| Author |
Message |
|
Fads44
|
Post subject: IEC Arc Fault Protection System Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:34 am |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:50 pm Posts: 4
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Zog
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:37 am |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am Posts: 1103 Location: Charlotte, NC
|
Fads44 wrote:
2mS is pretty fast, I would like to see some actual test results. However, this concept seems to work, GE is already doing the same thing. Simple concept, most current takes the path of least resistance, so they create a lower resistance path and therefore the arc extinguishes.
P.S. Great video to see for the ongoing doors open/closed debate.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jghrist
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:34 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am Posts: 428 Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
|
Fads44 wrote:
I can see the light sensors detecting an arc this fast, but if operation is monitored by current sensing, the 2 ms sounds too fast. What kind of algorithm can calculate the current from sampled data in less than 12% of one cycle? And then there has to be some processing time and some time for operation of the arc quenching device.
The Moeller device creates a bolted fault, while the GE device apparently inserts impedance to keep the system from having to withstand full bolted fault current.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
stevenal
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:18 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:00 pm Posts: 631
|
|
"...the arc fault is quenched in less than 2 ms after initiation." Sounds like the two ms does not include detection time.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Fads44
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:50 pm Posts: 4
|
|
It does seem rather fast! The sales literature claims "The system can detect,
analyse and quench arc faults in only two milli
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Fads44
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:50 pm Posts: 4
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
LiteBased
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:21 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:43 am Posts: 10
|
Arc burning time 2ms/5msstevenal wrote: "...the arc fault is quenched in less than 2 ms after initiation." Sounds like the two ms does not include detection time.
It does include the arc detection time. Optical detection is very fast, and the overcurrent can be detected by analog information.
Arc burning times of 2ms (LV) and 5ms (MV) can be reached.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
THE CABLE GUY
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:29 pm |
|
| Sparks Level |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:42 am Posts: 184 Location: Lawrenceburg KY
|
|
I believe we have talked about this on another part of this forum that you may use the search function to find the information.
An authority from GE, whom is involved in the GE based arc fault containment dome extinguisher, and made comments on the forum to help understand this concept.
Maybe someone can find the link and post or if not search for (GE) and you can find that posting. The method is somewhat amazing how another arc can draw the original fault into a containment dome.
Thanks
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
THE CABLE GUY
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:34 pm |
|
| Sparks Level |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:42 am Posts: 184 Location: Lawrenceburg KY
|
|
Sorry, I should have looked at the link first. The device uses a little different approach to reduce the IE then GE utlilizes.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jghrist
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:51 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am Posts: 428 Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
|
LiteBased wrote: It does include the arc detection time. Optical detection is very fast, and the overcurrent can be detected by analog information.
Arc burning times of 2ms (LV) and 5ms (MV) can be reached.
What analog method can be used to detect overcurrent and unblock in less than 2 ms?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
LiteBased
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:36 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:43 am Posts: 10
|
jghrist wrote: What analog method can be used to detect overcurrent and unblock in less than 2 ms?
Comparator.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jghrist
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:25 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am Posts: 428 Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
|
|
What are you comparing the current to? The idea is to operate the device if the current exceeds load current. In about 1/8 of a cycle from the start of the arc, you have to determine if the current is greater than some set value and either allow or prevent the device from operating, and still leave enough time to actually operate the device.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
LiteBased
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:51 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:43 am Posts: 10
|
|
I don't think the manufacturers reveal all their secrets. I have seen some test results, and I am happy with that.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Fads44
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:57 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:50 pm Posts: 4
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
LiteBased
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:55 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:43 am Posts: 10
|
|
To see is to believe
I was present when arc quenching was demonstrated (equipment by Eaton/Moeller & Vamp). Dual sensing (light & current) was used, and the arc was quenched in less than 2ms! I saw the test, I saw the recordings - very convincing for me.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jseedorff
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:06 am |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:24 pm Posts: 5 Location: Denmark
|
I believe that this system has been developed by http://www.vamp.fi. It looks a lot like VAMP's 221.
JASE
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Beo
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:56 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:53 am Posts: 39
|
|
This is a fiber optical sensing relay, and the 2 ms is the response of the relay? For arc flash hazard assessments the cirucuit breaker opening times should be added. Misleading marketing...?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
AusPowEng
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:43 am |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 3:13 am Posts: 6
|
|
I have installed four arc detection + quenchign system, so can speak with some experience. In the USA, I see GE have some recent developments in arc killing/quenching. I don't understand the technology and it seem GE do not reveal too much and have some clever IP concealed. In terms of Moeller & VAMP these concepts (i.e. detection and quenching) have been used in (and exported from) Europe now for over 10-years and are out in the public domain. The VAMP detection system electronics votes on current and light events within 2ms. This is a known & published fact and Vamp could confirm this for any non-believers out their. To achieve IEC-60255 compliance for protection relays, the relay trip outputs must be a relay contact and have a large AC/DC rating. The fastest acting relay that meets the IEC spec takes approx 5ms to close once activate. This is why you have 2ms + 5ms = 7ms. In detection-only arc protection systems, then the CB must clear (i.e. approx 35-120ms). However - where a quenching unit is used, such as the Moeller/Eaton unit, the activation signal is via electronics (i.e. transistor) and responses are uS not mS. The quenching unit is also lightning fast in uS to apply the short circuit. In this was, the activation time is ~2mS. Once the quencher has fired, a conventional contact also clears the upstream circuit breaker - as the quenching unit is time-limited (i.e. 1sec rating). Hope this helps.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Beo
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:54 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:53 am Posts: 39
|
|
Thanks. I have several questions though... 1. Is it necessary for low voltage switchgear to have so short arc clearing? The holes in the switchboard in the video looks real, but according to information from IEEE it would take 0,25 seconds for these holes to appear, not 1,4 ms... 2. What is the respons time of the current sensor? I think the risk of false alarms is high, and when the false alarm fires the pyrotechnics the cost of such a false alarm is high. 3. As the upstream circuit breaker need to be opened, the fault is not cleared before the breaker clears, 40ms at best. Therefore this is misleading advertisement. Also, this is a relatively large unit that cannot be retrofitted.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
jankar
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:46 am |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:55 am Posts: 9 Location: Ludvika Sweden
|
Beo wrote: Thanks. I have several questions though... 1. Is it necessary for low voltage switchgear to have so short arc clearing? The holes in the switchboard in the video looks real, but according to information from IEEE it would take 0,25 seconds for these holes to appear, not 1,4 ms... 2. What is the respons time of the current sensor? I think the risk of false alarms is high, and when the false alarm fires the pyrotechnics the cost of such a false alarm is high. 3. As the upstream circuit breaker need to be opened, the fault is not cleared before the breaker clears, 40ms at best. Therefore this is misleading advertisement. Also, this is a relatively large unit that cannot be retrofitted. I have just tested a prototype LV arc eliminator and the total time was 4ms. a little less than 2 ms for the electronic part. It is important from personell safety point (PPE criteria) of view that the arcs are quenched as early as possible during the increasing pressure that use to reach its peak in approx 10 ms. After 4 ms there is still a low pressure very limited toxid gases and limited heat. The dangerous phase is over and the upstream CB can take care of the short circuit. After this it is still clean and you can start again as soon as the reason for the flash over is eliminated. My prototype can be resetted and is then ready again. But it is still a prototype and it will take some time before it is available. We also wait for the new UL 2748 Safety for Arcing fault Mitigation Equipment (LV.)
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
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
|
|