It is currently Mon May 29, 2023 5:16 am

Author Message

 Post subject: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:48 am

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Stratham, SW Australia
In addition to â€˜Arc Flash Boundaryâ€™ and â€˜Incident Energy at Working Distanceâ€™ SKM PTW32 Ver 9003 calculates additional arc flash boundaries at user defined incident energies. The PTW attribute is AF_FB@IE.

In the attached file, the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) appear incorrect.
SKM insists the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) are correct.

My manual calculations for items 1) to 10) and 15) to 18) agree with PTW.
Given that the 'Arc Flash Boundary' is 2524mm, therefore the Incident Energy at 2514mm is 1.2 Cal/cm2. The distance from the arc for 1.2 Cal/cm2 is 2524mm not 609.61mm as shown in 11).

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:44 am

Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:36 am
Posts: 1
mnewman wrote:
In addition to â€˜Arc Flash Boundaryâ€™ and â€˜Incident Energy at Working Distanceâ€™ SKM PTW32 Ver 9003 calculates additional arc flash boundaries at user defined incident energies. The PTW attribute is AF_FB@IE.

In the attached file, the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) appear incorrect.
SKM insists the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) are correct.

My manual calculations for items 1) to 10) and 15) to 18) agree with PTW.
Given that the 'Arc Flash Boundary' is 2524mm, therefore the Incident Energy at 2514mm is 1.2 Cal/cm2. The distance from the arc for 1.2 Cal/cm2 is 2524mm not 609.61mm as shown in 11).
I

I would suggest you send your results directly to Johnny Ma: johnny.ma@skm.com

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:05 am

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:13 pm
Posts: 2
Maybe I am misinterpreting the data but if you re-frame what AF_FB@IE means the data makes sense. Line 4) States the IE at 610mm is 11.61 and the flash boundary is 2524mm. My interpretation is that line 12) is simply restating this information, at 11.62 Cal/cm^2 the flash boundary is calculated as 2513.99. line 11) can be read as IF the IE were instead 1.2 cals at a working distance of 610, the flash boundary by definition is then 610. Looking at the data this way it makes sense that 11) -14) that the distance measurement increases as the IE value increases. I do not think that lines 11-14 are looking at the calculated arc flash values from 1-10 but instead provide a "what-if" set of values for other possible IE's. With this interpretation, the data may not be useful but it makes sense.

By this same interpretation the lower lines 15) -18) are stating that with the IE calculated by 4) IF your working distance were changed to be 2524mm, 610mm, 4076mm or 5470mm the IE would be shown as calculated.

In short, I feel AF_XX@YY is stating that IF YY were to be true, XX would be the result.

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:17 pm

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Stratham, SW Australia

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:45 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
mnewman wrote:
In addition to â€˜Arc Flash Boundaryâ€™ and â€˜Incident Energy at Working Distanceâ€™ SKM PTW32 Ver 9003 calculates additional arc flash boundaries at user defined incident energies. The PTW attribute is AF_FB@IE.

In the attached file, the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) appear incorrect.
SKM insists the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) are correct.

My manual calculations for items 1) to 10) and 15) to 18) agree with PTW.
Given that the 'Arc Flash Boundary' is 2524mm, therefore the Incident Energy at 2514mm is 1.2 Cal/cm2. The distance from the arc for 1.2 Cal/cm2 is 2524mm not 609.61mm as shown in 11).

I run your case scenario using ARCAD's web app and the results are in agreement with your findings. Namely, 1.2 cal/cm2 @ 2524 mm distance and 11.7 cal/cm2 @610 mm distance:

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:01 pm

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:47 am
Posts: 1
mnewman wrote:
In addition to â€˜Arc Flash Boundaryâ€™ and â€˜Incident Energy at Working Distanceâ€™ SKM PTW32 Ver 9003 calculates additional arc flash boundaries at user defined incident energies. The PTW attribute is AF_FB@IE.

In the attached file, the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) appear incorrect.
SKM insists the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) are correct.

My manual calculations for items 1) to 10) and 15) to 18) agree with PTW.
Given that the 'Arc Flash Boundary' is 2524mm, therefore the Incident Energy at 2514mm is 1.2 Cal/cm2. The distance from the arc for 1.2 Cal/cm2 is 2524mm not 609.61mm as shown in 11).

SKM data is wrong in this case. I found a similar result when testing the "AFB @ IE" data blocks. I would avoid using these values from SKM I think they are mixing methods from 2002 and 2018. As you say the results do not make sense. I can confirm with my independent spreadsheet that your results for AFB (1.2cal) = 2524mm and AFB (11.62cal) = 610mm are correct.

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:13 am

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:13 pm
Posts: 2
EE_Mark wrote:
mnewman wrote:
In addition to â€˜Arc Flash Boundaryâ€™ and â€˜Incident Energy at Working Distanceâ€™ SKM PTW32 Ver 9003 calculates additional arc flash boundaries at user defined incident energies. The PTW attribute is AF_FB@IE.

In the attached file, the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) appear incorrect.
SKM insists the AF_FB@IE values at 11) to 14) are correct.

My manual calculations for items 1) to 10) and 15) to 18) agree with PTW.
Given that the 'Arc Flash Boundary' is 2524mm, therefore the Incident Energy at 2514mm is 1.2 Cal/cm2. The distance from the arc for 1.2 Cal/cm2 is 2524mm not 609.61mm as shown in 11).

SKM data is wrong in this case. I found a similar result when testing the "AFB @ IE" data blocks. I would avoid using these values from SKM I think they are mixing methods from 2002 and 2018. As you say the results do not make sense. I can confirm with my independent spreadsheet that your results for AFB (1.2cal) = 2524mm and AFB (11.62cal) = 610mm are correct.

The values that you are calculating are correct and are already included in lines 15) to 18). AF_IE@WD is the data block for that exact function. AF_FB@IE is a different data block with a different function. If the data for AF_FB@IE is incorrect as specified, then AF_FB@IE and AF_IE@WD would be exactly the same. If you instead look at AF_FB@IE to mean "Arc Flash Flash Boundary IF the Incident energy is __" 11) -14) is correct and different than AF_IE@WD. As I stated above I do not think that this datablock provides useful information, but I do not think it is wrong in this sense, the values calculated by multiple people in this thread is simply AF_IE@WD.

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:30 pm

Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:22 pm
Posts: 1
Here is to hoping they bring back this function so you can determine the WD at a specified incident energy as most sites require their personnel to wear Cat 2 clothing.

Top

 Post subject: Re: SKM PTW32 Ver9003 - Arc Flash to IEEE 1584-2018Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:33 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
BlakeHPE wrote:
Here is to hoping they bring back this function so you can determine the WD at a specified incident energy as most sites require their personnel to wear Cat 2 clothing.

Back in IEEE 1584 year 2002 guide for arc flash calculations, it was really easy to analytically express distance at the specified incident energy from IEEE 1584-2002 Equation 6. New IEEE 1584-2018 incident energy calculations are way more complicated to the point you can't really analytically express distance as a function of incident energy. I believe this is the reason why SKM dropped the function. I'm sure fellow engineers can do it by means iteration with the help of brute computer power

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 9 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 â€“ 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
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883