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

Test Set Up
https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=538		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  Test Set Up
If you've never seen a test set up - this is one from a few weeks ago. It was for single phase arc flash testing.

The copper bus bars are to establish a 1 inch gap at the back of the enclosure. The calorimters are up front. This was a 30 kA bolted fault at 480V/277.

We could not get this single phase event to sustain so it produced an incident energy that was Category 0 mosty because of the duration but the sound pressure and UV light was still very dangerous - we looked away from the light - there could be some serious eye injury - and it was technically a "non-event" I wouldn't want to be in front of it.

Attachments:
Electricalsafetyhandbook-DC-INFO.pdf [47.94 KiB]
Downloaded 901 times
Author:  mike01 [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
good stuff

where do they do these test at? would there be any way to witness one??
Author:  Zog [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Looks like a pad mount transformer set up Jim? What size?

I see these POCO guys re-terminate padmounts all the time with nothing but a T-shirt and rubber gloves, scares me, I always pipe up (Pull off the side of road if necessary) and they look at me like I am some sort of freak when I mention FR clothing.
Author:  Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:17 am ]
Post subject: 
mike01 wrote:
where do they do these test at? would there be any way to witness one??

Unfortunately, the testing I am involved with is proprietary. :cool:
Author:  Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Zog wrote:
Looks like a pad mount transformer set up Jim? What size?


It was a 500 kVA enclosure only. I was testing a new design for a manufacturer where the top and side of the enclosure open up. The open design has quite an effect on the incident energy by allowing it to dispurse in multiple directions instead of at the worker. (similar effect as arc in air vs. arc in a box) Here is the follow up paper about it:

[url="http://www.brainfiller.com/documents/PadMountArcFlashJimPhillips.pdf"]Open Design Pad Mount Enclosure[/url]


Zog wrote:
I see these POCO guys re-terminate padmounts all the time with nothing but a T-shirt and rubber gloves, scares me, I always pipe up (Pull off the side of road if necessary) and they look at me like I am some sort of freak when I mention FR clothing.


I guess ingnorance is bliss (and more comfortable) until something goes wrong.
Author:  Zog [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:46 am ]
Post subject: 
brainfiller wrote:
It was a 500 kVA enclosure only. I was testing a new design for a manufacturer where the top and side of the enclosure open up. The open design has quite an effect on the incident energy by allowing it to dispurse in multiple directions instead of at the worker. (similar effect as arc in air vs. arc in a box) Here is the follow up paper about it:

[url="http://www.brainfiller.com/documents/PadMountArcFlashJimPhillips.pdf"]Open Design Pad Mount Enclosure[/url] .


Good stuff Jim, thanks. Sometimes it amazes me how a simple design change can make such a difference.
Author:  SCGEng1 [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Jim did you do any three phase tests?
Author:  Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:11 am ]
Post subject: 
SCGEng1 wrote:
Jim did you do any three phase tests?


Yes - the results in the paper were three phase.

However, the initial testing began with single phase events at the client's request. I knew this would go nowhere quickly because like you would suspect, the arc did not sustain. I think the longest duration was 1 or 2 cycles and this was at 30 kA bolted (calibration current) with a 1 inch gap at 480 Volts. Some copper bussing was used to "force" a 1 inch gap.

After several uneventful single phase arc flash attempts, I moved them to the three phase set up which was much more impressive.

I know a 1 inch gap is not realistic for a pad mount but the goal was to compare the incident energy with the cabinet in the open configuration and the cabinet in the closed configuration.
Author:  SCGEng1 [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
brainfiller wrote:
Yes - the results in the paper were three phase.

After several uneventful single phase arc flash attempts, I moved them to the three phase set up which was much more impressive. .


What were the durations for the 3-phase faults? I assume you've seen the EPRI paper (#1020210) on 480V Pandmount Transformers and Network Protectors and the PG&E 480V tests (EPRI paper #1018693), just wondering if you’re seeing similar results from your testing.

thanks
Author:  Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:57 am ]
Post subject: 
SCGEng1 wrote:
What were the durations for the 3-phase faults?


The client wanted the clearing time based on their typical primary fuse operation for the fault current that was used. This lead to 13 cycles based on the fault current and TCC of the fuse. I am not sure 13 cycles is realistic in many applications considering the size of many fuses that are used but we set the breaker to trip at 13 cycles. I believe the three phase arc would have sustained longer if we had the breaker set longer. The single phase tests would not sustain.

Again however, we were attempting to measure the difference between the open and closed configuration of the enclosure. Not quite the same objectives as EPRI and PGE.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/