×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

NESC Arc Flash Tables vs ArcPro Calcs

NESC Arc Flash Tables vs ArcPro Calcs

NESC Arc Flash Tables vs ArcPro Calcs

(OP)
There was a thread on this several months ago, but it's locked, so I'll start a new one.

I'm trying to compare my results using ArcPro against the values in the NESC arc-flash table 410-2 at 69 kV.  My results seem to be much less than the basis used for the NESC Table.  

I thought I was using the arc gap and working distance as defined in the table footnotes, but something is obviously different.  Most likely candidate seems to be the working distance.  I used the 39" minimum approach distance from Table 441-1 minus twice the assumed arc gap and got about 31".  

Has anyone been able to match the NESC table results using ArcPro?

RE: NESC Arc Flash Tables vs ArcPro Calcs

dpc -
I know this is probably not necessary, but have you used the multipliers in ArcPro for single phase, three phase, etc?  (It's been a while since I've used ArcPro, forgive me)

Also, although NESC says they were calculated using "commercially available software" is there a possibility they used the free Duke Energy calculator?

RE: NESC Arc Flash Tables vs ArcPro Calcs

(OP)
It's my understanding that ArcPro is what was used, but I could be wrong.  For the table covering voltages from 1 kV up to 46 kV, the values in the tables exactly match my ArcPro calcs.  

For the higher voltages, my results are consistently lower, although not by a consistent amount.  If the footnotes in the tables are correct, there are some discontinuities in the assumptions made for arc gap.  But I suspect the main discrepancy is what was used for the distance to arc and what was used as the Minimum Approach Distance.  

I have not tried applying the factors for single-phase arc in box or three phase, but I don't see why they would start applying those at higher voltages when they apparently didn't apply them at 1-46 kV.  But I'll take a look.

I traded e-mails with another engineer who is having similar issues.  He has sent a request to NESC committee member who was said to be the expert on the tables, but has received no response.  

RE: NESC Arc Flash Tables vs ArcPro Calcs

The '07 preprint proposals said "These calculations were derived using ARCPRO 2.0™"
The 07 code changed it to "...a commercially available software program."

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources