It is currently Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:31 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic

Do you use the IEEE 1584 <125 kVA and <240V Exception?
Yes
No
We use a variation (please explain)
You may select 1 option

View results
Author Message
 Post subject: 125 kVA / below 240 V exception
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:17 am 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
IEEE 1584 - 2002 states that: "Equipment below 240 V need not be considered unless it involves at least one 125 kVA or larger low impedance
transformer in its immediate power supply."

This exception has had quite a bit of discussion on the forum in the past. Do you use this exception or any variation such as a smaller transformer size for the cut off?

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:31 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 43
We use 75 kVA and below for the exception to add a little more margin.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:13 am 
Arc Level

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:35 am
Posts: 551
Location: Wisconsin
We use <125kVA and <=240V.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:34 am 

Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:59 am
Posts: 21
Location: Minneapolis, MN
125 kVA

We currently use =<240V and 125kVA. For a while we had used 4,000A bolted fault as the cutoff regardless of transformer size. We had read documents which claimed that Ferraz had been able to sustain an arcing fault at 240V and 4200A bolted fault. The problem was, we were a lone wolf in this regard. Invaribly customers would ask, "Why does one 75 kVA transformer have a Cat 3 HRC when another has a Cat 0 HRC and NFPA 70E says they both should have a cat 0 HRC?"
I'm hoping that someday that fault current will replace transformer size, but for now, wer are running with the pack.

Bob Ragsdale, P.E.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:52 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:52 am
Posts: 110
Location: Yankton SD/ Lead SD
Very appropriate comment BCR 1962.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:29 am 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
BCR_1962 wrote:
We currently use =<240V and 125kVA. For a while we had used 4,000A bolted fault as the cutoff regardless of transformer size. We had read documents which claimed that Ferraz had been able to sustain an arcing fault at 240V and 4200A bolted fault. The problem was, we were a lone wolf in this regard. Invaribly customers would ask, "Why does one 75 kVA transformer have a Cat 3 HRC when another has a Cat 0 HRC and NFPA 70E says they both should have a cat 0 HRC?"
I'm hoping that someday that fault current will replace transformer size, but for now, wer are running with the pack.

Bob Ragsdale, P.E.


You won't be the "Lone Wolf" forever. I am head of the task group within IEEE 1584 that is reviewing this very issue.

If I have anything to do with it (and I do :) ) the low cut off point will ultimatly be based on current rather than kVA. This will allow the cut off to be used on long 208V circuits that may not necessarily be fed by a small transformer.

The actual cut off points that we are reviewing will likely be based on many sources including the data you cited, tests that I have been involved with as well as some additional research.

I have an IEEE 1584 meeting this weekend so we'll see how it goes. As I have posted before, the IEEE process moves very slow so I am sure this will take a while. However, once it looks like we have an agreement on a new low limit, I will post it here.

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:49 pm 
Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:10 pm
Posts: 263
Location: NW USA
We use the cutoff but where hot work is likely to occur I do calculations to verify.

As you are on the committee(s) John, I hope you can implore the other members to simplify this stuff. I feel there is a hazard in pretending that 28 variables to be entered is 'more safe' than 14 variable to be entered.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883