Arc-flash analysis of utility power systems

The electric utility business is an inherently dangerous area to work in with employees exposed to many potential hazards daily. One such hazard is an arc flash. An arc flash is a rapid release of energy, referred to as incident energy, caused by an electric arc. Due to the random nature and occurrence of an arc flash, one can only prepare and minimize the extent of harm to themself, other employees and damage to equipment due to such a violent event. Effective January 1, 2009 the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) requires that an arc-flash assessment be performed by companies whose employees work on or near energized equipment to determine the potential exposure to an electric arc. To comply with the NESC requirement, Minnesota Power’s (MP’s) current short circuit and relay coordination software package, ASPEN OneLinerTM and one of the first software packages to implement an arc-flash module, is used to conduct an arc-flash hazard analysis. At the same time, the package is benchmarked against equations provided in the IEEE Std. 1584-2002 and ultimately used to determine the incident energy levels on the MP transmission system. This report goes into the depth of the history of arc-flash hazards, analysis methods, both software and empirical derived equations, issues of concern with calculation methods and the work conducted at MP. This work also produced two offline software products to conduct and verify an offline arc-flash hazard analysis.

Analysis of in-cylinder pressure transducer data quality utilizing a SIDI turbocharged engine

In-cylinder pressure transducers have been used for decades to record combustion pressure inside a running engine. However, due to the extreme operating environment, transducer design and installation must be considered in order to minimize measurement error. One such error is caused by thermal shock, where the pressure transducer experiences a high heat flux that can distort the pressure transducer diaphragm and also change the crystal sensitivity. This research focused on investigating the effects of thermal shock on in-cylinder pressure transducer data quality using a 2.0L, four-cylinder, spark-ignited, direct-injected, turbo-charged GM engine. Cylinder four was modified with five ports to accommodate pressure transducers of different manufacturers. They included an AVL GH14D, an AVL GH15D, a Kistler 6125C, and a Kistler 6054AR. The GH14D, GH15D, and 6054AR were M5 size transducers. The 6125C was a larger, 6.2mm transducer. Note that both of the AVL pressure transducers utilized a PH03 flame arrestor. Sweeps of ignition timing (spark sweep), engine speed, and engine load were performed to study the effects of thermal shock on each pressure transducer. The project consisted of two distinct phases which included experimental engine testing as well as simulation using a commercially available software package. A comparison was performed to characterize the quality of the data between the actual cylinder pressure and the simulated results. This comparison was valuable because the simulation results did not include thermal shock effects. All three sets of tests showed the peak cylinder pressure was basically unaffected by thermal shock. Comparison of the experimental data with the simulated results showed very good correlation. The spark sweep was performed at 1300 RPM and 3.3 bar NMEP and showed that the differences between the simulated results (no thermal shock) and the experimental data for the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) and the pumping mean effective pressure (PMEP) were significantly less than the published accuracies. All transducers had an IMEP percent difference less than 0.038% and less than 0.32% for PMEP. Kistler and AVL publish that the accuracy of their pressure transducers are within plus or minus 1% for the IMEP (AVL 2011; Kistler 2011). In addition, the difference in average exhaust absolute pressure between the simulated results and experimental data was the greatest for the two Kistler pressure transducers. The location and lack of flame arrestor are believed to be the cause of the increased error. For the engine speed sweep, the torque output was held constant at 203 Nm (150 ft-lbf) from 1500 to 4000 RPM. The difference in IMEP was less than 0.01% and the PMEP was less than 1%, except for the AVL GH14D which was 5% and the AVL GH15DK which was 2.25%. A noticeable error in PMEP appeared as the load increased during the engine speed sweeps, as expected. The load sweep was conducted at 2000 RPM over a range of NMEP from 1.1 to 14 bar. The difference in IMEP values were less 0.08% while the PMEP values were below 1% except for the AVL GH14D which was 1.8% and the AVL GH15DK which was at 1.25%. In-cylinder pressure transducer data quality was effectively analyzed using a combination of experimental data and simulation results. Several criteria can be used to investigate the impact of thermal shock on data quality as well as determine the best location and thermal protection for various transducers.