Arc Flash FilesReview · af-study
AI Arc Flash Study Review
A structured second look at your incident-energy study before it becomes a label.
Checks your arc flash study’s model, edition, inputs, and result plausibility against an owner-authored IEEE 1584 checklist. Flags what a reviewer would ask about before signing off — not a recalculation.
What this product is for
An arc flash study is one of the few electrical deliverables whose output goes straight onto a sticker that a person reads before putting their hands inside energized equipment. By the time an incident energy number reaches a label, nobody re-derives it — so the review has to happen while the study is still a document. This product is that review: a structured second pass over the study you already have, before you accept it from a consultant, hand it to a labeling vendor, or seal it yourself. It reads the study the way a reviewing engineer does, working from the numbers actually printed in it, and asks the questions that decide whether the result can be relied on — which edition and model were used, whether the equipment is even inside the model’s applicability range, whether the electrode configuration and gap match the equipment, where the clearing times came from, and whether the reduced-arcing-current sensitivity case was run at all. It does not recalculate anything, and it never tells you a study is correct.
What the 54-point checklist covers
54 discrete checks across 12 areas. Applies to: Incident energy study output, arc flash study reports, study input tables.
- Model and IEEE 1584 edition
- Applicability limits
- Electrode configuration
- Enclosure geometry
- Arcing current and the sensitivity case
- Protective device clearing time
- Source data and short-circuit inputs
- Result plausibility
- Documentation and traceability
- System configuration state
- Study scope and coverage
- Device ratings
Grounded in an owner-authored review checklist. Every finding includes its source page and, where a code citation applies, the section it is based on — never from memory.
What this explicitly does not do
- Recalculating incident energy
- Producing corrected values
- Determining PPE for a specific task
- Approving a study for use
These are structural limits on the product, not a description of effort. Absence of a finding is never evidence of compliance.
A finding in this product's format
Arcing-current sensitivity case not evidenced
The study reports a single incident energy value per bus with no accompanying reduced-arcing-current case. Where the reduced case produces a longer clearing time on the upstream device, incident energy can exceed the reported value. The submitted document contains no result set, narrative, or appendix demonstrating that this case was evaluated. Confirm with the study author whether it was run and, if so, which result governs the labels issued from this study.
Illustrative and redacted. Not real customer data. See full sample reports →
Turnaround
- Automated release: Typically 1 business day, plus review time.
What you'll upload
- Arc flash study (PDF) (required)
Incident-energy study output — one-line plus the incident energy / PPE table.
- Local code amendments (optional PDF) (optional)
Your AHJ's amendments only — not the full code edition. Without them, findings are checked against the general requirements of the edition you selected.
If this document needs more than a preliminary screening, the same firm offers a stamped engineering review by a licensed P.E.(opens in a new tab, external site) directly. That work is engaged separately from this Service — buying a review here does not create that engagement.
AI Arc Flash Study Review — common questions
- Does this recalculate my incident energy?
- No. This review reads the study you upload and checks its model, inputs, assumptions, and internal consistency against a 54-point checklist. It never produces its own incident energy value, corrected number, or PPE category. If a finding suggests a value may be wrong, it tells you what to go verify and why — the recalculation, if one is needed, is the Engineer of Record’s.
- Who wrote the checklist this runs against?
- Jay R. Prigmore II, Ph.D., P.E. — a Ph.D. electrical power engineer, a voting member of the IEEE 1584 working group that writes the arc flash calculation standard itself, and a founding member of the NFPA technical committee on electrical inspection practices. The checklist is original prose describing what to look for; no IEEE, NFPA, or NEC text is reproduced in it or bundled into this platform.
- Is the review itself performed by an engineer?
- No, and it is important to be exact about this. The automated lane is performed by a four-pass software pipeline running the checklist a licensed P.E. wrote. Findings then pass through a human queue where each one is approved, edited, or removed before release. The engineering judgment in the review is the checklist author’s; the reading of your specific document is the software’s.
- Does it work with SKM, ETAP, or EasyPower output?
- Yes. Intake asks which software produced the study, but the review reads the PDF you upload rather than a native project file, so any study exported to PDF works. Submit the incident-energy study output — the one-line plus the incident energy and PPE table — not a project archive.
- Can I use this report to satisfy an AHJ or to seal a study?
- No. This is an automated preliminary screening. It is not a stamped or sealed engineering deliverable, not a professional engineering opinion, and not a code-compliance determination by any Authority Having Jurisdiction. Absence of a finding does not mean the study is compliant. Every finding must be independently verified by the Engineer of Record before it is relied on.
- What happens to my study after the review?
- Your uploaded files are scanned for malware before anything reads them, and are deleted automatically 30 days after the job completes — or sooner, on request, from your portal.