Arc Flash Forum
https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/

Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4905		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  engrick [ Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
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!
Author:  PaulEngr [ Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
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.
Author:  Robertefuhr [ Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
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.
Author:  w5m [ Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
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
TCC_Iarc_and_Iarc_min.png [ 39.03 KiB | Viewed 3786 times ]
Author:  kevin.mejia [ Mon Aug 14, 2023 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
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
Author:  alehman@gbateam.com [ Thu Jan 18, 2024 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why doesn't 1584 calculate the worst case IE on a range
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.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/