It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:38 am

Author Message

 Post subject: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a rangePosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:19 pm
 Sparks Level

Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:43 am
Posts: 178
We recently found a situation where we had to look at the IE of a disconnect that was located several hundred feet away. The disconnect then got moved several feet. The difference in IE between the two locations was ~15cal and .5cal. The reason was the current was about the same as the short-time setting, one to the left and the other to right of the setting.

The point of this is we saw a huge variation in IE based on estimated data (after all isn't everything we do estimated to some degree). Such a small change resulted in huge differences in IE. One being "safer" and other being "more hazardous".

So my question is: why doesn't 1584 work on a range of values - say +/- 10% of the arcing or bolted currents and evaluate the worst case across the range instead of a select number of discrete points? It seems to me finding the worst-case on a range would prove far more valuable to the person standing in front of the equipment with a poky metal object.

Looking at the tables in 1584-2018 the coefficients are at 10^-5 or -6 when my utility contribution is +/- 20% and my cable length is equally as varied.

Just looking to find a reasonable answer to a complex problem that doesn't cost fortune but saves lives!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a rangePosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:06 am
 Plasma Level

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 2178
Location: North Carolina
It's not IEEE 1584. And it's really not very accurate beyond about 1 to 2 digits. In your case the dramatic difference is because your circuit breaker calculation jumped significantly in opening time.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a rangePosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:23 pm
 Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 201
Location: Maple Valley, WA.
To elaborate a bit, when the arc flash energy is low, that is because the breaker is tripping instantaneously, the tripping time is very low. When it jumps up, that is because the breaker is tripping out in the long time delay (overload) region. This is because the increased cable length decreases the fault current which causes the breaker to trip out in the overload region.

_________________
Robert Fuhr, P.E.; P.Eng.
PowerStudies

Top

 Post subject: Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a rangePosted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:59 am

Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 12:08 am
Posts: 29
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't IEEE Std 1584 cater for this by taking the higher of the two incident energy values calculated (first from the arcing current [Iarc] and then a reduced arcing current [Iarc_min])?

Section 4.5 of 1584-2018 states the following...
Quote:
Calculate a second set of arc duration, using the reduced arcing current to determine if the arcing current variation has an effect on the operating time of protective devices and consequently incident energy.

See the attached image which illustrates a big difference in arc durations for arcing current and reduced arcing current.
Attachment:
TCC_Iarc_and_Iarc_min.png

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

Top

 Post subject: Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a rangePosted: Mon Aug 14, 2023 10:05 am

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:45 am
Posts: 1
w5m wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't IEEE Std 1584 cater for this by taking the higher of the two incident energy values calculated (first from the arcing current [Iarc] and then a reduced arcing current [Iarc_min])?

Section 4.5 of 1584-2018 states the following...
Quote:
Calculate a second set of arc duration, using the reduced arcing current to determine if the arcing current variation has an effect on the operating time of protective devices and consequently incident energy.

See the attached image which illustrates a big difference in arc durations for arcing current and reduced arcing current.
Attachment:
TCC_Iarc_and_Iarc_min.png

In our studies this often happens, we always recalculate the incident energy with the Iarc_min, we prefer to do it in that way, we think is a safer practice for the user

Top

 Post subject: Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a rangePosted: Thu Jan 18, 2024 1:35 pm

Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 8:19 am
Posts: 44
kevin.mejia wrote:
w5m wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't IEEE Std 1584 cater for this by taking the higher of the two incident energy values calculated (first from the arcing current [Iarc] and then a reduced arcing current [Iarc_min])?

Section 4.5 of 1584-2018 states the following...
Quote:
Calculate a second set of arc duration, using the reduced arcing current to determine if the arcing current variation has an effect on the operating time of protective devices and consequently incident energy.

See the attached image which illustrates a big difference in arc durations for arcing current and reduced arcing current.
Attachment:
TCC_Iarc_and_Iarc_min.png

In our studies this often happens, we always recalculate the incident energy with the Iarc_min, we prefer to do it in that way, we think is a safer practice for the user

IEEE 1584 stipulates running the calculations for two arcing current levels and using the worst case results. It provides equations for both currents (Iarc and Iarc_min). SKM does this by default when the IEEE 1584 method is selected. Alternatively, SKM also allows a user-defined table to be used for the 2nd arcing current values.

_________________
Alan Lehman

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 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