Fuse Calculation

ETAP Implementation of Mersen’s Medium Voltage
Controllable Fuse to Mitigate Arc Flash Incident Energy

ETAP
17 Goodyear, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
White Paper No.001.14 - 2016
Albert Marroquin, PE Mandar Manjarekar

Member IEEE Member IEEE
Principal Electrical Engineer Senior Power Engineer
Dynamics and Arc Flash Division Manager Control System Department Manager
Abstract: This white paper provides a 1.1 Method 1: As an external relay interlocked
comprehensive discussion of the modeling of to operate contactors.
Mersen’s medium voltage controllable fuses 1.2 Method 2: As a medium voltage current
(MVCF) in ETAP. Two simulation techniques limiting fuse.
and their incident energy mitigation benefits are
presented. Some important considerations in
system configuration, protective device co- Either method can be used to simulate normal
ordination, and application are also included. and maintenance mode of operation. Their
advantages/disadvantages are discussed in the
conclusion section later in this paper.
Key Words: Medium Voltage Controllable
Fuse, Mitigation techniques, ETAP, Fuse 2 PRIMARY FUSE PROTECTION ISSUES
protection, MVCF, In this example, before presenting the
implementation of the MVCF device in ETAP, a
few application concepts need to be discussed
1 INTRODUCTION first.
The use of electrical fuses has been used in the
industry to protect electrical system, people and
equipment for over 150 years. Medium voltage
fuses used for transformer primary protection
have successfully fulfilled system protection
concerns by isolating fault current from the
equipment. Arc faults on the transformer or
equipment supplied by the transformer may yield
low current magnitudes (in particular with respect
to the primary side of the transformer). Such low
currents often cause long fuse clearing times.
Some of these clearing times may exceed 2
seconds. The end result of such long clearing
times is a high incident energy value (typically
over 40 cal/cm²). Medium voltage controllable
fuses can overcome some of these problems
since they can be configured to maintain
coordination and still operate in a relatively low
clearing time when compared to conventional E-
type fuses. The typical application of a MVCF
device is to install a secondary current relay
which controls the operation of controllable fuse
actuator module which bypasses the current into
a high speed current limiting fuse. There are two
methods which may be used to model MVCF
devices in ETAP.
Figure 1: Switchgear with no MVCF.
The system described in Figure 1 shows a 480V

switchgear where an incident energy calculation
performed showed incident energy exceeding 40
1
cal/cm². The primary transformer protection is an
E-rated fuse selected based on the transformer
protection criteria.
Figure 2 shows the time current characteristic

curve for the system of figure 1. It can be easily
noted that for an arc fault anywhere in the
secondary of the transformer and/or main
protective device (optional in some designs) that
the clearing time of the fuse will be in the
seconds range. This is caused by the very
inverse characteristic of the primary side fuse.
Figure 3: MVCF Diagram
The E-rated fuse is present and will protect the

transformer against overload conditions and
primary faults, but the MVCF device will operate
much faster under short-circuit or arc fault
conditions. Figure 5 showed the normal mode of
operation which significantly reduces the incident
energy level at the line side of the main
switchgear breaker from 40+ to approximately 14
2
cal/cm .
Figure 2 Time Current Curve for LV System
3 MVCF MODELLING TECHNIQUES
3.1 MVCF ETAP Implementation-Method I

The basic goal of the MVCF device is to mitigate
incident energy and reduce equipment damage.
Figure 3 shows the actual implementation and
components needed to implement the MVCF.
Figure 4 shows how these components would be Figure 4: Method I-Modelling MVCF as an external
modeled in ETAP by using a current transformer, relay in ETAP
overcurrent relay with multiple OC levels and a
normally closed bypass switch. In figure 5, it can
be observed that the 50P OC relay level is set to
operate the bypass at the required time delay (for
coordination with downstream devices). A 51P
OC level is used to simulate the CLF fuse total
clearing time.
2
3.2 MVCF ETAP Implementation-Method II
In this approach, (Figure 7), the MVCF is

modelled as an actual fuse and it is coordinated
to isolate secondary side faults while continuing
to provide coordination with downstream
elements. It is modelled in such a manner that it
will block any current below 100A and anything
above 1000A will be cleared by the main fuse.
Figure 5: Time Current Curves of Controlled Fuse with

200 ms delay.
If further incident energy mitigation is required, a

maintenance mode may also be implemented using the
MVCF device. The maintenance mode can be modeled
in ETAP by adjusting the instantaneous and
overcurrent levels down to very low pickup values
which are enabled only during energized work. Figure 7: MVCF Implementation with Fuse Curves
The resultant incident energy is much lower Figure 8 shows how the MVCF device is modeled
2
(approximately 3 to 4 cal/cm ). Of course, just like as a TCC fuse curve. There are no calculation
with any maintenance mode incident energy differences expected from ETAP arc flash when
mitigation technique, coordination is modeling the device using method I or II.
compromised during the time energized work is
taking place. Figure 6 shows the TCC of the The total clearing time of the fuse (upper fuse
same system with the maintenance mode curve edge) is used by ETAP to calculate the
enabled. total incident energy. The energy released at the
line side of the main secondary protective device
2
is still expected to be approximately 14 cal/cm
since both methods are equivalent.
Figure 6: Method I :MVCF with Maintenance Mode
3
Figure 8: Method II- MVCF Fuse TCC methods. Both methods yields the same results
but have slightly different application advantages
Similar to method I, to implement maintenance in ETAP.
mode, a second fuse curve can be activated by
means of the ETAP revision tool. The revision Method I advantages are:
tool allows the selection of an infinite number of
TCC curves for the same device. Figure 9 shows ETAP Sequence of Operation (both for short-
the MVCF curve activated in an ETAP revision. circuit and arc flash simulations) can graphically
This is a nice feature which allows the simulation simulate the operation of the bypass switch and
of this device without having to insert a third fuse fuse. This provides rich graphical instructional
into the diagram. simulation of the actual MVCF operation.
Another advantage is that no multiple sizes or

elements need to be entered. Relays in ETAP
can easily be adjusted to different delays and
pickup values. Both normal and maintenance
modes can be simulated with the same device.
Only disadvantage may be the more complex

modeling requirements of an adjustable relay
with multiple OC levels (50/51 OC levels).
Method II advantages are:
Simpler to model. Data entry of points to

represent the MVCF is far simpler than that of
modeling the relay.
Disadvantages are that for each adjustment, a

new fuse size needs to be created in the library.
Figure 9: Method II :MVCF Maintenance Mode – Fuse The same is true for normal and maintenance
TCC Implementation modes. At least two different fuse curves are
In both methods, switching to maintenance mode needed in the library to model both modes. For
removes the additional coordination time delay different sizes and continuous current ratings, the
but effectively reduces the incident energy to 3 to number of elements in the library may be
2
4 cal/cm . significant.
4 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
6 REFERENCES
Several arc flash simulations were used to The following documents were consulted during
evaluate the performance of the MVCF. This the creation of this white paper:
section presents a quick comparison of the
incident energy mitigation benefits when applying
the MVCF under two configurations (normal and [1] IEEE Standard 242, “IEEE Buff Book, IEEE-
with maintenance mode enabled). Note no 1986”
difference is expected in the results of table 1
when implementing the MVCF device in ETAP [2] Mohla, D.C; Driscoll, T.; Hamer, P.S----
using either method I or II. “Mitigating electric shock and arc flash energy —
a total system approach for personnel and
Table 1: Comparison of Incident Energy Results equipment protection”.
Equipment Configuration I.E. (cal/cm²)
E-RATED FUSE (No MVCF) ~40 +
[3] Mersen Tech topic Arc Flash Note 7 issue 1---
- “Using a Medium Voltage Controllable Fuse to
MVCF – NORMAL (Method I or II) ~14 mitigate arc flash energies on low voltage switch
MVCF – MAINT. (Method I or II) 1~2 gear”
[4] IEEE Standard C37.46, “Standard for

5 CONCLUSION High-Voltage expulsion and Current-Limiting
Type Power Class Fuses.
Mersen’s medium voltage controllable fuse can
be effectively simulated in ETAP using two
4
7 Authors
Albert Marroquin: Arc Flash product manager at
ETAP. IEEE 1584 member and NFPA 70E
Electrical Branch Member. Over 15 years’
experience in arc flash analysis and simulation
software design.
Mandar Manjarekar: IEEE member and Senior

Power Engineer at ETAP.
8 Appendix A- ETAP Model Setup

Sample MVCF implementation model and library
files used are attached with this paper.
http://etap.com/quality-
assurance/documentation/MVCFMersen.zip

Fuse Calculation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuse Calculation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuse Calculation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETAP Implementation of Mersen’s Medium Voltage

Controllable Fuse to Mitigate Arc Flash Incident Energy

White Paper No.001.14 - 2016

Albert Marroquin, PE Mandar Manjarekar

The system described in Figure 1 shows a 480V

Figure 2 shows the time current characteristic

Figure 3: MVCF Diagram

The E-rated fuse is present and will protect the

Figure 2 Time Current Curve for LV System

3 MVCF MODELLING TECHNIQUES

3.1 MVCF ETAP Implementation-Method I

In this approach, (Figure 7), the MVCF is

Figure 5: Time Current Curves of Controlled Fuse with

If further incident energy mitigation is required, a

Figure 6: Method I :MVCF with Maintenance Mode

Another advantage is that no multiple sizes or

Only disadvantage may be the more complex

Method II advantages are:

Simpler to model. Data entry of points to

Disadvantages are that for each adjustment, a

[4] IEEE Standard C37.46, “Standard for

Mandar Manjarekar: IEEE member and Senior

8 Appendix A- ETAP Model Setup

You might also like