It is currently Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:53 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: 5 Year Review Question
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:35 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:06 am
Posts: 27
When you do 5 year reviews for your clients, are you recommending that the studies be done to the 2018 IEEE standard? When I think back to all the studies we have done using the < 240V & 125 KVA rule, we have a lot of panels out there with labels that would now be questionable under the new standards. Just curious what others thoughts are on this.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 5 Year Review Question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:24 am 
Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
We are preparing a proposal to do a 5 year review for an industrial plant. We are proposing to use the 2018 IEEE standard. In our case, the 125 kVA rule change doesn't affect us because all of the calculated IEs on low voltage panels were below 1.2 cal/cm² anyway. What concerns us is the extra time it will take to determine enclosure sizes and electrode configurations. I doubt that our competitors will consider the extra costs involved.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 5 Year Review Question
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 am 
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 188
Location: Maple Valley, WA.
We are now quoting all new projects (including 5 year reviews) using the new IEEE 1584-2018 Guide. We are measuring the enclosure sizes and using typical defaults for the electrode configurations. Yes, this requires more labor but this is what the new equations require. The new equations are more accurate and should be used.

_________________
Robert Fuhr, P.E.; P.Eng.
PowerStudies


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 5 Year Review Question
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 7:18 am 

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:45 am
Posts: 33
Location: Massachusetts
As of this writing all studies should be performed using 1584-2018 method. There is questionable legal standing if OSHA were to identify a study performed after the release of 1584-2018 did not use the new method.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 5 Year Review Question
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 8:03 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 138
We have almost always included equipment fed by less than 125 KVA and 240 volts. When I read the exception (I don't think of it as a rule) I realized the Standard allowed that, but I felt it was arbitrary and the cut off needed to be lower.
Yes, it takes more time and effort, yet we decided to include anything fed by transformers down to 30 KVA. You rightfully could ask why bother? Good question. A client once said that if his company were to have an electrical accident, he did not want to hear the victim or his family say "it wasn't labeled so he assumed there was no hazard". That's a strong argument against the extra work and costs to include the lower level devices. I'm sure there are many in the Forum who don't agree. And they've got a good argument. But try using the excuse "it was not required" when you're telling a family member why it was not labeled. For me, the extra costs and work are worth including these lower level devices.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot 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:  
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883