| Arc Flash Forum https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/ |
|
| Arc Flash Labels. https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3404 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | yograj [ Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Arc Flash Labels. |
We are going for the two colour approach to design the arc flash label. that is, Category 0 to 4 orange, and for dangerous- red. Now, what should be the exclamation mark colour?. we are taking the black for first 4 category, and white for the dangerous category. Is it right? or we need to modify...? |
|
| Author: | JBD [ Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
NFPA 70E suggests. and many specifications require, that arc flash labeling be done per ANSI Z535, "Series of Standards for Safety Signs and Tags". Yet, in my experience, the majority of arc flash labels hardly meet even the basics of this standard. For example, per ANZI Z535, Orange is the color associated with a warning, that something might happen, and there maybe some kind of result, while Red is associated with a danger that likely to happen with a result that is likely severe. A lot of electrical equipment is shipped with Red danger labels saying things like 'probable electrical shock', then people put on orange labels warning there is a 'possibility of arc flash and electric shock". Now there are two labels in conflict with each other. |
|
| Author: | PaulEngr [ Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
I agree. 99% of electrical panel labels are not compliant with ANSI Z535 which is mandatory per OSHA even to the point that the signal words (DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION) are used incorrectly in NEC. Ignoring caution, the labels danger and warning must be differentiated based on whether or not an injury is likely. Arc flash injuries are rare events brought on by human errors or defective equipment. Accident rates are 0.000001 per worker per year on average. So this is always a warning. Calling over 40 cal equipment dangerous violates Z535. Warning label signal word and GHS symbol are black on an orange background. Text below it is white on black or black on white. Danger should only be used where an immediate threat exists such as marking cabinets where there are exposed energized parts inside. Otherwise it violates Z535. Note that NEC does not follow this since for instance it requires such signs on fences and outer doors of subs, harkening back to the days of "open" gear locked behind fences instead of in cabinetry. |
|
| Author: | Roger [ Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
To answer the original question (in part) when using a danger label the triangle is white and the exclamation mark is red; the word DANGER shall be in safety white letters on a safety red background. For warning labels the triangle is black and the exclamation mark is safety orange; the word WARNING shall be in safety black letters on a safety orange background. I do think that we often use label descriptions very loosely. According to ANSI Z535.4-2011: "4.14.1 DANGER: indicates a hazardous situation that, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. This signal word is to be limited to the most extreme situations." "4.14.2 WARNING: indicates a hazardous situation that, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury." "4.14.3 CAUTION: indicates a hazardous situation that, if not avoided, could result in a minor or moderate injury." [the emphasis is mine] I have not yet seen a caution label used on arc flash labels, but I think we could make a strong argument that most arc flash labels would fall in either the warning or caution categories if we strictly follow the ANSI standard. |
|
| Author: | JBD [ Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
Roger wrote: I have not yet seen a caution label used on arc flash labels, but I think we could make a strong argument that most arc flash labels would fall in either the warning or caution categories if we strictly follow the ANSI standard. I have seen "yellow" arc flash labels, they even said warning instead of caution. I blame most of the problem on the software packages and their 'label dumps' as well as the specification writers that simply 'cut and paste'. I have yet to see them produce a layout that conforms to ANSI Z535, in regards to content (hazard, effect, prevention) and appearance (color and type face). I have really bought into the idea of one Warning or Caution label per ANSI Z535, a separate NFPA70E information label (without detailed PPE listing), and finally an equipment identification label (with feeder/LOTO information). |
|
| Author: | PaulEngr [ Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
I could make a case for <1.2 cal incident energy rating falling under caution, especially for "category" rated equipment such as lighting panels. |
|
| Author: | wbd [ Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
I would add that some labels are a combination of arc flash and shock hazards. Then the heading should be the worst case of the two hazards which would be shock as we all know that death occur at low voltage and in the milliamp range. This would seem to lead to a Danger heading for these combination labels. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
You might have already seen this. It is in the articles section of the forum. Article: Arc Flash Label Colors |
|
| Author: | PaulEngr [ Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Arc Flash Labels. |
Have seen it. With shock protection, I think it can be safely marked as "danger". If you come close to or in contact with energized conductors especially over 300 V or so, you will be seriously injured and possibly die (notwithstanding arguments about high resistance grounding systems). With regards to arc flash though its a rare event in the first place. You can't hardly call it an imminent danger situation no matter what the incident energy rating. So, it's a case of warnings. I don't see any other possible way to interpret it. There is no grey here and Z535 for all its faults is pretty clear. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 7 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|