REDUCING ARC FLASH HAZARD BY REMOTE SWITCHING

Similar documents
ARC FLASH PPE GUIDELINES FOR INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS

STANDARDIZING ARC FLASH PPE LABELS

AN EXAMPLE OF A STANDARD ARC FLASH PPE LABELING STRATEGY

AN EXAMPLE OF A STANDARD ARC FLASH PPE LABELING STRATEGY

THE HISTORY OF FLICKER LIMITS

First Draft Language

Arc Flash Study Principles & Procedures for below 15 kv AC Systems. Xuan Wu, Dennis Hoffman, Ronald Wellman, and Manish Thakur

TRV OVERVIEW FOR REACTANCE LIMITED FAULTS

Cause, Effect & Mitigation Strategies

Electrical Arc Hazards

NATIONAL ELECTRIC SAFETY CODE 2012 EDITION

THREE PHASE PAD MOUNTED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER ARC FLASH TESTING JUNE 23, 2009 FERRAZ SHAWMUT HIGH POWER LABORATORY NEWBURYPORT, MA

Arc Flash Mitigation An Overview. Gus Nasrallah, P.E. Electroswitch May 30, 2013

ARC FLASH & PPE UPDATE. Michael Olivo, P.E. Aaron Ramirez, E.I.T.

{40C54206-A3BA D8-8D8CF }

Arc Flash Analysis and Documentation SOP

2015 NFPA 70E. SESHA 2015 ARIZONA MINI CONFERENCE December 10, 2015 Intel Corporation

Arc Flash Calculation Methods

APPLYING LOW-VOLTAGE CIRCUIT BREAKERS TO LIMIT ARC FLASH ENERGY

DC ARC FLASH. THE IMPLICATIONS OF NFPA 70E 2012 ON BATTERY MAINTENANCE

Selection of PPE Practical experience of different arc assessment methods and their comparison

Key factors to maintaining arc flash safety

Steve Kovach District Sales Engineer

Webinar: An Effective Arc Flash Safety Program

A Guide to Establish an Arc Flash Safety Program for Electric Utilities

Arc Flash and NFPA 70E

SECTION OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE COORDINATION STUDY

The advantages of transformers. EMC-ESD in de praktijk Jan-Kees van der Ven

Arc Flash Hazard and Mitigation 2 nd Workshop on Power Converters for Particle Accelerators June 14 16, 2010

Arc Flash Analysis Training

Arc Hazard Assessment for DC Applications in the Transit Industry

SECTION SHORT CIRCUIT, COMPONENT PROTECTION, FLASH HAZARD AND SELECTIVE COORDINATION STUDY

How OSHA s New Transient Overvoltage Requirements Affect Work Practices. B.A. YEUNG, H. BRANCO Leidos Engineering, LLC USA

Electrical Overcurrent Studies

Paul Dobrowsky Innovative Technology Services

COMMON SOURCES OF ARC FLASH HAZARD IN INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS

Electrical Measurement Safety. Sponsored By:

DESIGN STANDARD DS 29

2018 Consultant s Handbook Division 26 Electrical ARC Flash Hazard Analysis

CHANGEABILITY OF ARC FLASH PARAMETERS AND ITS IMPACT ON HAZARD MITIGATION IN LOW VOLTAGE POWER SYSTEMS

Ft Worth IEEE-PES. Presented by: Doug Harris Specifications Engineer Dallas, TX. Arc-Flash Hazard Mitigation & Selectivity

Best Practice Reducing The Risk of Arc Flash Cross Over

ADDENDUM NO. 2 PROJECT: COURTLAND PUMP STATION CONTRACT: IFB NO COM.00030

Topic 6 Quiz, February 2017 Impedance and Fault Current Calculations For Radial Systems TLC ONLY!!!!! DUE DATE FOR TLC- February 14, 2017

Design Approaches for Hospital Distribution Systems With Considerations for Future Expansion, Operator Safety, and Cost

Distribution System Development & Preliminary Studies

NFPA-70E. Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Standard for Edition

Standards for MV switchgear rated for arc flash protection

Methods to Reduce Arc-Flash Hazards

ARC FLASH HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION

Arc Flash Hazard Standards:

GV3000/SE AC Drive HP, 460V AC

Electrical Safety Policy Health and Safety FCX-HS03 Release 07/2018 Version 1

Electric Arc and associated Hazards in the Rail Transit Industry Are we up to date with current developments?

Education & Training

SECTION POWER SYSTEMS STUDIES

OSHA & Arc Flash. Scott Ray Distribution Project Engineer POWER Engineers, Inc.

Thomas Wilkins Wilkins Consulting Henderson Nevada U.S.A.

SIMPLE SOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVING LIFE OF BREAKERS USED IN TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Obstruction Lighting Troubleshooting Manual

SF6 Gas Management Australia

ADVANCES IN INDUSTRIAL SUBSTATION DESIGN USING THREE WINDING POWER TRANSFORMERS

Arc Flash Hazard. Can HRG Technology play a role in prevention?

Typical Limiting Values Of Substation Equipments

CREATING A COMPARATIVE MAP OF RELATIVE POWER FOR DC ARC FLASH METHODOLOGIES. A Thesis. presented to

CSX RAILROAD NASHVILLE YARD RAIL WELDING MACHINE POST INSTALL SURGE SUPPRESSION POWER QUALITY STUDY

THREE-PHASE SHORT-CIRCUIT TESTING OF HIGH-VOLTAGE CIRCUIT-BREAKERS USING SYNTHETIC CIRCUITS

1960 Research Drive, Suite 100, Troy, Michigan with. REVISION: December 10, 2007 (Supersedes previous versions) Prepared by:

ANALYSIS OF A FLASHOVER OPERATION ON TWO 138KV TRANSMISSION LINES

Electrical Equipment Reliability with Ultrasound & Infrared

3Ø Short-Circuit Calculations

Y-IIH... / t. (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2011/ A1 18/ SENSORS. - N II!---- In. (19) United States

Short Circuit Current Calculations

BE1-87G VARIABLE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENTIAL RELAY

Electrical Severity Measurement Tool Revision 4

ELECTRONIC CONTROL CONCEPTS 160 Partition Street Saugerties, NY or local phone

PREFACE ********************************************************** IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT THESE STANDARDS BE COPIED AND USED AS A SPECIFICATION!

Earthing, HV Switching and Associated Operational Equipment. Approval: Chief Operating Officer

Lookout Brook Hydro Plant Refurbishment (Clustered), p. 4 of 96, $2,155,000

Ampgard The name motor applications rely on

A Guide to the DC Decay of Fault Current and X/R Ratios

How to maximize reliability using an alternative distribution system for critical loads

Power System Study for the Pebble #2 Lift Station Las Vegas, Nevada

700 Series AC Dielectric Test Sets

10. DISTURBANCE VOLTAGE WITHSTAND CAPABILITY

REFLECTIONS AND STANDING WAVE RATIO

NOTICE ER Roland Flood Pumping Station Arc Flash Study

Module 9. Fault Type Form 4.X RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY

P o w e r. C O N T R O L S A N D a t h e n a c o n t r o l s. c o m. ATHENA CONTROLS, INC Campus Drive Plymouth Meeting, PA U.S.A.

Electrical PIP ELEGL03 Guidelines for Power Systems Analysis

Electrical testing safety Part 1: Preparing for absence of voltage testing

Novel Simulation Method to Quantify Induced Voltage & Current between Parallel or Partially Parallel Proximity AC Transmission Circuits

SGMF(T) series. Onsite Mobile AC High Voltage Test System. Applications:

Onsite Mobile AC High Voltage Test System

OCCURRENCE OF DELAYED CURRENT ZERO CROSSING DUE TO LINE REACTIVE OVERCOMPENSATION LT CAMPINAS FERNAO DIAS 500 kv.

FERRORESONANCE SIMULATION STUDIES USING EMTP

Industrial Electrician Level 3

Appendix B to Working on Exposed Energized Parts

Neutral Reactor Optimization in order to Reduce Arc Extinction Time during Three-Phase Tripping

Adaptive Autoreclosure to Increase System Stability and Reduce Stress to Circuit Breakers

Transcription:

The Electrical Power Engineers Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc. 21 Johnson Road Building #1 Suite 23 Houston, PA 15342-13 Phone 724-873-9275 Fax 724-873-891 www.qualtecheng.com REDUCING ARC FLASH HAZARD BY REMOTE SWITCHING One of the effective methods of reducing the arc flash hazard is to switch devices remotely rather than at the circuit breaker, contactor, or switch. Two of the key factors in reducing the energy are the reduction in the clearing time and the increase in the distance from the energized piece of equipment. This document focuses on the distance. The arc flash calculations in this document are based on the formulas given in IEEE Standard 1584-22 Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations. Four cases are evaluated and remote switching distances are plotted for each case: Case 1: 28V To 999V Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 18 Working Distance Case 2: 28V To 999V Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 24 Working Distance Case 3: 1 kv to 14.9 kv Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 24 Working Distance Case 4: 1 kv to 14.9 kv Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 36 Working Distance Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 1 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

Case 1: 28V To 999V Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 18 Working Distance The calculations for this case are based on the following: 1. 28V to 999V systems 2. 18 inch working distance 3. Equipment Class = 3, which is switchgear. Equipment Classes 1, 2, and 4 are less severe. The distances determined in this section can conservatively be applied to all of these types of equipment. 4. The grounding type does not change the results determined below. The distances determined here can be applied to three-phase systems with any grounding type. Based on the above parameters, calculations of remote switching distances are given in Table 1. For example, if the incident energy was calculated to be 1 cal/cm 2 at 18, (4 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 2.8 feet, (8 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 8.3 feet, and (1.2 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 3.2 feet. Table 1 s 28V to 999V Systems Calculated Incident Energy At Working Distance = 18" Distance Required to Achieve The PPE Indicated (Feet) (cal/cm 2 ) 1.2 1.5 8. 1.5 5.4 4. 1.5 4.5 16.2 1. 2.8 8.3 3.2 4. 7.2 21.4 77.4 8. 11.5 34.3 123.9 13. 16. 47.6 172.3 2. 21.4 63.8 23.9 High incident energies are given in Table 1 for reference, but it is generally recommended to apply protection methods that would give lower energies whenever possible. Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 2 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

The calculated results in Table 1 are also plotted in Figures 1A and 1B for easy reference in determining at what distance lower PPE levels will be appropriate. IEEE 1584 Equations - 28V to 999V - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 3 25 2 15 1 5 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 18" Working Distance Figure 1A IEEE 1584 Equations - 28V to 999V - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 18" Working Distance Figure 1B Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 3 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

Case 2: 28V To 999V Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 24 Working Distance The calculations for this case are based on the following: 1. 28V to 999V systems 2. 24 inch working distance 3. Equipment Class = 3, which is switchgear. Equipment Classes 1, 2, and 4 are less severe. The distances determined in this section can conservatively be applied to all of these types of equipment. 4. The grounding type does not change the results determined below. The distances determined here can be applied to three-phase systems with any grounding type. Based on the above parameters, calculations of remote switching distances are given in Table 2. For example, if the incident energy was calculated to be 1 cal/cm 2 at 24, (4 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 3.8 feet, (8 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 11.2 feet, and (1.2 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 4.3 feet. Table 2 s 28V to 999V Systems Calculated Incident Energy At Working Distance = 24" Distance Required to Achieve The PPE Indicated (Feet) (cal/cm 2 ) 1.2 2. 8. 2. 7.3 4. 2. 6. 21.6 1. 3.8 11.2 4.3 4. 9.6 28.5 13.2 8. 15.3 45.6 165.3 13. 21.3 63.4 229.8 2. 28.5 84.9 37.8 High incident energies are given in Table 2 for reference, but it is generally recommended to apply protection methods that would give lower energies whenever possible. Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 4 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

The calculated results in Table 2 are also plotted in Figures 2A and 2B for easy reference in determining at what distance lower PPE levels will be appropriate. IEEE 1584 Equations - 28V to 999V - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 3 25 2 15 1 5 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 24" Working Distance Figure 2A IEEE 1584 Equations - 28V to 999V - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 24" Working Distance Figure 2B Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 5 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

Case 3: 1 kv to 14.9 kv Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 24 Working Distance The calculations for this case are based on the following: 1. 1 kv to 14.9 kv systems 2. 24 inch working distance 3. Equipment Class = 3, which is switchgear. Equipment Classes 1, 2, and 4 are less severe. The distances determined in this section can conservatively be applied to all of these types of equipment. 4. The grounding type does not change the results determined below. The distances determined here can be applied to three-phase systems with any grounding type. Based on the above parameters, calculations of remote switching distances are given in Table 3. For example, if the incident energy was calculated to be 1 cal/cm 2 at 24, (4 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 5.2 feet, (8 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 26.8 feet, and (1.2 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 188.4 feet. Table 3 s 1 kv to 14.9 kv Systems Calculated Incident Energy At Working Distance = 24" Distance Required to Achieve The PPE Indicated (Feet) (cal/cm 2 ) 1.2 2. 8. 2. 14.1 4. 2. 1.5 73.5 1. 5.2 26.8 188.4 4. 21.3 111.5 783.3 8. 43.5 227.3 1597. 13. 71.6 374.2 263.3 2. 111.5 582.5 495.3 High incident energies are given in Table 3 for reference, but it is generally recommended to apply protection methods that would give lower energies whenever possible. Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 6 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

The calculated results in Table 3 are also plotted in Figures 3A and 3B for easy reference in determining at what distance lower PPE levels will be appropriate. IEEE 1584 Equations - 1 kv to 14.9 kv - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 24" Working Distance Figure 3A IEEE 1584 Equations - 1 kv to 14.9 kv - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 24" Working Distance Figure 3B Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 7 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

Case 4: 1 kv to 14.9 kv Systems Equipment Class = 3 Grounding = 1 or 2 36 Working Distance The calculations in this section are based on the following: 1. 1 kv to 14.9 kv systems 2. 36 inch working distance 3. Equipment Class = 3, which is switchgear. Equipment Classes 1, 2, and 4 are less severe. The distances determined in this section can conservatively be applied to all of these types of equipment. 4. The grounding type does not change the results determined below. The distances determined here can be applied to three-phase systems with any grounding type. Based on the above parameters, calculations of remote switching distances are given in Table 4. For example, if the incident energy was calculated to be 1 cal/cm 2 at 24, (4 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 7.8 feet, (8 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 4.3 feet, and (1.2 cal/cm 2 ) would be appropriate at > 282.6 feet. Table 4 s 1 kv to 14.9 kv Systems Calculated Incident Energy At Working Distance = 36" Distance Required to Achieve The PPE Indicated (Feet) (cal/cm 2 ) 1.2 3. 8. 3. 21.1 4. 3. 15.8 11.2 1. 7.8 4.3 282.6 4. 32. 167.3 1174.9 8. 65.3 34.8 2395.5 13. 17.4 561.7 3945.4 2. 167.3 873.8 6142.9 High incident energies are given in Table 4 for reference, but it is generally recommended to apply protection methods that would give lower energies whenever possible. Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 8 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.

The calculated results in Table 4 are also plotted in Figures 4A and 4B for easy reference in determining at what distance lower PPE levels will be appropriate. IEEE 1584 Equations - 1 kv to 14.9 kv - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 36" Working Distance Figure 4A IEEE 1584 Equations - 1 kv to 14.9 kv - Equipment Class = 3 - Grounding = 1 or 2 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 cal/cm 2 at 36" Working Distance Figure 4B Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc. QT-612-39 21 Johnson Road Building #1 Suite 23 Houston, PA 15342-13 724-873-9275 FAX 724-873-891 www.qualtecheng.com Reducing Arc Flash Hazard by Remote Switching Page 9 Qual-Tech Engineers, Inc.