Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Electric Utility Solutions: Arc Flash Analysis

875 views

Published on

Milsoft Utility Solution’s Arc Flash Analysis software facilitates faster and easier assessment of arc flash hazards and electrical incident analysis. Identify and analyze high risk arc flash areas in your electrical power system with greater flexibility by simulating and evaluating various mitigation methods in your arc flash study.

0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
875
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
29
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

### Electric Utility Solutions: Arc Flash Analysis

1. 1. Arc Flash Review: Requirements, Results, Issues, and Strategies Keith Mullen, P.E.
2. 2. Arc Flash Review         WindMil & LightTable Requirements Consensus Standards Analysis Methodology Sample Results Issues Uncovered Hazard Reduction Strategies Assessment Integration Questions
3. 3. Arc Flash Review: Requirements        Accurate Connectivity Model Up-to-Date Source Impedances Complete Equipment & Device Definitions Add Transformer Protection Accurate Construction Codes Establish Device Links to LightTable Analysis Parameters Based on Operating Practices
4. 4. Arc Flash Review: Standards NFPA 70E Hazard/Risk Categories Hazard/Risk Categories Calculated Arc Energy (Cal/cm2) (J/cm2) 0 1.2 5.0 1 4.0 16.7 2 8.0 33.5 3 25.0 104.6 4 40.0 167.4 >4 > 40.0 >167.4
5. 5. Arc Flash Review: Standards IEEE Standard 1584 Method  Voltages from 208V to 15,000V  Frequency from 50Hz to 60Hz  Bolted fault currents from 700A to 106,000A  Grounding of all types and ungrounded  Equipment enclosures of commonly available sizes  Gaps between conductors from 13mm to 152mm  Faults involving three phases
6. 6. Arc Flash Review: Standards IEEE 1584 Factors for Equipment and Voltage Classes System Voltage (kV) Typical Gap Between Conductors (mm) Distance Factor 10-40 2.000 Switchgear 32 1.473 MCC & Panels 25 1.641 Cable 13 2.000 Open Air 102 2.000 13-102 0.973 13 2.000 13-153 2.000 Switchgear 153 0.973 Cable 13 2.000 Equipment Type Open Air 0.208 - 1 >1-5 Switchgear Cable Open Air > 5 - 15
7. 7. Arc Flash Review: Analysis Methodology
8. 8. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
9. 9. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
10. 10. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
11. 11. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
12. 12. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results     Lee method is the most conservative IEEE method is more conservative than ARCPRO at low-end fault values IEEE method and ARCPRO yield consistent results at various fault levels Parameters in the NESC Table 410.1 must align with equipment specifications and operating practices
13. 13. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
14. 14. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
15. 15. Arc Flash Review: Requirements Urban System  Feeder breaker and fuses clearing faults  Limited variations in faults and clearing times Rural System  Larger variety and layers of protective devices  Significant variations in faults and clearing times
16. 16. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
17. 17. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
18. 18. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
19. 19. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
20. 20. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results
21. 21. Arc Flash Review: Sample Results     Transformer protection is critical to arc clearing time System impedance can influence calculated hazard levels on transformer low-side Line devices upline of transformer fuse can reduce arc clearing time Arc flash results can be significantly impacted by transformer impedance
22. 22. Arc Flash Review: Issues & Strategies
23. 23. Arc Flash Review: Issues & Strategies
24. 24. Arc Flash Review: Issues & Strategies
25. 25. Arc Flash Review: Issues & Strategies
26. 26. Arc Flash Review: Issues & Strategies
27. 27. Arc Flash Review: Integration     Operating procedures and clothing systems should align with arc flash results Hazard levels should be re-evaluated with changes to system configuration and fault levels Adjustments to coordination scheme should include an arc flash assessment Planning studies should include the impact of recommendations on hazard levels
28. 28. Arc Flash Review: Questions Keith Mullen Senior Engineer & Project Manager - Nashville R. W. Beck, Inc. tel 615.431.3212 fax 615.824.7570 131 Mir Parkway, Suite 300 Hendersonville, TN 37075 kmullen@rwbeck.com