ConsultingGary B wrote:
There is no one answer in my opinion:
1) as a consultant I am expected to 'complete' an arc flash study for my customers.
2) I write up a disclaimer indicating this arc flash study is valid for the conditions and codes as they existed at the time of completion; and it is emphasized that as these change the results are no longer assured.
As the methodology of arc flash calculations is revised, It seems that continuous process plants must repeat the calculations periodically.
This sort of describes me. I am a design-build consultant and provide a study for clients as part of the complete packaged service and use the same type of disclaimer. We have a lot of repeat business so are continually updating existing studies. The challenge is, as Gary alluded to, my clients are Processing Facilities and are continuously making changes/improvements but not having the study updated to reflect this, by me or whoever else is making the changes. So, I am often challenged to get the correct information as to what has been added/changed when updating a study from additions/changes I have just made.