| Arc Flash Forum https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/ |
|
| Mistake in IEEE 1584:2018 Annex D Example? https://brainfiller.com/arcflashforum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5548 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | clintmo [ Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Mistake in IEEE 1584:2018 Annex D Example? |
Hi All, Is there a mistake in the IEEE 1584:2018 Annex D example for medium voltage? The results don't appear correct when calculating the Incident Energy and Arc Flash boundary using the reduced arcing currents (Step 11 and Step 13). For example, if using the formulas shown as per Annex D, consider the following example which is just inside the 0.6 to 2.7kV Voltage band. Quote: Three-phase system voltage Voc = 0.601 kV AC (rms) Three-phase bolted fault current Ibf = 15 kA (symm rms) Working distance D = 457.2 mm Electrode Configuration = VCB Vertical in Box Enclosure Height = 508 mm Enclosure Width = 508 mm Enclosure Depth = 508 mm Gap between conductors (electrodes) G = 32 mm Arcing Time Iarc =200 ms Arcing Time for Iarc_min = 200 ms Results are calculated as follows: Quote: Arcing Current Iarc =12.260 kA Incident Energy = 6.09 cal/cm2 Arc Flash Boundary = 1264 mm Reduced Arcing Current Iarc_min = 10.826 kA Reduced Arcing Current Incident Energy = 3.80 cal/cm2 Reduced Arcing Current Arc Flash Boundary = 941 mm But then re-run the calculation at 0.6kV level (just 1V less) using the <=600V formulas, and the reduced arcing current incident energy and boundary increase significantly: Results are calculated as follows: Quote: Arcing Current Iarc =12.259 kA - Makes sense - slightly less. Incident Energy = 6.09 cal/cm2 - Makes sense - basically the same Arc Flash Boundary = 1264 mm - Makes sense - basically the same Reduced Arcing Current Iarc_min = 10.825 kA - Makes sense - slightly less Reduced Arcing Current Incident Energy = 5.41 cal/cm2 - much larger incident than compared to using 601V value Reduced Arcing Current Arc Flash Boundary = 1173 mm - much larger incident than compared to using 601V value So, if the medium voltage equations in step 11 and 13 are modified to use (k3 x Iarc_600) instead of (k3 x Iarc_600_min) - and likewise for the other intermediate values. The medium voltage results start to look much more normal. E.g. Re-running the original 0.601V example with these modified intermediate incident energy and arc flash boundary formulas, it yields the following results: Quote: Arcing Current Iarc =12.260 kA Incident Energy = 6.09 cal/cm2 Arc Flash Boundary = 1264 mm Reduced Arcing Current Iarc_min = 10.826 kA Reduced Arcing Current Incident Energy = 5.41 cal/cm2 - aligns with 600V example Reduced Arcing Current Arc Flash Boundary = 1173 mm - aligns with 600V example So is there a mistake in the formulas in Annex D? |
|
| Author: | Mike Frain [ Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mistake in IEEE 1584:2018 Annex D Example? |
Yes, I came to the same conclusions as you have some time ago. The fact is that the last time that I checked, which is some months ago now, at least one of the mainstream software manufacturers were interpreting the formulae for >601 volts literally which would lead to the same results that you have experienced. It is of course, up to the IEEE to acknowledge the anomaly and put it right. That being the case, you are correct and the 4.16kV Annexe D example is a mistake. |
|
| Author: | vanstad@gmail.com [ Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:24 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: Mistake in IEEE 1584:2018 Annex D Example? | ||
I think I found the same error. For the intermediate energies, and AFB, I use Iarc_600 on the top, not Iarc_600_min. I still use Iarc_600_min on the right. This applies for the other intermediate values as well. See attached image. How do I confirm with IEEE that this is the case?
|
|||
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 7 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|