It is currently Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:48 pm

Author Message

 Post subject: NESC Table 410-2: Determining Arc GapsPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:17 am

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:42 am
Posts: 16
Hi,

in the NESC-2007, at the bottom of Table 410-2, it states that

Arc gapâ€”calculated by using the phase-to-ground voltage of the circuit and dividing by 10. The dielectric strength of air is taken at 10 kV per inch. See IEEE Std 4-1995.

I have the Standard IEEE Std 4-1995. In chapter 17, I see some documentation about gaps. I'm sure not sure what section is used to determine those arc gaps for Arc Flash calculation.

Has anyone search for default arc gap for transmission voltage? I'm not sure I understand the calculation.

When reading the footnote, I wondering, does it literally means that:

Arc gap = Vlg / 10

example: 69 kV L-L
Arc gap in inch = 69 / sqrt(3) / 10 = 4 inch?

Doesn't look right.

Thanks

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:53 am

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:09 am
Posts: 2
I have the same question.

For a 345 kV bus, is the arc gap = 345/1.73/10 = 19.9 in ?

If anyone has an answer for this it would be greatly appreciated.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:55 am
 Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
RobGOlson wrote:
I have the same question.

For a 345 kV bus, is the arc gap = 345/1.73/10 = 19.9 in ?

If anyone has an answer for this it would be greatly appreciated.

I believe you are correct. The assumption is that the gap will be the distance that would breakdown at the Ã˜-grd voltage. 199 kV / 10 kV/in = 19.9 in. I used this assumption with ARCPRO to get the max clearing time value given in Table 410-2.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:44 pm
 Arc Level

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 576
Don't forget that the table was changed via a TIA. The new tabulated results can be verified with ArcPro, the original ones could not.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:50 am
 Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
stevenal wrote:
Don't forget that the table was changed via a TIA. The new tabulated results can be verified with ArcPro, the original ones could not.

The new one is the one I verified.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:00 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:16 am
Posts: 4
69kV line 4 inches apart ???

Have anybody seen 69kV overhead lines 4 inches ( 10cm ) apart ??? Or 345kV lines separated by 19.9 inch ( 0.5 meter ) gap? I don't believe 10kV / inch dielectric strength for air value is practical. It might probably apply to dry, still air without contaminants, even electrical field etc. The practical dielectric strength would be a fraction of the intrinsic dielectric strength seen for ideal, defect free, material. I remember 1kV / cm rule of thumb from school. Could anybody please provide with a copy of IEEE std 4 page proving the 10kV per inch value?

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:01 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Charlotte, NC
The arc gap has nothing to do with the phase spacing of the line. It is the "assumed" gap for the purpose of calculating the IE associated with a line to ground arcing fault. After all if there was no gap, there would be no arc.
________
[url="http://glassgallery.tumblr.com/glass-bongs/"]Water Bong[/url]

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:57 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
I have similar question regarding arcing gap in new CSA Z462 standard article D.8 derived from NESC tables 410-1 and 410-2. For visualization purposes, check a plot displaying arc gap as a function of system voltage - all according to the tables 410-1 and 410-2 from NESC or tables D.6 and D.7 from CSA Z462

The jump at 46kV point is most obvious and alarming. The problem with the 10kV/in number and arc gap calculated based on it is that it is used in calculation the distance from the arc to the worker, namely CSA Z462 Table D.7 Note 2 states the distance from the arc to the worker is calculated using the minimum approach distance from Table 441-2 of IEEE C2 and subtracting two times the assumed arc gap.

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:38 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Charlotte, NC
Since I have not had a need to use an arc gap above 35 kV so far, I have never checked to see what a gap for 46+ kV would be. Sure seems to be a dis-continuity in the arc gap calcs as you have noted. This should probably be submitted to the committee for consideration during the comment period.
________
[url="http://camslivesexy.com/cam/ExoticPetite"]ExoticPetite live[/url]

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:17 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
Thanks, Alan. I will escalate this issue to the CSA Z462 powers.

- Michael

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:17 pm
 Arc Level

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 576

The unstated assumption in table 1 (as I've understood it) is that rubber gloving is used. Table 2 says it is for live line tool use. Not sure it explains the discontinuity, but it is an important difference.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:14 pm
 Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
ARCPRO result with Table 410-1, 9" gap and 15" clearance, 30 kA, 30 cycles, 26.6 kV = 63.8 cal/cm²

ARCPRO result with Table 410-2, 2.66" gap and 15" clearance, 30 kA, 30 cycles, 26.6 kV = 37.9 cal/cm²

ARCPRO result with Table 410-2, 2.66" gap and 2'-3.68" (2'-9" minus 2 times gap) clearance, 30 kA, 30 cycles, 26.6 kV = 11.2 cal/cm²

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:04 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
Could anybody having an access to ARCPRO please provide the ARCPRO incident energy results for:

1) 9" gap and 15" work distance, 20 kA, 60 cycles ( 1 sec ), 46 kV

2) 2.7" gap and 33" work distance, 20 kA, 60 cycles ( 1 sec ), 46.1 kV

3) 9" gap and 20" work distance, 20 kA, 60 cycles ( 1 sec ), 46.1 kV

Thanks

M. Furtak

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:00 pm
 Arc Level

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 576
78.7, 8.6, 45.1 cal/cm^2

with copper electrodes. Note that the distance in Arcpro is not a working distance to conductors, but distance to the arc.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:40 pm
 Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
Quote:
78.7, 8.6, 45.1 cal/cm^2

with copper electrodes. Note that the distance in Arcpro is not a working distance to conductors, but distance to the arc.

thanks stevenal. I thought the
Quote:
2) 2.7" gap and 33" work distance, 20 kA, 60 cycles ( 1 sec ), 46.1 kV
energy would equal to 12.4 cal/cm^2 based on Table 441-2. What you say Arcpro produces even smaller number ( 8.6cal ). Do you know how to explain almost 10X reduction in incident energy from 78.7cal/cm^2 to 8.6cal/cm^2 for 46kV 20kA 1 sec duration arc when moving 18" = 33" - 15" further away from the arc? I would expect factor of 4X when working distance was doubled but ten (10X) times reduction in incident energy is somehow hard to believe. Could you please let me know what I am missing here?

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
 Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
Table 410-2 has a range of voltages from 46.1 to 72.5, with the results shown for the highest voltage.

The arc gap makes a large difference also. The 33" working distance with a 9 inch gap would give 16.8 cal/cm², closer to 1/4 of 78.7.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 7 hours

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Forum Library / Articles The Lounge    Question of the Week - What Do You Think?    Arcflashforum.com Feedback and Announcements    Off Topic Discussions    News in Electrical Safety Arc Flash and Electrical Safety    General Discussion    Electrical Safety Practices    Equipment to Reduce Arc Flash Dangers    Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Arc Flash Studies    General Discussion    Arc Flash Labels    Software for Arc Flash Studies    System Modeling and Calculations    NEW! Electrode Configuration Library – 2018 IEEE 1584 Codes and Standards    CSA Z462 Workplace Electrical Safety    EAWR Electricity at Work Regulations, HSE - Europe    OSHA CFR Title 29    IEEE 1584 - Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations    NFPA 70 - National Electrical Code - NEC (R)    NESC - ANSI C2 - National Electrical Safety Code    NFPA 70E - Electrical Safety in the Workplace    2015 NFPA 70E Share It Here    Arc Flash Photos    Your Stories    What's Wrong Here? by Joe Tedesco
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883