Conclusions

This report has presented a literature review of explosion proof¬ing of coal mine electrical equipment. The international "state-of¬the-art" is an extremely difficult definition to quantify but, from the preceding paragraphs, it is evident the international community be¬lieves that it is represented by the International Electrotechnical Commission's Publications. Five questions were set forth during the beginning of this report. Each will be evaluated in light of the preceding discussion. 1. Can Schedule 2G specifications on explosion-proof containers be substantiated? Literature was found in the three main problem areas, surface temperature, mechanical strength, and explosion transmission, to determine this. Surface temperature requirements are adequate except for equipment that can normally overload, and the required intern¬al pressure does afford some margin of safety. However, in terms of safety, gap dimensions are about ten times smaller than that needed. 2. Is it possible to replace the Schedule's design requirements with performance specifications? Two primary areas were determined as mechanical strength and explosion transmission. As was mentioned, for present flange and gap standards, the 150 psig requirement is adequate. Furthermore, it is the authors' opinion that the level cannot be re¬duced if the present gap requirements are retained. The Schedule now requires that 16 tests be run, but the literature suggests that only from three to six examinations are necessary. Then by using the abso¬lute maximum pressure from these measurements or 150 psig, whichever is