×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Arc Flash Boundary Calculation Question

Arc Flash Boundary Calculation Question

Arc Flash Boundary Calculation Question

(OP)
In the calculation of the Arc Flash Boundary, an incident energy of 1.2 Cal/cm2 in the equation as the arc flash boundary is based on the incident energy that would result to 2nd degree burn.

Now, how about if the say a client specifies that all their PPE requirement is Category 2 (8.0 Cal/cm2). Can we change the arc flash boundary based on 8.0 Cal/cm2. I know it is little bit dumb question but a clarification would help me (and others) understand the proper application of the equation.

Thanks

RE: Arc Flash Boundary Calculation Question

AFB is by definition where you need to where PPE so I would not re-define it. However, you can do whatever you want, so you could create a "HRC2 boundary" to tell the guys how close they can get wearing only HRC2 PPE. Don't forget HRC2 is not just the 8cal clothing, you need faceshield, gloves, etc...

RE: Arc Flash Boundary Calculation Question

The AFB is clearly defined in NFPA 70E and not really subject to interpretation. The intent is to protect someone who is not wearing PPE.

RE: Arc Flash Boundary Calculation Question

The infamous 1.2 cal/cm^2 threshold incident energy for a 2nd degree burn on bare skin cited in NFPA 70E and widely accepted in arc flash industry actually comes from misinterpretation of Alan Privettes' "Progress Report for ASTM Burn Study". As a matter of fact, Privettes' work is based upon tests where the test animals were shielded with flame retardant fabrics. Assuming Privettes' findings apply also to bare skin exposure is same as having a confidence you can safely touch hot glowing metal with bare hands as long as you have managed escaping damage by touching it previously while wearing protective gloves.

Indeed, incident energy does not have any risk associated with it. But incident energy coupled with time interval, within which the energy was delivered, does. For example, bare skin exposure to 1.2 cal/cm^2 incident is generally safe and oftentimes beneficial unless the energy was delivered within one (1) second time interval. In fact, only a fraction of 1.2 cal/cm^2 is required to cause the damage when delivered within shorter than 1 second time interval (see Evaluation of Onset to Second Degree Burn Energy in Arc Flash for more information). This may also explain the reason why NFPA group abandoned Category 0 and removed any references to it in new NFPA 70E year 2015 edition.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources