Are fuses always faster than breakers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
I guess I could imagine a situation in which the instantaneous trip of the CB would not go and there was enough of a difference of details of the IT curve and integrating time constant that the fuse would finally go. But not if the size of the fuse was much larger than the CB.
I could even see the thermal overload on the transformer going first.
Was the normal power load in the plant continuing the whole time?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I am having a very hard time believing any fault inside a builiding would open a utilty fuse

The utility sizes fuse to keep the power on, not to protect the transformer or the building wiring.

In most cases the utility fuse will only open when the transformer primary shorts.
 

__dan

Banned
Both arcing faults burned more than 20 minutes I was told.

They are not high current bolted faults. They were shorting across an air gap supported by carbonization deposited on the busbar supporting insulator. The conductive shorting path was the plasma and the deposits on the insulator. You have to ask yourself how much current can you push across a 1" air gap using plasma and carbon deposited on ceramic or Bakelite as the conductor. Whatever the current was, it was not over the threshold of the breaker trip curve and it was not all 60 Hz, probably mostly not 60 Hz.

Or put another way, let's guesstimate the arc was drawing 200 kW in a localized fireball and the breakers were rated to carry more than 200 kW for normal loads. As a premise, maybe the fuse was more sensitive to the high frequency components. Let's guesstimate or carry as a premise that the arc had 100 kW of 20,000 Hz or greater energy. The breaker ignored it but the fuse saw it and opened, but it took more than 20 minutes to respond.

An arc has myriad high frequency components all the way to and beyond radio frequency range. If you're quoting something calibrated for 60 cycles, components of the current are above 10,000 Hz. The calibration of the time current curves are going to be off. The question is what is the sensitivity to high frequency current above 10,000 Hz generated by the arc and how many kW of that RF will the protective device carry before it opens.

Peak current was limited by the current density of the plasma, the availability of charge carriers crossing the gap at the same time

Yes, the main and feeder breakers stayed closed, so the normal power remained on until the utiliiy's fuse opened.
 
Last edited:

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Both arcing faults burned more than 20 minutes I was told.
Totally believable. This is why Ground Fault Protection for some 1200A+ devices, both fusible and circuit breaker, were added to the NEC back in the early 1970's

Whatever the current was, it was not over the threshold of the breaker trip curve and it was not all 60 Hz, probably mostly not 60 Hz.
If the current was not within the range of the breaker, then it would not have been in the range of a similarly sized fuse.
The frequency of the current has no affect on the thermal trip of a fuse or breaker.

Or put another way, let's guesstimate the arc was drawing 200 kW in a localized fireball and the breakers were rated to carry more than 200 kW for normal loads. As a premise, maybe the fuse was more sensitive to the high frequency components. Let's guesstimate or carry as a premise that the arc had 100 kW of 20,000 Hz or greater energy. The breaker ignored it but the fuse saw it and opened, but it took more than 20 minutes to respond.
Your example ignores the actual performance and characteristics of arcing faults as well as of protective devices.
 

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
I was taught that an ordinary inverse time circuit breaker under load, not arc incidents would fall under the following standards set forth by UL.
135% it?s rating for up to two hours
300% it?s rating for up to two minutes
600% it?s rating for up to two cycles or .003 second

An Edison base fuse would open in .01 second each and every time at 135% or it?s rating

Does this sound familiar to anyone?
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I was taught that an ordinary inverse time circuit breaker under load, not arc incidents would fall under the following standards set forth by UL.
135% it?s rating for up to two hours
300% it?s rating for up to two minutes
600% it?s rating for up to two cycles or .003 second

An Edison base fuse would open in .01 second each and every time at 135% or it?s rating

Does this sound familiar to anyone?
As far as I know the standards for both breakers and fuses specify that they cannot carry 135% of nameplate for more than one hour.
 

__dan

Banned
Your example ignores the actual performance and characteristics of arcing faults as well as of protective devices.

Thank you Jim.

I've been Googling, looking if there is something characteristic of fuses that is more sensitive to current limited arcing faults, or if fuses can be built to detect this. I believe it may be possible to build fuses that react to anomalous high frequency arc components, but I don't see any material saying this is what is happening now.

Everything I've been finding says microprocessor based solutions detect characteristic high frequency components which means a breaker electronic trip unit or protective relay, not fuses.

Most of what comes up through Google is IEEE and requires a subscription. If you have a link of some recommended reading material, I will read it.
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Most of what comes up through Google is IEEE and requires a subscription. If you have a link of some recommended reading material, I will read it.

Think about this; if fuses and breakers reacted to arcing faults differently, then wouldn't NFPA70E or IEEE1584 at least mention it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top