It is currently Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:45 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic

Will it be easier to use a short circuit cut off instead of a kVA cut off?
Yes
No
You may select 1 option

View results
Author Message
 Post subject: 125 kVA Exception - Revision
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:35 pm 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
IEEE 1584 has an exception

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 is interpreted as no arc flash calculations are necessary and assumes the incident energy would not be as significant (although an arc flash hazard still exists)

IEEE 1584 is presently under revision. New language may replace the 125 kVA cut off with a value of short circuit current.

Do you think overall, a short circuit cut off would be easier to use than a transformer kVA cut off?
  • Yes
  • No

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:48 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:36 am
Posts: 4
I voted yes because I think in the big picture, it will be easier to exclude equipment on the end of long circuits with low short circuit currents that otherwise might not have been excluded.

However, just looking at a one line for transformer sized and omiting the circuit is nice and easy.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:49 pm 
Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
I voted no because it would require extending the system model to 120/208 secondaries at all transformers to determine if the fault current cutoff is met.

If the fault current at the transformer secondary is higher than the cutoff, then you need to gather data on 120/208 V feeder breakers and cables and model the feeders.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:59 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 43
jghrist wrote:
I voted no because it would require extending the system model to 120/208 secondaries at all transformers to determine if the fault current cutoff is met.

If the fault current at the transformer secondary is higher than the cutoff, then you need to gather data on 120/208 V feeder breakers and cables and model the feeders.


You bring up a great point jghrist! How do you know what data to collect until you have run the model. hummm....


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:10 am 

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 2
jghrist wrote:
I voted no because it would require extending the system model to 120/208 secondaries at all transformers to determine if the fault current cutoff is met.

If the fault current at the transformer secondary is higher than the cutoff, then you need to gather data on 120/208 V feeder breakers and cables and model the feeders.


I have adopted a cut off for short circuit studies using a 45 kVA transformer as the cut off for 480-208Y/120V circuits. That size limits the secondary current to less than 10 kA (lowest device rating) with an impedance down around 1.3% Maybe something similar can be done here.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:23 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:26 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
I wonder if it would be suitable to use both, meaning it either has to have a 125kva transformer on the line side OR short circuit cut-off is met


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:08 pm 
Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
I think that when IEEE publishes the short circuit limitation, the 125 kVA limitation will go away. You won't be able to use both.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:01 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:46 pm
Posts: 3
brainfiller wrote:
IEEE 1584 has an exception

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 is interpreted as no arc flash calculations are necessary and assumes the incident energy would not be as significant (although an arc flash hazard still exists)

IEEE 1584 is presently under revision. New language may replace the 125 kVA cut off with a value of short circuit current.

Do you think overall, a short circuit cut off would be easier to use than a transformer kVA cut off?
  • Yes
  • No


No Arc Flash is more related to Joules, it is the magnitude of the energy not just the current, and the magnitude of energy is better expressed in the form of kVA.

Yes an ARC flash exists but at the lower voltage the cal/cm2 is not making it below 125 kVA unless you get into prolonged periods of time of the arc event.
An overall short circuit cutoff would be good only if one voltage is factored, they are trying to account for all circuits below 240. Also they are considering the transformer impedance into the equation. I would say the biggest problem at the lower voltage and the lower kVA is to do with the clearing time of the protection device. At the lower capacity it may not immediately trip or in the case of a fuse melt, and prolong the time the short circuit exists.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:16 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:33 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Denver, CO
Either way is good for me

It is standard for me to model down to 15kVA 3-phase anyways for selective coordination circuits. As long as it will be a selectable option in arc-flash options of the software we use, I think we will be fine. I do have a problem however that currently software generates a Cat 0 for these conditions while NFPA 70E publishes a hazard risk category of 1 for the same equipment.


Report this post
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 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:  
cron
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883