It is currently Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:43 am

Author Message

 Post subject: Manual and PTW arc flash results differ for 1000V 50Hz arcing faultPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:49 pm

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Stratham, SW Australia
I have used the following two methods to calculate arc flash hazards for an arcing fault at 415V, 50Hz and also at 1000V, 50Hz :

1. Arc flash formulae from IEEE 1584-2002
2. [font=Calibri][color=#000000]PTW arc flash program[/color][/font]

The arc flash results for both above methods agree for an arcing fault at 415V, however the results differ for an arcing fault at 1000V.

The following have been used for both calculation methods :

Arc in box K = -0.097

Arc in box K1 = -0.555

Busbar gap G = 25mm

Distance factor x = 1.641

Ungrounded system K2 = 0

Cf = 1.5

Arc duration 0.03 sec

Working Distance 457mm

The 1000V results of the spreadsheet are :

• AF_Bolted Fault 19.931 kA
• [font=Calibri][color=#000000]AF_Arcing Fault 19.119 kA[/color][/font]
• [font=Calibri][color=#000000]AF_Boundary 733 mm[/color][/font]
• [font=Calibri][color=#000000]AF_Incident Energy 2.60 Cal/cm2 at Working Distance of 457mm[/color][/font]

The 1000V results of the PTW arcflash program are are :

• AF_Bolted Fault 19.931 kA
• [font=Calibri][color=#000000]AF_Arcing Fault 19.119 kA[/color][/font]
• [font=Calibri][color=#000000]AF_Boundary 574 mm[/color][/font]
• [font=Calibri][color=#000000]AF_Incident Energy 1.74 Cal/cm2 at Working Distance of 457mm[/color][/font]

I have uploaded the manual calculation sheet.

Which results are correct ?

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:12 pm
 Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Hi Murray,

Always great to hear from you. Reviewing the spreadsheet, one thing jumped out at me right away. The difference between the spreadsheet and the PTW answers is (conveniently) 1.5. The IEEE 1584 2002 edition requires using a calculation factor of 1.5 "at or below 1 kV" and 1.0 "above 1 kV". I wonder if the software just made the 1.5 applicable "below 1 kV" and not "at or below 1 kV".

Another thing I noticed is you had the x distance factor for medium voltage equipment as 1.641. For MV equipment it changes to 0.973. I'm not sure you have control over this in the software, maybe you do and forced it to 1.641 just for comparison.
Either way, that did not explain the difference in answers. I played around with the spreadsheet briefly and the only number that really sticks out and gives you the difference in answers is the 1.5 calculation factor.
Hope it helps!

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:32 pm

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Stratham, SW Australia
Hello Jim

The PTW software links the distance factor x to the 'gap' of IEEE 1584-2002 Table 4 by default where for a voltage of 1kV and gap of 25mm, the distance factor x is 1.641. Distance factor x can not be forced by the PTW user.

As you noted; the ratio of manually calculated incident energy / PTW calculated incident energy = 2.60/1.74 = 1.49 indicates that
PTW may have made the 1.5 applicable "below 1 kV" and not "at or below 1 kV".

I will post confirmation when I have had a reply from SKM/PTW.

Regards
Murray Newman

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:28 am

Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 3
So of course this begs the question. The IE step change at 1 volt on either side of 1kV is obviously not happening. Why do we (1584) not attempt some "transition" function across this boundary (or any other where this type of issue would exist)?

Malcolm Hebert
AbearEngineering.com
San Diego

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:38 am
 Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:05 am
Posts: 252
Malcolm Hebert wrote:
Why do we (1584) not attempt some "transition" function across this boundary (or any other where this type of issue would exist)?

You'll have to choose a width for that transition. From 900 V to 1100 V? 950 V to 1050 V? Without tests, your guess at a width is as good as mine.
Then, why study really hard something (IE around 1 kV) where it's not as useful as elsewhere (choose among 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, 347 V, 380 V, 400, 415 V, 460 V, 480 V, 550 V, 575 V, 600 V, 690 V, 3 phases and 1 phase, and that's just for common low voltage values)? I'm not saying that it must not be studied, just that other voltages are more prevalent so should be better studied to better protect the maximum of people.

Top

 Post subject: Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:28 am
 Plasma Level

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 2173
Location: North Carolina
Remember...this is an empirical equation. At the edges where the validity of the equations comes into question, arcing current can actually be higher than bolted fault current, which is clearly invalid. Calculations at the edges of the "valid region" produce artifacts, and the 1 kV transition boundary is one of them. These are some of the criticisms of IEEE 1584 but to date, there are no good alternatives available so IEEE 1584 gets accepted, warts and all.

The test data does not include tests near the transition (at 1 kV). I can only think of two situations where we would see voltages at the transition for standard voltages. The first was a 1.2 kV system that I've only seen once that was used to feed a large motor while avoiding shielding requirements on 2 kV or larger cable. The second is a lot of underground coal mining equipment operating at "995 V" because for a long time, MSHA would not allow utilization voltages above 1 kV due to safety concerns. Even though taking reasonable boundaries around the nominal voltages (say +10%/-15%) would result in crossing the transition, the 1584 equation uses nominal voltages so the discrepancy would not normally be noticeable.

Finally, IEEE 1584 only claims 95% confidence, and an examination of the actual test data for arc flash PPE suggests correlation is only around 0.85-0.9 using the current equations. Similarly a careful examination of actual ASTM data on PPE testing typically shows that the range of pass/fail cases around the 50% passing point (ATPV) is between around 0.5 and 1.5 cal/cm^2. A discrepancy of the size you found does not sound all that bad with this in mind.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 7 hours

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

 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Forum Library / Articles The Lounge    Question of the Week - What Do You Think?    Arcflashforum.com Feedback and Announcements    Off Topic Discussions    News in Electrical Safety Arc Flash and Electrical Safety    General Discussion    Electrical Safety Practices    Equipment to Reduce Arc Flash Dangers    Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Arc Flash Studies    General Discussion    Arc Flash Labels    Software for Arc Flash Studies    System Modeling and Calculations    NEW! Electrode Configuration Library â 2018 IEEE 1584 Codes and Standards    CSA Z462 Workplace Electrical Safety    EAWR Electricity at Work Regulations, HSE - Europe    OSHA CFR Title 29    IEEE 1584 - Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations    NFPA 70 - National Electrical Code - NEC (R)    NESC - ANSI C2 - National Electrical Safety Code    NFPA 70E - Electrical Safety in the Workplace    2015 NFPA 70E Share It Here    Arc Flash Photos    Your Stories    What's Wrong Here? by Joe Tedesco
© 2022 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883