|
Hi CNKS, I think you should review that 100 fpm per sqft of intake area. The standard design criteria for such booths is that a minimum flow velocity of 100 fpm shall be obtained over the entire booth cross sectional area...not the cross sectional of any intake opening you may provide. That is to say you would need to provide 100x12x8 = 9,600 cfm of fan flow as a minimum. This is assuming you orient the airflow lengthwise along the booth. The difficulty, of course, comes in obtaining relatively uniform airflow over the booth cross section (the 96 sq ft in the above case). For this reason you may find that most commercial booths have a relatively large intake area relative to the booth cross sectional area. In fact the ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, an authority on industrial ventilation design of all sorts) recommends that the filter area be at least 75% of the gross booth cross sectional area. There are also usually some baffle requirements to further assure uniform flow across the booth cross section. To further complicate the matter, the 9,600 cfm fan flow must take into account all frictional resistance and other losses between the inlet to the booth and the free outlet from any fan discharge ductwork. This is in order to obtain the final flow of 9,600 cfm when the fan operates in the system. Just because a fan has a rating of 9,600 cfm at some static pressure (e.g. 1/2 inch water gage) doesn't mean the fan will actually deliver that amount. It can be significantly less than the rating if the total system resistance is greater than the rating point. You may find the whole thing becomes prohibitively expensive for the occasional user, if done to established criteria. The explosion proof requirements for the electrics are usually a big cost adder. Don't forget a liberal amount of lighting inside the booth, also explosion proof. Like you, I have routinely in the past reviewed standard design practice and improvised where I thought it reasonable to take risks, knowing full well that I was not (and didn't need to be) in full compliance with the "regulations". My posts on the paint and body work board relative to my "not fully compliant" breathing air system for iso-containing paints is a case in point. I have reduced the personal risks to a level that has been acceptable to me and completely workable for me over a period of many years in that regard. I have also messed a little bit with makeshift spraybooths and after doing a couple of cars in my garage a long time ago decided against it as a reasonable way to proceed. I simply wasn't comfortable with the perceived level of personal safety I was getting at a price I could afford to pay for basically a hobby effort. I therefore do all my painting in the summertime outside, even with the fresh air breathing equipment (another subject completely). This always creates a problem with scheduling around the weather but I only do work for myself and simply work around it. You will find many who cobble together booths using window fans and such winding up with relatively low flow results. That will generally contain and direct any overspray from getting on equipment outside the booth but really is not adequate from a full safety standpoint or from a standpoint of keeping overspray off whatever in-booth lighting system you may have. The uniform 100 fpm minimum flow velocity over the full booth cs area and the need for explosion proof electrical equipment are the key factors that work against you, cost-wise for a reasonably safe installation. 100 fpm is not a lot; as I recall, it is barely perceptable unless the air is hotter or colder than ambient. Professional automotive downdraft booths, I believe, are up in the $30K-$50K area. Cross-flow booths would be less expensive but still a great burden for a part-timer who is not making his living at it. Can you put together a home-made system for personal use that is reasonably safe and workable at less cost than a commercial unit with full code compliance? Sure. But, depending on your acceptable level of risk taking, it will not be cheap by any means. I hate to be so negative but I have been where you are in the past, considered the options, costs and risks, and decided against it. I know from your posts on the other board that you take personal safety issues seriously so I am sure you will gather many opinions, evaluate acceptable standards and risks and make an informed judgment for your own use. If you don't already have reference to it, OSHA 29CFR1910.107 provides some food for thought in this area. Rod
|