{"title":"IEEE 1349 Guide for the application of motors in hazardous (classified) locations; What'S new","authors":"L. Padden, B. Lockley, B. Mistry, B. Wood","doi":"10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549682","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents an overview of IEEE 1349-2011 [1], a Guide that assists individuals, organizations, and suppliers with the application of motors in Class I, Division 2 and Class I, Zone 2 locations, where flammable gases and vapors may occasionally be present. AC synchronous and induction motors in ratings 0.18 kW (1/4 hp) and larger are covered. Primary emphasis is on the use of open or nonexplosionproof or nonflameproof enclosed motors in Class I, Division 2 and Class I, Zone 2 locations as covered in NFPA 70-2011. Precautions against excessive surface temperatures and sparking are included. To mitigate hot surface temperatures and sparking, this document provides guidance for selecting, operating, and maintaining motors. IEEE 1349-2001 [2] included Class I, Division 2 applications; and IEEE 1349-2011 was expanded to cover Class I, Zone 2 applications. The new release updates guidance, adds new motor temperature test data submitted by manufacturers and users, expands Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) application information including a Common ASD section and common-mode voltage calculation method, details additional test methods for determining motor rotor temperature (non-destructive), and includes documented events since 2001. Manufacturers, users, and other industry experts worked about 6 years to update this consensus standard. This paper does not replace the Guide, but should be used to supplement and understand the Guide providing examples and highlighting new information.","PeriodicalId":133636,"journal":{"name":"2012 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference (PCIC)","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115671758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Root-cause analysis of simultaneous faults on an offshore FPSO vessel","authors":"D. Haas, F. D. Painter, M. Wilkinson","doi":"10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549654","url":null,"abstract":"The paper “Simultaneous Faults on the 11 kV System of an Offshore FPSO Vessel” by Derrick Haas, Frederick D. Painter II, and Malcolm Wilkinson provides a case study of simultaneous faults that occurred December 5, 2009, on the 11 kV power system of a floating production, storage, and offloading vessel located in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The event resulted in severe damage to a 12,000-horsepower compressor motor, damage to the transformer feeding an adjustable speed drive, and interruption of many loads on the ship. This paper shares analysis of the event, including initial responses and findings of the offshore technicians, event reports from two microprocessor-based protective relays, subsequent analytical work, and forensic work performed on the failed equipment. This paper includes additional analysis and forensic work that were not available at the time the previous paper on this event was published. Modeling of simultaneous faults, zero-sequence sources, and a fault at the neutral point of an ungrounded-wye induction machine are also discussed. The paper shares the lessons learned as a result of the event, including proposed improvements to the protection system. The importance of root-cause analysis in identifying problems before they result in significant damage is also discussed.","PeriodicalId":133636,"journal":{"name":"2012 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference (PCIC)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130223665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Induction Vs. permanent magnet motors for electric submersible pumps field and laboratory comparisons","authors":"T. Brinner, R. McCoy, T. Kopecky","doi":"10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/pcicon.2012.6549670","url":null,"abstract":"Most hydrocarbon production using submersible pumps requires the pumping of fluid that is 95% water or higher. Energy used to produce salt water is wasted, and disposal is expensive. Electricity costs are significant and system efficiency is a major concern. In this application induction motors are less efficient than permanent magnet motors. Laboratory tests measured efficiency, power factor, kilowatts, current and speed at various loads and frequencies. Field-tests measured input power and flow, using the same pump for both systems with negligible well drawdown. On average the permanent magnet motor used 20% less power than the induction motor.","PeriodicalId":133636,"journal":{"name":"2012 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference (PCIC)","volume":"13 31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126113490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}