Experimental Investigation of the Effects of IEC 61439-2 Separation Forms on Production Time and Cost in Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Assemblies

Abstract

Separation forms used in low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies provide mechanical segregation between busbar systems, functional units, and terminal connections, thereby contributing to personnel safety, operational continuity, and ease of maintenance. In this study, the effects of Form 1, Form 2A, Form 2B, Form 3A, Form 3B, Form 4A, and Form 4B separation forms defined in IEC 61439-2 on production time and production cost were experimentally investigated under actual manufacturing conditions. A single prototype assembly based on the same electrical design was used throughout the study. The electrical design, manufacturing environment, and assembly team were kept constant, while environmental conditions were maintained within comparable ranges, and the prototype was sequentially converted into different separation forms. Each manufacturing operation was performed once, and operation times were determined from video recordings. For Form 1, the total production time and total production cost were calculated as 327 min and €2968.51, respectively, whereas these values increased to 973 min and €5210.90 for Form 4B. Accordingly, compared with Form 1, the production time of Form 4B increased by 197.6%, while the total production cost increased by 75.5%. However, although production time generally increased with increasing separation level, production cost did not follow the same trend. The total production cost decreased by 4.9% from Form 2B to Form 3A and by 9.1% from Form 3B to Form 4A. These differences were mainly associated with variations in separation components, busbar quantities, circuit breaker and cable cassettes, and other mechanical components required by each separation form. The results demonstrate that production time and production cost represent distinct parameters that should nevertheless be evaluated jointly when selecting a separation form. The findings also indicate that assuming a fixed increase in production cost solely on the basis of the separation level may lead to inaccurate assessments during manufacturing. Since the contribution of the present findings is limited to the prototype and manufacturing conditions investigated in this study, further studies involving different switchgear configurations and manufacturing practices are required to broaden the empirical evidence available in the literature.

Keywords

• IEC 61439
• LV switchgear assemblies
• Separation forms
• Switchgear manufacturing processes
• Production cost analysis

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was not required because this study did not involve human participants or animals.

Thanks

This article was produced from the master's thesis of Hasan Metin conducted under the supervision of Murat Fidan. The authors would like to thank Prosis Elektrik for providing access to its low-voltage switchgear manufacturing facility and for its support during the experimental study.

References

1. Arias Velasquez, R. M. (2022). Influence of string-box size and the derating factor associated to the DC protection for PV solar panels. Electric Power Systems Research, 209, 107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.107992
2. Będkowski, M., Smołka, J., Banasiak, K., Buliński, Z., Nowak, A. J., Tomanek, T., & Wajda, A. (2014). Coupled numerical modelling of power loss generation in busbar system of low-voltage switchgear. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 82, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2014.04.001
3. Będkowski, M., Smołka, J., Buliński, Z., & Ryfa, A. (2017). Simulation of cooling enhancement in industrial low-voltage switchgear using validated coupled CFD–EMAG model. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 111, 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2016.09.025
4. Berhausen, S., & Burzynski, R. (2025). Controlling the effects of an internal arc fault and benefits of active arc protection in low-voltage switchgear assemblies. IEEE Access, 13, 46887–46896. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3550847
5. Bouman, B., & Muileboom, A. (2009). Essential changes in the product standard for low voltage MCC and switchgear. 2009 Conference Record PCIC Europe (pp. 64–69).
6. Bründl, P., Stoidner, M., Bredthauer, J., Nguyen, H. G., Baechler, A., & Franke, J. (2024b). Unlocking the potential of digitalization and automation: A qualitative and quantitative study of the control cabinet manufacturing industry. Production & Manufacturing Research, 12(1), 2306820. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2024.2306820
7. Bründl, P., Stoidner, M., Nguyen, H. G., Abrass, A., & Franke, J. (2024a). Optimizing intralogistics in an engineer-to-order enterprise with job shop production: A case study of the control cabinet manufacturing. SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, 17(1), 05-17-01-0006. https://doi.org/10.4271/05-17-01-0006
8. Delgado, F., Renedo, C. J., Ortiz, A., Fernández, I., & Santisteban, A. (2017). 3D thermal model and experimental validation of a low voltage three-phase busduct. Applied Thermal Engineering, 110, 1643–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.002

9. Delgado, F., Renedo, C., Ortiz, A., & Fernández, I. (2016). Numerical model of a three-phase busbar trunking system. 2016 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC) (pp. 21–24). https://doi.org/10.1109/EIC.2016.7548584
10. Kądziołka, T., Kryś, M., & Wiertek, A. (2018). Analiza rozkładu strat mocy oraz temperatury w rozdzielnicy niskiego napięcia – Analiza sprzężona EM + CFD w oprogramowaniu ANSYS. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, 94(1), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.15199/48.2018.01.13
11. Ryfa, A., Smołka, J., Buliński, Z., & Będkowski, M. (2018). Experimental determination of the convective heat transfer coefficient for a switchgear busbar system with a use of the data reconciliation method. Applied Thermal Engineering, 136, 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.03.036
12. Schlegel, S., Großmann, S., Löbl, H., Hoidis, M., Kaltenborn, U., & Magier, T. (2010). Joint resistance of bolted copper–copper busbar joints depending on joint force at temperatures beyond 105 °C. 2010 Proceedings of the 56th IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts (pp. 444–451). https://doi.org/10.1109/HOLM.2010.5619459
13. Selvan, M., Aziz, M. S. A., Yu, K. H., Nurulakmal, M. S., Ong, H. P., Khor, C. Y., & Rahiman, W. (2023). A study on the effect of the number of fin valleys on the thermal performance of a bus duct conductor. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications, 84(7), 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2022.2156409
14. Stoidner, M., Bründl, P., Nguyen, H. G., Abrass, A., & Franke, J. (2024). Towards a time data library to enable process optimization in engineer-to-order industries: The case of control and switchgear manufacturing. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(19), 819–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.218
15. Szulborski, M., Łapczyński, S., & Kolimas, Ł. (2021). Thermal analysis of heat distribution in busbars during rated current flow in low-voltage industrial switchgear. Energies, 14(9), 2427. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092427
16. Tannady, H., & Maimury, Y. (2018). Increasing the efficiency and productivity in the production of low voltage switchboard using resource constrained project scheduling. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2228
17. Türk Standardları Enstitüsü. (2021a). Alçak gerilim anahtarlama ve kontrol düzeni panoları – Bölüm 1: Genel kurallar (TS EN IEC 61439-1:2021).
18. Türk Standardları Enstitüsü. (2021b). Alçak gerilim anahtarlama ve kontrol düzeni panoları – Bölüm 2: Güç anahtarlama ve kontrol düzenekleri (TS EN IEC 61439-2:2021).
19. Vijayanarayanan, N. S., Parwal, K., & Kadam, R. (2020). IEC 61439: Alternate design verification methods for LV switchgear. Power Research, 16(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.33686/pwj.v16i1.152771