Operator safety Motor Control Center solutions review

[Laurent]

[caption id="attachment_4672" align="alignright" width="208" caption="MCC Drawer operation"][/caption]

This article is related to our collaborative Newsletter, special edition which has been dedicated to a review of new Motor Control Center drawer solutions to improve the safety of operators (closed door operation, internal arc resistant … ).

If you didn’t read this newsletter yet, click here to view it, then come back here to answer the related questions below.

Thank you to contribute to the validation, completion and enrichment of this review, by answering the following questions:
 (add your answers below as a comment to this topic)

• Do you agree with us that this solution is a real improvement for operator safety?
  Or do you know other solutions which are more relevant/efficient to improve operator safety?

• Do you see other advantages of such solutions (reduced down-time? reduced insurance cost? …)?
  And what are the drawbacks? Why isn’t it more frequently used today?

  [caption id="attachment_4670" align="alignright" width="240" caption="Closed door operation - changing drawer position"][/caption]

• Are the comparison criteria clear enough? comprehensive?
  Do you know other manufacturers or products?
  In which countries?

• Do you use these solutions in your country? In which applications?

 
 Thanks again for your contribution !

[Anonymous]

I believe that this is a very worth while development. We see the issue of protecting the operator against arc flash becoming much more relevant these days with requirements for remote operation and racking of all functional units being requested by customers. We our selves are working on the development of a withdrawable solution for our AMS switch gear range ans this is one of the concepts that we will be including in the design.

[Anonymous]

Good day, I am having problems to reply back to you on the blog, concerning your Questions.

I have installed in the last year 2 sets of Oken panels, one for a 90t/h cement mill and the other for a kiln bypass.

Two different aspects of which one was assembled in SA and the other in Europa.

1) European panel much higher workmanship.

2) The clips for opening the drawer front covers are of inferior quality.

3) Panels are expensive as they come from France.

4) Resetting of thermal protection is difficult.

5) Safety is high on these panels and they are well secured.

Kind regards

[Anonymous]

I am agree with U S that this solution is a real improvement for operator safety

[Anonymous]

I believe this is a good improvement, however, personal protective equipment should not be neglegted when disengaging these panels.Never assume electricity not alive, even if made safe.

[Anonymous]

Generally safety of operator depends on:
1. Eliminating the Risk by design which the subject of discussion.
2. By procedure i.e. work permit and Risk assessment prior to start the Task ie.propablity and consequences. This depends on the industry and location, i.e. Oil and Gas, indoor or outdoor etc.
3. operator well trained .
In oil and Gas all these solution are required and respected, in addition to that isolation and mechanical interlock is required and has to be well engineered.

[Laurent]

@ Jerome McEvoy
Remote operation: In which applications do you have these requirements? When you say for all functional units, do you mean for incomers and all feeders? How often do you get these requirements?

[Laurent]

@ Laribee Adams

When you say that the safety is high on these panels, which safety functions does it provide:
* internal arc resistant?
* closed door operation?
* IP is maintained when the drawer is removed?

What do you expect in term of safety in your cement applications?

[Laurent]

@ Raouf Kahla

Regarding the elimination of the risk by design, can you give us more details about the requirements in the Oil&Gas application ?

And what do you mean when you say “isolation and mechanical interlock is required and has to be well engineered” ?

[Anonymous]

We see the requirement for remote operation and racking of incomer and feeder ACBs and MCCBs mainly form Anerican owned companies with plants in Europe. These requirements generally apply to main LV distribution boards where the fault level can be quite high (80 to 100kA). Within the last two years we are finding that customers are writing this into their specifications.

[Laurent]

@ Jerome McEvoy

Interesting to see this trend to require remote racking for main LV switchboards!

And you mean that remote racking is required not only for ACBs, but also for MCCBs? Down to which minimum rating, I wonder? And for what type of applications?

What about the MCC switchboards? Any similar evolutions you see in specifications?

[Anonymous]

I love your blog. Bcoz lots of useful information about Operator safety. I’ve added it to my favorite bookmarks and subscribed in a reader.

[Anonymous]

Interesting about the topic,

3 point , technical aspect and ecnomic and safety awarenes

my share information are ;

all swithcboard must be fully type tested !

1, technical aspec yes absolutely agree it is big improvement to reduce such as ;shutdown time , safety , and predictive maintenace and trouble shuting ( Smart mcc fully witdrwable )
2, Eceonmic aspec some brand yes really expensive since orginaly assemblied in Europe , but some brand which has been assembleid in local through franchise system more cheap or economist with good quality
3, some development country no body aware Safety is high on these panels and they are well secured , and last but not least related inurence company coverage , some of them dont care international standart required for LV switchgear

[Anonymous]

I must agree with Johan here. Safety should be an equal concern in this scenario. Never undervalue it!

[Anonymous]

I believe this is a excellent enhancement, however, individual safety gear should not be neglegted when disengaging these sections.Never believe power not in existence, even if created secure.

[Author]

Posts