It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:17 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: New IEEE 1584 Update
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:36 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
The IEEE 1584 committee met in New Orleans for 2 days which is unusually long for this group. The marathon meeting was to move aggressively towards the next edition of IEEE 1584 standard and resolve a few other issues.

The President of the IEEE Standards Association addressed the group to reaffirm the openness of the standards making process and confirm that the 1584 committee has the authority to create the standard as they see fit. This confirms what I posted earlier and should put to rest any remaining concerns that were raised regarding equations being withheld, black boxes etc.

My take on this is that the equations and everything else will be part of the next edition. As far as new equations, we are presently evaluating them. Sorry I can’t disclose them yet as they are still in the review and “tweaking” stage.

The new equations include different electrode configurations and three different voltage levels including 600V, 2700V, and 15kV instead of just 2 voltage levels that we have now. The accuracy also appears to be greatly improved.

With new equations for different configurations, this could cause confusion for the end user so a task group has been created (which I am the head of) to develop more typical models with typical configurations for equipment. This means an end user can select “panel” or “switchgear” etc. much like the existing 1584 but the new equipment model will default to specific electrode configurations and use other specific data as well. The user of course could elect to override this and select their own configurations.

There is a lot of unfinished work ahead of us including developing DC equations and DC testing, more testing and tweaking of the new equations and developing the text of the new the document.

We have a draft text of the next edition in the works thanks to our technical editor. He is doing a great job of sifting though everyone’s comments and ideas.

A lot will be happening with the committee over the next many months including a thorough review of the new equations, more text revision and the development of typical equipment models.

I know some were thinking or saying the new standard would be out this year or early next year however as I have previously commented, that would be impossible based on knowing the process and what needs to be done. An amazing amount of work has been completed but a lot of work remains. I believe we are still some time away from completion but we want to make sure we get it right and it will be worth the wait.

Thanks for everyone’s support and patience!

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:59 am
Posts: 1
Thanks for the update Jim. David Farrington, DuPont


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:00 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:03 am
Posts: 59
Location: Netherlands
This is good news!

With the new standard being based on different, more accurate equations, is there anything you can say about the accuracy of studies performed with IEEE 1584-2002? Are the results of the current standard in general too high or too low?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:21 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
jvrielink wrote:
This is good news!

With the new standard being based on different, more accurate equations, is there anything you can say about the accuracy of studies performed with IEEE 1584-2002? Are the results of the current standard in general too high or too low?

That is a great question and one that we are looking into right now. The new task group will be reviewing old studies with the new equations to see what happens with the results. I'll keep everyone posted when we have (and I can share) more information.

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:10 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:10 pm
Posts: 250
Location: NW USA
I am curious if any committee members represent the end users?

When I read in EC and M magazine that the extensive changes within NFPA 70E 2012 edition were promoted by a director of a "Training Institute" I hope there are others present, with perhaps greater number of votes, who have actually had to work with these standards in the field: electricians. There are moments when I feel that worker safety would be improved by simplifying the whole deal, to instead require risk category 4 for 480V hot work, and risk category 2 for under 300V hot work. Not as scientifically exact; a little uncovered exposure for extreme cases; but many times more likely to be understood and followed.

Has anyone on any arc flash committee considered the commercial building owner, with NO electrical staff, hiring a one man electrical contractor to install a new 480V freezer breaker for example (with other freezers full of ice cream). Rather than ever more scientific analysis methods including "electrode configuration" it would seem the trade would be better served by simplification. Consider "management" to approve an "energized electrical work permit" may not exist at many locations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:02 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Gary B wrote:
I am curious if any committee members represent the end users?

When I read in EC and M magazine that the extensive changes within NFPA 70E 2012 edition were promoted by a director of a "Training Institute" I hope there are others present, with perhaps greater number of votes, who have actually had to work with these standards in the field: electricians. There are moments when I feel that worker safety would be improved by simplifying the whole deal, to instead require risk category 4 for 480V hot work, and risk category 2 for under 300V hot work. Not as scientifically exact; a little uncovered exposure for extreme cases; but many times more likely to be understood and followed.

Has anyone on any arc flash committee considered the commercial building owner, with NO electrical staff, hiring a one man electrical contractor to install a new 480V freezer breaker for example (with other freezers full of ice cream). Rather than ever more scientific analysis methods including "electrode configuration" it would seem the trade would be better served by simplification. Consider "management" to approve an "energized electrical work permit" may not exist at many locations.


I certainly understand and have similar concerns but the big picture is we will hopefully be making the final product more user friendly and not as theoretical as it sounds. IEEE is only responsible for the calculation methods and the rest falls on NFPA. i.e. energized work permits etc.

On the IEEE 1584 committee there are some people that do not have much field experience, lots of wizards and gurus. However there is a large number of those that do have very practical experience and it is always interesting to hear the debate when worlds collide.

Behind the scenes, configurations and all the new detail is important but we don't want to dump this on the end user. That is why we are working towards a "typical" configuration so the end user just clicks "panel" or "switchgear" etc. and they don't have to figure all this out. We will be trying to keep it simple.

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 36
Location: Camp hill Pa
the Problem is, we are trying to anticipate an accident. Will the Arc be terminal to terminal on a breaker, busbar to busbar, phase to ground, phase to phase or something else? One item not considered is the fact that their can be enough force on a door to make the lower level of protection moot for "Operation of a circuit breaker with doors closed". The navy found that in some cases an Arc Fault in a panel can exert a ton or more of force on a panel. Also lower arc current does not always lower total Arc-fault energy, actually in many cases it canresult in larger total Arc Fault Energy, due to longer trip times.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:24 am 
Offline
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 259
Location: Louisville, KY
Gary B wrote:
I am curious if any committee members represent the end users?

When I read in EC and M magazine that the extensive changes within NFPA 70E 2012 edition were promoted by a director of a "Training Institute" I hope there are others present, with perhaps greater number of votes, who have actually had to work with these standards in the field: electricians. There are moments when I feel that worker safety would be improved by simplifying the whole deal, to instead require risk category 4 for 480V hot work, and risk category 2 for under 300V hot work. Not as scientifically exact; a little uncovered exposure for extreme cases; but many times more likely to be understood and followed.

Has anyone on any arc flash committee considered the commercial building owner, with NO electrical staff, hiring a one man electrical contractor to install a new 480V freezer breaker for example (with other freezers full of ice cream). Rather than ever more scientific analysis methods including "electrode configuration" it would seem the trade would be better served by simplification. Consider "management" to approve an "energized electrical work permit" may not exist at many locations.


I might be the "training institute" guy they were talking about so I'll have to read the article. I agree with you. I wanted to simplify to HRC 1 and HRC4. HRC2 really isn't that much greater protection. Originally it was two layers which is much more protective. The difference between 2 and 4 is huge. Difference between 3 and 4 is very little as is the difference between HRC 1 and 2.

You might be pleased with the next version as it could really simplify things. And I assure you there were many votes on the committee and no one person could ever drive anything in any committee. I did propose many changes in 2012 since I do most of the arc testing and we have about 350 people who use our training materials but the good folks like Jim Phillips, Jim White and all the members of the NFPA 70E committe want the standard to be practical and usable. I'm pretty sure this is happening. Keep up posing questions. That is what makes the standards better. I for one want it to be easy to follow and safe. We don't sell PPE and would love to see a day when none is needed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:59 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:28 pm
Posts: 51
Location: Louisville KY
Good info, Hugh. Let me say I greatly appreciate your contribution to the arc flash safety industry. Like you said, easy to follow and safe is the ultimate goal. What good is PPE or engineering controls if they are not used?

Thanks again.


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883