// Electrical testing companies · Arc flash field data
Arc flash field data sheets, read into device tables for the engineer running the study.
Your technicians walked the building and filled in the sheets. Somebody now has to turn them into tables a study engineer can trust, and catch where the one-line says something different. A free AI proof of concept has AI read copies of 20 to 30 sheet sets from studies you finished and mark every blank and every conflict for the engineer. Your reviewer, the person who knows this data best, compares each draft with the input data the study used.
- Field sheet sets
- 20 to 30
- Incident energy calculated
- None
- Device settings changed
- None
// The one job
From technicians' sheets to tables an engineer can resolve
A study starts with a walk through the electrical rooms. Technicians copy nameplates, trip unit dials and conductor runs onto sheets, sometimes with a photo, and someone back at the office types it all in. That person also has to notice that the switchboard on the sheet has another name on the one-line, or that a feeder's length never got written down.
In the test, AI reads copies of those sheets and drafts structured device tables: equipment names, conductors and lengths as written, protective device settings as recorded, and a list of every field left blank or in conflict with the one-line. Each entry points back to its sheet. The engineer running the study resolves the list.
conflicts left open
// What makes it hard
A study wants more fields than a walk can always fill
The input list is long and specific. Western Michigan University's arc flash study section shows what a study takes in. For breakers and fuses: maker and model, type of trip, range of settings, short circuit rating, current rating and the settings themselves. For overcurrent relays: ampere tap, time delay and instantaneous ranges and the current transformer ratio. For low-voltage cable: size, length, number, conductor material and whether the conduit is magnetic. Busway adds impedance and length, and motors add horsepower and the NEMA code letter. The draft keeps one column per field, so an empty one shows instead of quietly going missing.
Names are the first thing to drift. The same section wants equipment tags consistent across the diagrams, protective device submittals, input data and recommended settings, data sheets cross-referenced to the diagram's tag numbers, and any gap in the one-line called to the architect's attention. In practice a technician writes what's on the door and the drawing says something else. The draft keeps both names side by side, never merges them, and lists the pair as a conflict.
Some fields can't be had on a walk. IAEI Magazine's 2021 look at commercial building studies describes a transformer nameplate with its percent impedance left empty, data that takes a shutdown to read, and cables too impractical to trace end to end, which some practices handle by assuming a length or counting floors. At a 2024 IEEE chapter meeting, one engineering group said field collection needs site personnel and covers removed, and listed what it falls back on when cable data is missing, including 19 feet for low voltage and 49 feet for medium voltage. Any assumption is the engineer's to make, so the draft shows only what the sheet says, and a blank stays blank.
IEEE 1584 asks for things older sheets never carried. Consulting-Specifying Engineer's account of the 2018 edition of IEEE 1584, the Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, notes it moved from two electrode configurations to five and that enclosure types and sizes will need identifying. An IEEE chapter talk adds that conductor gap usually isn't in submittals and can be dangerous to measure, and that an enclosure counts as shallow under 20 inches high and wide and 8 inches deep, below 600 volts. IEEE 1584.2-2025 now gives checklists for this data on systems of 1000 volts and below. The draft reports what the sheet shows. Choosing a configuration, a gap or a box belongs to the study engineer.
Buyers ask for the data itself. Onondaga County, New York, in its requirements for new installations, lists field data schedules, an input data report and field photos among the deliverables, with a registered engineer running the study to IEEE 1584 formulas. In a 2025 addendum, Jurupa Community Services District in California counted 402 panels and assets, called its data collection and verification task mandatory and told bidders to identify their assumptions. Your reviewer will check that each entry landed on the right device and tag, that blanks are real, and that every one-line conflict surfaced. We're summarizing public documents here, and this isn't legal or engineering advice.
// What you send
Finished sheet sets and what the study used
20 to 30 finished sheet sets
Field sheets for a building, a unit substation or a section of a plant, as your technicians filled them in, with photos where you kept them. Include a set with gaps and one that needed a return trip.
The input data the study used
The final device tables or input data report for those studies, exported or printed, so your reviewer has an answer to compare against. The study model itself never comes to us.
The one-lines
The one-line diagram each set was read against, marked up if that's how your team works.
Your blank sheet, after the NDA
Your blank field sheet and any owner's data list, once the NDA is signed. Customer and site names can be masked, and files that can't leave become look-alikes built with your reviewer. Defense and aerospace sites stay out.
// Before it starts
Settled before any sheet moves
The owner puts these in writing, since an engineer's study will rest on this data.
- Your reviewer
- Named by the owner, usually the engineer who runs your studies
- Who resolves conflicts
- That engineer, in the test and in the live month
- Success criteria
- In writing: fields read, tags matched, blanks and conflicts caught
- Sample
- Picked by your reviewer across sites and equipment types
- Price
- A range for the live job, known before day one
- NDA
- Signed before any drawing or sheet is copied
// Judged by your engineer
Your input data, next to each draft
| On the same 20 to 30 sheet sets | Input data the study used | The AI draft |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment names, matched to one-line tags | Filled in from your studies | Filled in from your studies |
| Conductor size, number and length as written | Filled in from your studies | Filled in from your studies |
| Protective device maker, model and rating | Filled in from your studies | Filled in from your studies |
| Settings as recorded on the sheet | Filled in from your studies | Filled in from your studies |
| Blank fields, listed rather than filled | Filled in from your studies | Filled in from your studies |
| Conflicts with the one-line, named | Filled in from your studies | Filled in from your studies |
// After a yes
About 30 days on surveys in progress
After your reviewer's yes, sheets coming in from new surveys get the same reading for about 30 days, close enough to the walk that a technician can still go back.
The engineer running the study reviews each table before anything is keyed into a model, and resolves every open item.
A fixed price for those sheets comes before you sign. Anything further is its own job at its own price, with monthly support after.
// What could follow
Where the field data could lead
- 01Next
Acceptance test report packages
Field test sheets assembled into a package for your qualified person to review and sign.
- 02Then
Label schedule checks
Issued arc flash labels compared with the study's table by equipment name, for your engineer to review.
- 03After that
Site data refresh lists
A past study's device tables set beside a new walk, with what changed listed for the engineer.
// One hard limit
The study stays with the engineer.
Nothing in the proof of concept opens a panel, touches test equipment, or gets near a study model, a live report or a live site. It never calculates incident energy, never picks a configuration or gap, never sets a protective device, never judges a result and never signs a report. It reads copies and marks what's blank or in conflict. Every technical judgment stays with a qualified person, who also signs every report.
Priced per job. You get a range before the proof of concept and a fixed price before you sign.
Rob gives a range on the call, based on how many studies you collect for in a year and how many devices a typical set holds.
// Questions
Questions about the field sheets
Will the AI calculate incident energy or fill in the model?
What if a length or an impedance was never written down?
Do you choose the electrode configuration or conductor gap?
We collect data on a tablet rather than paper. Does that change anything?
What does the one-line comparison actually do?
Does this make our study compliant with NFPA 70E?

Rob Eason, founder
// Book a proof of concept call
Start with a survey that needed a second trip.
Thirty minutes with Rob on your firm, your role and roughly how many studies you collect data for each year. Drawings and sheets stay with you until the NDA is signed.
- Co-owned a 60-employee financial services firm and sold his share to his partner.
- Ran GOSO Technologies, a Boston solar company rated 5/5 across 24 Google reviews.
- 5/5 across 83 reviews in HighLevel's Certified Admin Directory.
- 4.3/5 from 6 Google reviews of Massmarket AI.
- Every directory and Google review, critical ones included, is shown word for word at massmarket.ai/reviews.
- Takes every proof-of-concept call himself.
