Many have purchased a copy of the last draft of IEEE 1584 and are studying it diligently prior to its publication.

One thing that is being discussed by many is the level of detail in the upcoming edition including adjustments for more exact enclosure sizes and different electrode configurations.

There are still configurations that are similar to the 2002 Edition of IEEE 1584 but there are many new ones as well.

Although a bit hypothetical until the new standard is out and implement in software, this week’s question - Without having performed a study yet based on the new edition of IEEE 1584:

What configuration/details would you likely use for the new arc flash model.

Keep it similar to what we have
Use whatever is most conservative
Use more specific/detailed data
Software defaults (if available)
Not sure
Doesn't apply - don't perform studies

Shouldn't the options 1 and 2 be even considered since the old IEEE 1584 model has been superseded and it's not clear what is most conservative? Other than introducing enclosure dimensions, the new model doesn't require more information to perform the analysis (actually less information is required since grounding type was dropped and equipment class was traded for electrode configuration and enclosure size). Screenshots below show information required when using old IEEE 1584 year 2002 and new year 2018


IEEE 1584 year 2002 based arc flash analysis inputs


upcoming IEEE 1584 year 2018 based arc flash analysis inputs

The enclosure size can be modeled with more specific size detail - will people determine this since most don't determine the gap and use defaults. That is what some of this is about.

The electrode configuration can have an effect as well. 2002 used vertical electrodes and the next edition also has this option. However there are other options such as horizontal and vertical terminating into an insulating barrier. This is all a bit hypothetical at this point since the final edition standard has not been published yet and new software has not been released (that I know of) Just trying to gauge the feel of those that perform studies.

If we have to include enclosure dimensions, it will vastly increase the time required for field work to perform a study. This will result in:

1. Some other firm not including the required field time and our firm not getting the work.
or
2. Fewer customers performing studies because the cost is prohibitive

+1.

Unless the specifications for the AF study are very detailed and state what is required, I think that most consulting firms will use the most conservation (highest IE) electrode configurations and smallest box in the equipment. Most customers are not going to want to pay the extra costs to determine IE for each box within a piece of equipment (i.e MCC, Swtchboard, Switchgear).

Great comment - this is going to take some time to sort out!