FAULT CURRENT/ARC FLASH STUDIES

This para 'Circuit
breaker manufacturers state that all modern circuit
breaker designs are non-passive, so an engineered
method is generally not permitted.' also present in method 4 under #18.
But opinions differ as in
240.86(A) Series Rated Systems. Selected Under Engineering Supervision in Existing Installations. https://www.electricallicenserenewa...ucation-Courses/NEC-Content.php?sectionID=424

The term commonly used to describe why we can not (or should not) try and reduce the available fault current with fuses is dynamic impedance of protective devices. Primarily the dynamic impedance of circuit breakers and when they are trying to open or operate under the high fault condition, the upstream device will actually see less fault current as the breaker contacts open. And then we get into how breakers open and the energy being strong enough to keep the contacts closed or close enough to have air or parts ionized and poof. We get flames and smoke.
 
The term commonly used to describe why we can not (or should not) try and reduce the available fault current with fuses is dynamic impedance of protective devices. Primarily the dynamic impedance of circuit breakers and when they are trying to open or operate under the high fault condition, the upstream device will actually see less fault current as the breaker contacts open. And then we get into how breakers open and the energy being strong enough to keep the contacts closed or close enough to have air or parts ionized and poof. We get flames and smoke.
Yes this is true for breakers, however there are items that are not breakers and therefore do not have dynamic impedance, like terminal and distribution blocks. These components need to compatible with the Peak and Let-Through currents of protective devices in order to say they are protected to their SCCR, but manufacturers do not normally provide these values.
 
The term commonly used to describe why we can not (or should not) try and reduce the available fault current with fuses is dynamic impedance of protective devices. Primarily the dynamic impedance of circuit breakers and when they are trying to open or operate under the high fault condition, the upstream device will actually see less fault current as the breaker contacts open. And then we get into how breakers open and the energy being strong enough to keep the contacts closed or close enough to have air or parts ionized and poof. We get flames and smoke.
While series rated system, 240.86(B), be used without objection dynamic resistance in field, it there for 240.86(A). It presume manufacturer PE competent, field PE incompetent. But field PE competent verifiable for series rating of panel or equipment including terminal block etc(UL 508A), not modify components, as in method 3 ,#18, the testing done by NRTL for relabeling .
 
While series rated system, 240.86(B), be used without objection dynamic resistance in field, it there for 240.86(A). It presume manufacturer PE competent, field PE incompetent. But field PE competent verifiable for series rating of panel or equipment including terminal block etc(UL 508A), not modify components, as in method 3 ,#18, the testing done by NRTL for relabeling .
The NEC is not passing judgment on any group of engineer's competence.
The breaker factory engineer uses fuse manufacturer data to anticipate the performance of selected components. The performance is then verified by actual third party testing.
In the field, a licensed Professional Engineer needs to have complete confidence that the subject breaker will remain closed during the time it takes an upstream protective device to operate.
Non breaker items, such as control panels and equipment, are not covered under any part of 240.86.

Relatively few people with the work title engineer meet the requirements of 240.86(A), but I do happen to be one of them.
 
This bring again this:
110.09 is about OCPD and thus leads to 240.86.
110.10 is about all other equipment including conductors. HVAC equipment, appliances, and industrial control panels are some examples.
 
Last edited:
Why current limiting type fuses in a safety switch not satisfy the low 5kaic say in a safety switch to protect the low devices in equipment. Or gfci use it and go on.
 
Some methods by Eaton in article EQUIPMENT
SCCR
AND
AVAILABLE
FAULT CURRENT
EQUIPMENT
SCCR
AND
AVAILABLE
FAULT CURRENT
HOW TO SATISFY YOUR CUSTOMER NEEDS

What if the SCCR is not adequate?
Responsibility for SCCR can be a challenge for all
parties involved. Ideally, the electrical design engi-
neer will determine the anticipated available fault
current and communicate this requirement to all oth-
er parties and the equipment manufacturers. During
the equipment approval stage, the design engineer
responsible for the specific equipment will verify
that adequate equipment SCCR has been provided
prior to releasing the equipment for production.
However, some equipment manufacturers design to
the minimum 5 kA and do not offer a design with
a higher SCCR. This leads to situations where the
SCCR of the equipment is inadequate, such as in
where the HVAC equipment marked with
a 5 kA SCCR was installed in a location with 13.7 kA
available fault current.
If a situation like this occurs, there are a few options
to bring the equipment into compliance with the
NEC, subject to approval by the AHJ:
1) Install an isolation transformer ahead of the
equipment that reduces the fault current (such as a
480-480 V transformer with a kVA adequate for the
load). The resulting available fault current can be de-
termined via Eaton’s Bussmann series FC2
mobile app
(which also produces labels and documentation).
2) Install additional conductor length to reduce
fault current. The additional conductor length can be
added in Eaton’s Bussmann series FC2
mobile app to
determine the fault current.
3) Modify the equipment as needed and recer-
tify the equipment through field evaluation so the
resulting equipment SCCR (relabeled) is adequate
for the fault current. The equipment manufacturer
is not permitted to make any changes to the equip-
ment after it leaves their manufacturing facility
and retain the original listing. The modification
can be done by a qualified person, however rela-
beling must be provided by a third party Nation-
ally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The NRTL will not provide guidance on how to
modify the equipment; they only evaluate the
equipment as installed. A list of current NRTLs
can be found on the OSHA website.
4) Install a current-limiting overcurrent device,
such as a Class RK1 or J fuse, that reduces the
calculated available fault current to a value equal
to or less than the equipment SCCR. When using
the specific manufacturer let-through data, it is
suggested to mark the specific fuse required on
the equipment. For instance, “Replace with only
Eaton Bussmann series LPJ 60 A fuses.” This
method is only suitable for protecting “passive”
components in the equipment. It is NOT suitable
for non-passive devices such as circuit breakers
and fuses. Circuit breakers or fuses must have an
interrupting rating adequate for the calculated
available fault current. This limitation is based
on NEC 240.86(A), which indicates that using an
engineered series combination rating is only per-
mitted for existing systems, and is not permitted
where the circuit breakers are non-passive. Circuit
breaker manufacturers state that all modern circuit
breaker designs are non-passive, so an engineered
method is generally not permitted.
I have been asked by USACE a tough agency and the Center of expertise inn birhinia to protect the HVAC units with breaker per nameplate and use a fused disc switch with a high current limiter type fuse. I feel this is correct posted above
 
I have been asked by USACE a tough agency and the Center of expertise inn birhinia to protect the HVAC units with breaker per nameplate and use a fused disc switch with a high current limiter type fuse. I feel this is correct posted above
Nope. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way no matter how many times people keep repeating the same misinterpretation.

Fuses CAN be used to attain a higher SCCR in a SERIES RATING for a TESTED and LISTED assembly. The details in that statement cannot be ignored. That means it is NOT something that can be done in the field by an electrician. You cannot infer anything other than this.
 
I have been asked by USACE a tough agency and the Center of expertise inn birhinia to protect the HVAC units with breaker per nameplate and use a fused disc switch with a high current limiter type fuse. I feel this is correct posted above
USACE is AHJ.
But they' may requirement certification PE for approval 240.86(A)
 
Why current limiting type fuses in a safety switch not satisfy the low 5kaic say in a safety switch to protect the low devices in equipment. Or gfci use it and go on.
The NEC does not have any provisions to allow fuses to protect devices in equipment unless it is some type of listed combination.
Fuse-breaker combinations must be witness tested. Listed equipment like HVAC and control panels need to be used as per their listing. All Listed molded case breakers are built to open at some fault level so they cannot be field rated by a PE.

GFCI offer zero protection against high fault currents. Anyone that mentioned this as an option, does not understand the issue with AIC and SCCR.

Your only choice is to add impedance in front of your equipment in order to lower the fault current.
 
It no a downstream mccb not operate in series rating, it allowed operation with no catastrophic failure, with reduce Ipeak and reduced I^2t permit by upstream current limiting device
A PE can design like, 240.86(A) intent
 
It no a downstream mccb not operate in series rating, it allowed operation with no catastrophic failure, with reduce Ipeak and reduced I^2t permit by upstream current limiting device
I am not sure what you are trying to say.

But, UL standards require molded case circuit breakers to have some self protection point where they will open. No breaker manufacturer publishes their Ipeak and I2T values for their general molded case breakers, so there is no way to field compare fuse protection of breakers.

Molded case breakers are probably more than 95% of the breakers applied per the NEC and are the most likely to be misapplied based on available fault current.
 
I am not sure what you are trying to say.

But, UL standards require molded case circuit breakers to have some self protection point where they will open. No breaker manufacturer publishes their Ipeak and I2T values for their general molded case breakers, so there is no way to field compare fuse protection of breakers.

Molded case breakers are probably more than 95% of the breakers applied per the NEC and are the most likely to be misapplied based on available fault current.
I try say 240.86 (A) there not without reason (s)
The PE overcome lack published data using performance-based calculation and conservative assumptions based the breaker's marked rating (AIC)
& accurate published current-limiting data of upstream fuse
 
I try say 240.86 (A) there not without reason (s)
The PE overcome lack published data using performance-based calculation and conservative assumptions based the breaker's marked rating (AIC)
& accurate published current-limiting data of upstream fuse
Can you show me a stamped drawing where a PE put his license at risk by doing that. I am not aware of any PE that would provide that calculation on a document stamped with his or her seal.
 
I try say 240.86 (A) there not without reason (s)
The PE overcome lack published data using performance-based calculation and conservative assumptions based the breaker's marked rating (AIC)
& accurate published current-limiting data of upstream fuse
The engineering option exists for non-molded case circuit breaker like those found in switchgear where the minimum size of the breaker is an 800A frame. For the most part breaker construction and technology has made this option unavailable for equipment built since the 1980's. Breaker manufacturers do not routinely provide the technical information required to make a field engineering evaluation.
 
Can you show me a stamped drawing where a PE put his license at risk by doing that. I am not aware of any PE that would provide that calculation on a document stamped with his or her seal.
You say no PE performed field series rating
or
Will ever perform field series rating as per 240.86(A)?
 
Top