...
首页> 外文期刊>Professional safety >Two Case Histories: Two Outcomes
【24h】

Two Case Histories: Two Outcomes

机译:两个案例历史:两个结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Comparison of two case histories helps illustrate the benefits of assessing an arc flash hazard mitigation program. The first incident involved six injuries, including two bystanders and four electricians who were wearing arc-resistant protective clothing rated for the task, but underrated for the amount of energy available at the work location. The task involved racking 480 V draw out circuit breakers on and off the substation bus. Full-body protection rated at 20 calories/cm~2 was being worn. An unsecured metal plate used to cover an opening in the circuit breaker compartment door fell, contacted the exposed bus and created an arcing fault. Six people were transported to the hospital, including the four electricians and two supervisors who were observing the work activity from a distance.
机译:两种案例历史的比较有助于说明评估电弧闪光危害缓解程序的好处。第一次事件涉及六次伤害,包括两名旁观者和四名电工,他们穿着抗电弧防护服以达到任务规定的水平,但被低估了工作地点的可用能量。这项任务涉及在变电站母线上下架设480 V抽出式断路器。穿戴了额定热量为20卡/ cm〜2的全身保护装置。一块用于固定断路器室门开口的不牢固的金属板掉落,接触了裸露的母线并产生了电弧故障。六人被送往医院,其中包括四名电工和两名监督员,他们正在远距离观察工作情况。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Professional safety》 |2010年第11期|p.39|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号