brainfiller wrote:
I just gave rolled out my newly devloped DC Arc Flash Calculation training module that is part of the 2 day Arc Flash Calculation Study class.
So we must take the class to know?
| Arc Flash Forum https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/ |
|
| DC Arc Flash Result Update https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1105 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | fjohnson68 [ Wed May 12, 2010 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | DC Arc Flash Result Update |
I have been trying to find out the status of the future incorporation of DC systems into IEEE 1584 and NFPA 70E. Is there any websites that provide updates on the progress? My understanding is some if not most of the research has been performed. I haven't seen or heard much more than that. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Wed May 12, 2010 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What timing. I just rolled out my newly devloped DC Arc Flash Calculation training module that is part of the 2 day Arc Flash Calculation Study class. There is a lot of research and testing that I have so I sifted through to come up with the module for the class. I got tired of saying "we are still waiting for an answer" As far as NFPA 70E, I understand they may add HRC tables for DC battery systems as well as a table for the approach limits. As far as IEEE, nothing yet. That is why I moved ahead and used what was available to help people deal with DC. |
|
| Author: | Vincent B. [ Wed May 12, 2010 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
brainfiller wrote: I just gave rolled out my newly devloped DC Arc Flash Calculation training module that is part of the 2 day Arc Flash Calculation Study class.
So we must take the class to know?
|
|
| Author: | Zog [ Wed May 12, 2010 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Vincent B. wrote: So we must take the class to know?
Yeah Jim, Don't leave us hanging
|
|
| Author: | dgearype [ Thu May 13, 2010 6:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DC Results? Can you share any of the results of your research and testing? I recall an earlier post you had (Sept 2007) - "What I did hear from one of the people directly involved in the test is the results were not exactly as expected. i.e. you would think the RMS AC current might produce a similar arcing energy as it's DC conterpart for the same duration. This was not the case. The duration and effect of zero crossing vs. no zero crossing was looked at as well." Any updates that you could share would be greatly appreciated! |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Thu May 13, 2010 7:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice to know there is an interest in DC Arc Flash
I consider DC to be about where we were in 1998-2000 with AC arc flash. Back then there were several good papers and research but no standard. Then NFPA developed the Hazard / Risk tables for protection based on "experience and opinion" in an attempt to provide some guidance. Eventually IEEE 1584 was developed for a detailed calculation assessment. Fast forward to now. History repeats itself but I added a step. NFPA is once again going to address the issue with HRC tables so there is something out there for people to use. I have a copy of the proposed table but don't believe I am at liberty to post it yet. The proposed table is broken into 3 levels. Battery systems up to 250V nominal - mostly HRC 0 and 1 Battery systems 250 V to 600V - mostly HRC 2 with a few at 0 and 1 Battery systems above 600V - mostly HRC 3 with a few at 1 and 2 keep in mind this is not "official" yet. The major issue as I see it is arc duration. Many DC systems do not have much in the way of protection. My calculations show depending on the size of the battery string, DC short circuit current and duration the energy can be quite high. That should not be a surprise since that is basically what impacts the severity of an arc flash to begin with but it is important to note the energy can be high. Someday there will be a standard for calculating DC arc flash but at the present time there is only some research and also a few pretty good papers on the subject. A few months ago after saying "we don't have anything for DC" for the zillionth time, I snapped and decided to put my arms around what I feel is the better info (subject to my own interpretation and opinion ), filled in a few blanks and came up with some information, methods and calculation worksheets. Those of you that know me probably realize this should not be too much of a surprise since I'm not known for sitting patiently waiting for something to happen.
I don't want to violate the forum's anti-commercialism policy so I won't plug the class but if you have any questions, either PM me or send an email to [email="jphillips@brainfiller.com"]jphillips@brainfiller.com[/email] |
|
| Author: | Zog [ Thu May 13, 2010 8:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Jim, I understand your position but appreciate the general idea about the proposed tables. You think they will use the 2 second cutoff on DC systems like batteries that have no OCPD? |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Thu May 13, 2010 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Zog wrote: Do you think they will use the 2 second cutoff on DC systems like batteries that have no OCPD?
I doubt it. The 2 second cut off is an IEEE thing and in a conversation I had with 1 NFPA person, they do not seem to want to embrace it. |
|
| Author: | Zog [ Thu May 13, 2010 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
brainfiller wrote: I doubt it. The 2 second cut off is an IEEE thing and in a conversation I had with 1 NFPA person, they do not seem to want to embrace it.
With no OCPD they will have to come up with some cutoff for a DC self sustaining arc. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Thu May 13, 2010 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Zog wrote: With no OCPD they will have to come up with some cutoff for a DC self sustaining arc.
Absolutely! Even though I doubt if 2 seconds will get listed, I would tend to use that number as you mentioned based on the IEEE 1584 reference to it. |
|
| Author: | stevenal [ Thu May 13, 2010 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Until they start putting the OCPD inside the battery jar, there will always be a location upstream of any OCPD. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Fri May 14, 2010 7:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You hit one of the most important points and that is still the missing link in much of this. I am hopeful that by forcing the issue by bringing the calculations and the problems out in the open instead of saying "we have no information", manufacturers will begin to rethink a few things just like they have done with AC equipment. Who would have considered maintenance switches, safer designs, different protection schemes, remote operation, uv detection etc. years ago. |
|
| Author: | elihuiv [ Fri May 14, 2010 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DC Arc Flash and 2012 NFPA 70E I'm on the NFPA 70E DC Arc Flash Taskforce. We submitted an appendix based on the Bruce Hydro testing (about $250K) and Dan Doan's theoreticall paper and the IEEE 1584 recent theoretical paper. The Bruce Hydro study agrees with the theory and an appendix will be published in the ROP next month. I also offered a quick and dirty table method to cover some instances but the taskforce refined this in our committee proposal so some DC will be covered in the tables. This will be in the ROP and was accepted in principle by the committee. This is good news for DC going forward. |
|
| Author: | elihuiv [ Fri May 14, 2010 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DC Arc Flash and 2012 NFPA 70E An appendix was submitted based on the Bruce Hydro testing (about $250K) and Dan Doan's theoreticall paper and the IEEE 1584 group recent theoretical paper. The Bruce Hydro study agrees with the theory and an appendix will be published in the ROP next month. A quick and dirty table method to cover some instances was submitted but the taskforce refined this in the committee proposal so some DC will be covered in the tables. This will be in the ROP and was accepted in principle by the committee. This is good news for DC going forward. |
|
| Author: | Vincent B. [ Fri May 14, 2010 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
elihuiv wrote: This is good news for DC going forward.
As long as it doesn't hit a diode... (Ok, it's a very bad pun. I'm sorry. Won't do it again.) |
|
| Author: | elihuiv [ Fri May 14, 2010 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Diodes OK, NO bad puns! LOL. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Mon May 17, 2010 7:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
elihuiv wrote: An appendix was submitted based on the Bruce Hydro testing (about $250K) and Dan Doan's theoreticall paper and the IEEE 1584 group recent theoretical paper. The Bruce Hydro study agrees with the theory and an appendix will be published in the ROP next month. A quick and dirty table method to cover some instances was submitted but the taskforce refined this in the committee proposal so some DC will be covered in the tables. This will be in the ROP and was accepted in principle by the committee.
This is good news for DC going forward. I sifted through all of the info above plus info from several others as well as my own additions to provide a few practical DC arc flash calculation/ applications. Hopefully it will help begin to to fill in the big hole for DC. |
|
| Author: | Zog [ Mon May 17, 2010 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
brainfiller wrote: . Hopefully it will help begin to to fill in the big hole for DC.
Or electron, depending on which theory you learned
|
|
| Author: | hanchris [ Thu May 27, 2010 8:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
elihuiv wrote: An appendix was submitted based on the Bruce Hydro testing (about $250K) and Dan Doan's theoreticall paper and the IEEE 1584 group recent theoretical paper. The Bruce Hydro study agrees with the theory and an appendix will be published in the ROP next month. A quick and dirty table method to cover some instances was submitted but the taskforce refined this in the committee proposal so some DC will be covered in the tables. This will be in the ROP and was accepted in principle by the committee.
This is good news for DC going forward. Could you or someone please provide links or sources to both Dan Doan's and IEEE 1584 papers mentioned above? I would like to make sure I am aware of these two papers. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Jim Phillips (brainfiller) [ Fri May 28, 2010 3:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The papers are from IEEE conferences such as ESW and PCIC which are held every year. You can find the papers as well as loads of other good information at [url="http://www.ieee.org/portal/innovate/search/search.html?sf_00N50000001gvQV=gs_ieee_xplore&product=IEEE+Enterprise&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=ieee+xplore&utm_campaign=IEEE+Xplore"]IEEE's on line library[/url]. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 7 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|