as per attached) provided encouraging results.

We presented the test results to the CSA Z462 TC at our last meeting in Calgary a few months ago.

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Jim


Great Job Jim! You all keep up the good work.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:13 am
Posts: 31
I wanted to clarify for the group that some foam lined hard caps can ignite, this is not a myth. The most important part to selecting the proper hard cap is to conduct a thorough hazard analysis. As an example, if the incident energy exposure is above 12 cal/cm2 then a hood should be selected. Hoods which fully encapsulate the hard cap (bee keeper type hood) should make foam liner ignition a moot point.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 21
Jim Pollard wrote:
I wanted to clarify for the group that some foam lined hard caps can ignite, this is not a myth. The most important part to selecting the proper hard cap is to conduct a thorough hazard analysis. As an example, if the incident energy exposure is above 12 cal/cm2 then a hood should be selected. Hoods which fully encapsulate the hard cap (bee keeper type hood) should make foam liner ignition a moot point.


Jim has there been any further testings to these particular hard hats?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:12 am 
Offline
Arc Level

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 428
Jim Pollard wrote:
I wanted to clarify for the group that some foam lined hard caps can ignite, this is not a myth. The most important part to selecting the proper hard cap is to conduct a thorough hazard analysis. As an example, if the incident energy exposure is above 12 cal/cm2 then a hood should be selected. Hoods which fully encapsulate the hard cap (bee keeper type hood) should make foam liner ignition a moot point.


Isn't this equivalent to wearing synthetic meltable underwear under FR, and therefore disallowed?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:36 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:52 am
Posts: 110
Location: Yankton SD/ Lead SD
I agree with Stevenal. I do not believe that you should have anything under your FR PPE that would have the possibility of melting. It is not allowed for clothing so it shouldn't be allowed accessories.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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