Hello all,
I am getting ready to write bid specifications for short circuit,coordination and arc flash studies. Getting right to the point, I would like a working copy of the study, we have Easypower software but have not done our own studies. The studies we have had done came with construction projects from additions to new buildings, done by different equipment vendors. Pros and cons on each but I would like to have the file in case we use a different vendor for an update or additions. Have you been asked for this? is this common? On a regular basis I would add a panel as needed or find the sca at a point for equipment, after enough changes I would have it updated. I would appreciate any feed back.
Thanks

We get only a handful of requests for the software 'model'. For the past 10 years, or so, we have always provided it.
The first thing we do when we quote a project is to ask if an there is an existing model, therefore we feel we should make ours available.

The reuse of existing models is always a consideration. I have found my own models that could or should not be reused. This is particularly true when the methods and standards have changed.

I once opened a model provided by a customer, it contained several hundred busses and protective devices. It turns out the original model was intended for determining the highest possible fault currents, so all of the cable lengths were rounded and the protective device data were left blank.

I do most of our own studies on the college campus where I work but here's what I require of our consultants on new buildings on our campus:

http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/www/departmentalcontent/facilities/pdf/26%200573%20arc%20flash%20hazard%20analysis%20short%20version.pdf


I do have an RFP I wrote a few years ago to outsource the studies at a few existing buildings that I can share with you. It is a bit dated and was written before I started doing the studies myself.

Thanks all,
I am glad to see this is not too unusual. I assumed there would be a disclaimer. Thanks for the RFP. Do most firms have multiple software incase a customer wants a specific program? Also, I can't seem to reply to a private message, is there something I am missing?

In the lower right hand corner of the message, should be a button that says Reply. Click that and you should be able to reply. Have you tried sending a PM as a test?

We have several clients that ask for the models because they have the software and can make changes or updates in house. We also have SKM, ETAP and Easy Power. We purchased Easy Power because a client had that software and wanted the study completed in that particular software.

In my SOW I specifically requested a closed model every quarter (deliverable) any work done after the date would go into the next deliverable date. My contractor will give me the latest model upon request but I really don't want multiple models in my system. I have used EasyPower for about three years and know how easy it is to make a change or change the wrong model or just open the wrong model up and check data. Having a current model is a great thing but you would want to take into consideration a DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM. I would also limit who can access this model; If you share this model, I would lock the file down and limit this activity.
Regards,
Bill
My facility is 6 miles of busway,14 substations 3000 busplugs and 10,000 pcs of equipment.

Older subject but still pertinent.

It certainly represents a greater liability to present the customer with a working copy of the software model, not knowing fully what context or purpose it will be used for. On previous studies we have inhabited the model with many notes that mean something to our programmer only, referencing where assumptions were made or why a particular fuse was modelled etc. After delivering a project we were asked to also deliver the software model, something that was not in the original work scope. To clean up the model to be universally understood required a couple of months' work, and even with that I was not comfortable.

What generally accompanies these models is a system protection coordination effort. Sure enough the model came back to us with inappropriate changes because someone without system protection background had made changes to achieve 'better' arc flash results that did not consider the full context of operations and coordination.

Issuing complex models is an easy way to really muddy the waters. It is not unlike handing out a basis of design to an inexperienced (in design) commercial building contractor, who might then try to renegotiate all calculations to minimize the cost of construction.

Gary,
I can only speak for myself as to why we would want a working copy and I understand some companies may not want to participate. Several of my reasons would be:
1. I would like to be able to look up a piece of equipment if I had a question on how they arrived at their number.
2. I would like to be able to model new equipment between studies. This would give us a number for work on this equipment, I will make sure these are not labeled or have any reference to the company that does the study. The label would have my name.
3. We will have all the data collection available for the next study.
We are very active with adding, removing, relocating equipment and the information in a short circuit, coordination and arc flash study is huge for design.
Personally, I think the S/C at each label should be mandatory but I realize the label is for safety not design.
In no way do I want to alter change fudge to get lower numbers.
So these are some of the things on a daily basis and the questions I think about.
Jeff