This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 on Grounding Safety Criteria
C HIEN -H SING LEE *
A. P. SAKIS MELIOPOULOS **
* Department of Electrical Engineering I-Shou University Kahhsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C. ** School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, U.S.A. (Received October 22, 1998; Accepted February 10, 1999) ABSTRACT This paper provides a comparison of the safety criteria of two widely accepted standards, i.e., IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80. The two standards differ in their definition of the permissible body current and their definition of body resistance. Another difference is that the IEC 479-1 does not provide guidance on human feet/soil contact impedances. It tacitly assumes that these impedances can be computed by the designer. This paper includes a comprehensive study of permissible touch and step voltages under these two standards for a wide range of conditions which enables direct comparison of the two standards. It is shown that differences exist. These differences are quantified in this paper. Key Words: permissible body current, body resistance, permissible touch and step voltages, contact resistance
Since the early days of the electric power industry, safety of personnel in and around electric power installations has been a prime concern. A mechanism by which safety of personnel is affected is the ground potential rise of grounded structures during electric power faults and the possibility of humans touching grounded structures and, therefore, subjecting themselves to voltages. A 50 or 60 Hz electric current conducted through a human body as a result of an accidental conduct with a grounded structure, under adverse conditions, should be of magnitude and duration below those that cause ventricular fibrillation. Over the years and after many investigations on the effects of electric current on humans, safe limits have been established and standards have been developed which provide permissible values of body currents to avoid electrocution. Two such standards are (1) IEEE Std 80 and (2) the IEC 479-1. IEEE Std 80 had three editions (1961, 1976 and 1986), is currently being revised, and has been in use in the USA and several other countries. IEC publication 479-1 was released in 1984. The purpose of both standards is to establish safe (permissible) body currents.
The underlying assumption is that the designers of grounding systems will make sure that these values will not be exceeded under adverse conditions of accidental contact of humans with grounded structures. The philosophical difference between the two documents is that while IEC publication 479-1 does not address all relevant computational issues, which may be necessary in the design process (such as feet/soil resistance, etc.), IEEE Std 80 does address most computational issues and provides procedures and guidance for assessing the safety of a grounding system (ANSI/IEEE. Std 80-1986). 1 With ever increasing fault current levels in today’s interconnected power systems, there is renewed emphasis on safety. On the other hand, globalization of national economies has increased interest in harmonization of standards. The first step in this endeavor is the technical comparison of various standards addressing the same issue. This paper provides a technical comparison of two standards addressing the safety of electrical installations. This paper is organized as follows: first the electric shock model is presented, and all relevant parameters are defined. Next, the safety criteria as stated in the two documents, i.e., IEEE Std 80, 1986 edition,
ANSI/IEEE Std 80-1986, “IEEE guide for safety in AC substation grounding”, 1986.
− 612 −
II. 1(b). skin condition. and A2) and can be computed using proper analysis methods (Sakis Meliopoulos et al .e. Figure 1(a) illustrates the equivalent resistances between any pair of contact points. 1(a). i. the two documents differ in their application of the electric shock model. However. While each condition can be examined separately and in detail. (5) Body Current The electric current through the human body. The parameters of the electric shock model are EPRI Report EL-2682..e. It depends on many factors. etc. we will focus on touch voltages only. 1. methodology and tests”. volume 1. followed by a comparison. a comparison of the two documents is presented over a wide range of parameters. A1.. A1. walks in the vicinity of a grounding system during a fault (step voltage). When a fault occurs. 1982. between point B and points A1 and A2 (hand to two feet). − 613 − . meaning in this case the voltage at the points of contact when the human is not touching. r eq. and 2 III. 1. The equivalent internal resistance. 1988. Table 1 provides an overview of the differences among the two documents with reference to the electric shock model. Finally. 1(b). For the electric shock model of Fig. such as size. Safety Criteria − The IEEE Std 80 IEEE Std 80 is based on a simplified electric shock model. A typical simplification is to assume that the voltage at points A1 and A2 is practically the same. 1993). The human body may come into contact with a ground or soil at three points (hand and two feet) as illustrated in Fig. which illustrates a human standing near the middle point of a ground mesh. 1. 1984.. are described in detail. the following definitions apply: (1) Touch Voltage (or Thevenin Equivalent Voltage ) The open circuit potential difference between a grounded structure (point B) and the surface potential at the point where a person is standing (points A1 and A2). In subsequent paragraphs. pressure at contact. B. and A2.Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 A2.. i. Sakis Meliopoulos et al. 1(b). The Electric Shock Model Electric shock may occur when an individual touches a grounded structure during a fault (touch voltage). 1993). Fig. A common basis for comparison is developed in terms of permissible touch and step voltages. B. in order to keep the size of this paper reasonable. (2) Body Voltage The voltage across the human body when the electric shock circuit is closed. touches two separately grounded structures during a fault (metal to metal touch voltage). a more detailed discussion of the safety criteria adapted in the two documents will be presented. subjected to touch voltage. between the points of contact can be accurately computed using numerical techniques (EPRI Report 2 ) (Sakis Meliopoulos. “Analysis techniques for power substation grounding system. (4) Touch Resistance (or Thevenin Equivalent Resistance ) The resistance of the soil between the point of contact of the human body with the soil (points A1 and A2) and the grounding system. (3) Body Resistance The resistance of the human body between the points of contact. in which case the Thevenin equivalent is simplified to that shown in Fig. and IEC 479-1. The described electric shock model is inherent in both documents. The electric shock model is the circuit which determines the flow of electric current in the human body. The electric shock model is shown in Fig. voltages will appear between any pair of points of contact. October. Definition of the electric shock model parameters-touch voltage. The grounding system and soil are represented by a Thevenin equivalent at the points of contact. in the case of Fig. A1. etc. The Thevenin equivalent in this case is a three terminal circuit (terminals B. as shown in Fig. The Thevenin voltage source V eq equals the open-circuit voltage.
5 c s( h s.157A/ t for 70 kg person Current r eq = no guidance S-curves independent of human size (Fig. V S. t V S . it has been observed using scale models and numerical studies that the area of the foot in contact with the earth is the most important variable. However. the permissible touch. The human foot can be modeled as a circular plate touching the surface of the earth. 1) has negligible effect. perm voltages for a 50 kg person are: V T . This model is usually translated into permissible touch (or step) voltages. 6) (3ρ)(3ρ) = 1.perm and step. IEEE Std 80 provides a graph (Fig. (5) for step voltage.116 (6. Electrical Shock Model Differences between IEEE Std 80 and IEC 479-1 IEEE Std 80 Body Resistance Thevenin Equivalent Resistance 1000 ohms 1. this resistance is typically small compared to the resistance 1. The resistance of the plate to remote earth is approximately. the radius is b ≅ 0.C. thus. t Additional comments and observations regarding the IEEE Std 80 are given below: The permissible body current has been selected from statistical data and represents a 0. k ).0 c s( h s. should also take into account the resistance of the grounding system. Specifically. For soil with an upper layer of high resistivity stone. k ) ρ s where k =( ρ − ρ s)/( ρ + ρ s). and (2) for nonuniform soil. As an example. VT.5c sρ s + 1000) . 4b (1) where ρ is the resistivity of the earth and b is the radius of the plate. 1. the equivalent resistance r eq is given by r eq=6.5c s ρ s for touch voltage 6. It is believed that the approximate formula for the Thevenin equivalent resistance in IEEE Std 80 was derived as follows. The above equations for r eq apply to the case of uniform soil and neglect the effect of grounding system proximity or mutual resistance between the feet. h s the thickness of the upper layer. k) is in error. the equivalent resistance is simply the parallel combination of the two feet to soil resistances: Thevenin Simplified Equations k i k r L I Equivalent or use of computer models is Voltage suggested Permissible 0. meters.H. the area A of the person’s feet is approximately 200 cm 2. However. the correction factor cs( hs. Lee and A. The human foot definitely is not a circular plate. k ) ρ s r eq=1.08) where ρ is expressed in ohm . ρ the resistivity of the soil below the upper layer. For an adult with large feet. Sakis Meliopoulos Table 1.5ρ. Only cases in which the effect of the grounding system resistance can account for more than 2% are of academic importance. r eq. for touch voltage. Using this value. Investigation using computer models has revealed that the IEEE Std 80 approximate formulae are accurate for all practical purposes only for uniform soil.04 for uniform soil. especially for the R= ρ .116 (1.0 c s ρ s for step voltage IEC 479-1 Voltage Dependent and Path Dependent (Figs. IEEE Std 80 provides a correction factor c s( h s. (3) (4) ρ s the resistivity of the upper layer. 4 and 5) no guidance R= ρ ≅ 3ρ ohms . and is thus omitted. perm = 0. IEEE Std 80 further assumes that the mutual resistance between the two feet (Fig. For this reason.5ρ . π where A is the area of the foot in contact with the earth. For nonuniform soil or for soil with a cover layer of high resistivity.5% probability of ventricular fibrillation. The equivalent resistance. 3ρ + 3ρ (2) shown in column 2 of Table 1. 3 of the standard) for the graphical determination of c s from k and h s. b can be approximated by b= A . in Fig.0c sρ s + 1000) .08 m.P. c s the reduction factor for derating the nominal value of the surface layer resistivity determined as follows: (1) cs=1. and the resistance of one foot touching the earth is − 614 − .116A/ t for 50 kg person Body 0. perm = 0. (4)(0. for practical grounding systems.
This system has three terminals.m Fig.Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 ρ gravel=3925 Ω . Note that the region of greatest discrepancy is for layers 1 to 4 inches (or 0. 1. D =1 to 2 feet. therefore. A1. However. Human body resistance as a function of body voltage. Reduction factor comparison of IEEE Std 80 and program SGSYS.. Then the grounding system together with the contact model is viewed as a system with multiple grounds. A2. Note that for the usual standing position. and B. Figure 2 also illustrates the effect of the mutual resistance between the two plates representing the two feet. the effect of the mutual resistance is sufficient to increase the value of r eq.m ρ soil =210 Ω . Then standard network techniques are employed to compute the Thevenin equivalent parameters V eq . The computer based method for evaluation of the correction factor c s ( h s. Using a foot model as shown in Fig. which is the usual case.0254 to 0. The computed values of cs(hs. Feet to soil resistances as a function of feet separation and gravel thickness. IV. the IEEE Std 80 model is matched exactly for uniform soil and assuming feet separation Fig.1016 m).k) are given in Fig.0254 to 0. superimposed on the present values of IEEE Std 80. 1993). the effect of the mutual resistance is negligible. The elements of the equivalent circuit are computed using the method of moments (EPRI Report EL-2682) (Sakis Meliopoulos. k ) consists of computing an equivalent voltage source connected to the points of contact of the human body with the ground field as indicated in Fig. The points of contact of the human feet with the earth surface are modeled using two metallic plates placed at the location of the feet. (A note: the IEEE Std 80 committee will modify the correction factor cs based on the results of three independent researchers in the next edition of the standard). − 615 − . as the feet come closer than 1 foot. It is important to note that modeling the feet as two plates (surface electrodes) provides a realistic analysis model. The correction factor c s ( h s . 3.k) depends on foot size and spacing between feet. 3. 2. cs(hs.1016 m) thick. 1988. r eq as illustrated in Fig. 4. k ) is then computed from the following equation: of D =2 feet. Sakis Meliopoulos et al . 2. The value of req and. 2. Fig. 1. The shape and dimensions of the plates are shown in Fig. Safety Criteria − The IEC 479-1 IEC 479-1 is less specific than IEEE Std 80 for c s(h s. practical case of an upper layer thickness of 1 to 4 inches (0.5ρ s . k ) = r eq 1.
perm(t )) + r eq. 4791. (6) (7) where i b. the two feet to soil resistances are in parallel. which are illustrated in Fig. perm(t )) + r eq. and 3 r eq . step. 4.perm ( t ).H. 5. Zone 4 represents all the combinations of body current and shock duration which will lead to ventricular fibrillation with probability more than 50%. RS b ( i b. These curves separate the space of body current and shock duration into zones. Permissible Touch and Step Voltage − IEC 479-1 The permissible (or allowable) touch. Fig.C. 6. “Effects of current passing through the human body. part 1: general aspects”. perm ( t )) is the body resistance for the path specified by the touch voltage (typically. This current is obtained from the data shown in Fig. S ] . Sakis Meliopoulos Fig. 5.perm( t ) is the permissible body current per IEC 479-1 for an electric shock duration t . which are illustrated in Fig. is the feet to soil resistance for step 1. [Adapted from IEC 479-1] design purposes. the 50% curve indicates body resistance values which were not exceeded by 50% of the population. i. Lee and A. 4. and (2) permissible touch and step voltages can be computed for a specific system. T ] .S International Electrotechnical Commission IEC report. 6. This value can be obtained from the data shown in Figs. 4 and 5. − 616 − . Internal impedance of the human body as a function of the current path. the 5% curve indicates body resistance values which were not exceeded by 5% of the population. perm ( t ). This value can be obtained from the data shown in Figs. voltages are computed from the following equations: T Va T = i b . In Fig. As an example. Permissible body current per IEC 479-1. points on curve C2 represent 5% probability of ventricular fibrillation and points on curve C3 represent 50% probability of ventricular fibrillation. 4 and 5. r eq . etc. The standard provides data for body resistances as a function of body voltage. All the values in Fig. perm ( t )) is the body resistance for the path specified by the step voltage (foot to foot) and for a body current equal to i b. perm(t )[R b (i b . S Va S = i b . 5. IEC 479-1 also provides values of permissible body current versus electric shock duration as shown in Fig. and data of body resistance as a function of path. RT b ( i b. In Fig..P.e. 3 The data of IEC 479-1 can be utilized in two ways: (1) actual body currents can be computed for an individual subjected to touch or step voltage in a specific system and under specific conditions. V a T . perm(t )[R b (i b . Points on curve C1 represent 0. 4 are for hand to hand resistance. IEC 1984. The numbers in brackets are for current paths between both hands and the corresponding part of the body. hand to two feet) and for a body current equal to i b.T is the feet to soil resistance for touch voltage.14% probability of ventricular fibrillation. the numbers not in brackets indicate the impedance of several paths in the body as a percentage of the hand to hand impedance. V a S . 6.
For this reason. r eq.7 V 420.05 0. 4). (9) represents a nonlinear function which is illustrated in Fig.6 250. 50 kg Person.10 0.7 1041. determine the value of permissible body current.5 V 442. and for step voltage that the path is foot to foot (100% of the body resistance given in Fig. I b = V b / r b = V b / f ( V b ).2 V V V V V V V V V V 500 ( Ω •m) 923. 2..0 346. Computation of Actual Body Current For a given touch or step voltage.2 299. Step 4: Compute permissible touch and step voltages using Eqs. the computation of the body current using the IEC data requires solving a set of nonlinear equations.20 0.0 V 3000 ( Ω •m) 2946. (8) (9) Fig. Specifically.5% of ventricular fibrillation using proper interpolation between curves C1 and C2 in Fig. the permissible body current i b. For a given touch voltage.50 sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec 10 ( Ω •m) 526.T and r eq. i. 7.5 307.40 0.4 176..6 V V V V V V V V V V 50 ( Ω •m) 559. (3) and (4).0 V 593.Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 Table 2.9 V 542.4 277. we shall use the data of IEEE Std 80.6 481. Step 2: For a given (or computed) touch (or step) voltage and equivalent resistance r eq from step 1. Note that application of above equations to obtain the permissible touch and step voltages is straightforward and involves the following steps: Step 1: For a given electric shock duration t and a given assumed probability of ventricular fibrillation.3 1317.1 228.2 395.1 461. Permissible Touch Voltages per IEEE Std 80. Equation (8) is a straight line in the coordinate system V b vs I b .0 349. compute the actual body current using the graphical method which is shown in Fig. 6.S .1 199. 7 as curve 1.2 1473.25 0.9 372.2 263.S per IEEE Std 80. V touch.8 V V V V V V V V V V 100 ( Ω •m) 599. For touch voltage.3 211. Probability of Ventricular Fibrillation 0.6 226.0 199.9 215.7 212. Step 1: Compute the Thevenin equivalent resistance.7 186.2 V 502. For purposes of comparison with IEEE Std 80. determine the body S resistances R T b and R b from the data shown in Figs.perm ( t ).1 V 766. from Fig.2 244. i b.6 V V V V V V V V V V 200 ( Ω •m) 680.4 197.0 377.0 326.9 279. voltage. this line will pass through the point (0.3 175.6 2083.3 393. This point is shown as point A in Fig. perm ( t ) is computed for probability 0. This line is constructed as follows.9 189. 6. i.8 V V V V V V V V V V Step 3: Compute r eq.45 0. Eqs.35 0.5 166. V touch= V b+ r eq i b.30 0. of the electrocution circuit. where the function r b = f ( V b ) represents the nonlinear characteristics of the body resistance as a function of body voltage determined using the data shown in Fig. 4 and 5.7 413.8 1202.e.3 304. Note that the Eq. This solution can be obtained iteratively or using a graphical method described below.9 1113.perm(t). V touch ).2 931. 1986 Edition.7 424. 4).5% Soil Resistivity Shock Duration 0. Graphical method for computing the actual body current. (6) and (7).8 226.0 V V V V V V V V V V 1000 ( Ω •m) 1328.e. 7.0 V 469. IEC 479-1 does not provide any data for r eq . the actual body current is determined by simultaneous solution of the following two equations. 7.0 V 939.6 215.8 292. the two feet to soil resistances are in series.8 982.6 1701. Step 2: For the current ib.7 V 664.3 240.T or r eq. Also the line will pass from point − 617 − . it is expedient to assume that the path will be one hand to two feet (75% of the body resistance given in Fig.0 340.15 0.1 186.4 322.8 268.4 652.9 533.4 235.9 257.5 304. 4.
2 376.7 280.4 176.1 88.0 173.3 687.9 V V V V V V V V V V 1000 ( Ω •m) 1276.0 4176.6 481.3 203.05 0.0 341.25 0.8 385.50 sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec 10 ( Ω •m) 342.8 V 872.0 524.P.8 279. Sakis Meliopoulos Table 3.8 116.3 240.7 1533.H.20 0.0 108.20 0.4 277.6 245.8 448.4 V V V V V V V V V V 3000 ( Ω •m) 2947.8 786.10 0.1 136.30 0.5%.7 597.8 205.9 296.9 493.3 V V V V V V V V V V ( V touch / r eq .C.4 5115.9 1252.1 313.9 286.7 400.3 V 1511.8 152. 50 kg Person.4 3866.9 2580.5 365.7 412.2 352.1 265.1 248.9 V 1000 ( Ω •m) 3755.9 1679.5 221.9 3410.6 380.2 197.4 1098.9 145.35 0.0). 7.0 614.5 374. 50% Body Resistance Values.0 287.3 393. Probability of Ventricular Fibrillation 0.7 938.2 V V V V V V V V V V 3000 ( Ω •m) 2840. The graphical construction consists of drawing a straight line through points A and B.8 2168.7 1164.6 387.3 583.9 251.3 V 1234.8 343.6 319. Probability of Ventricular Fibrillation 0.9 332.3 122.5 225.2 V V V V V V V V V V 100 ( Ω •m) 842.6 1067.7 318.2 384.8 445.0 208.6 167.35 0.40 0.2 2254.3 313.1 697. Permissible Touch Voltages per IEC 479-1.6 V 807.6 483. 5% Body Resistance Values.7 174.0 V V V V V V V V V V 50 ( Ω •m) 482.4 634.9 257.7 V 955.9 2655.6 442.1 7233.7 117.4 V V V V V V V V V V 200 ( Ω •m) 501.1 346.3 220.7 222.6 673.9 131.8 689.4 319. 7.6 130.0 V V V V V V V V V V Table 4.1 438.30 0. This point is shown as point B in Fig.8 349.1 763.3 304. V.9 2676.5 334.7 101.2 1026.7 486.2 223.25 0.6 246.9 103.9 1365.40 0.45 0.1 660.6 609.7 368.3 1053. Hand to Two Feet Soil Resistivity Shock Duration 0.4 194.8 121. Hand to Two Feet Soil Resistivity Shock Duration 0.15 0.20 0.35 0.45 0.10 0.4 V V V V V V V V V V 200 ( Ω •m) 1166.1 440.7 V 712.9 318.0 V 1068.2 824.5%.05 0.7 308.2 187.3 164.3 1419.1 389.5 595.3 V V V V V V V V V V 100 ( Ω •m) 417.5 V V V V V V V V V V 100 ( Ω• m) 524.9 275.9 V V V V V V V V V V 50 ( Ω •m) 375.2 462.7 V V V V V V V V V V 3000 ( Ω •m) 10230.5 256.9 148.4 308.0 4575.1 192.3 388.0 3235.9 357.9 128.5 476.0 851.6 433.4 421.1 193.9 215.7 160.1 313.50 sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec 10 ( Ω •m) 449.9 536.2 499.15 0.6 1652.9 280.1 262.5 V V V V V V V V V V 500 ( Ω •m) 751. Permissible Step Voltages per IEEE Std 80.6 119.1 V V V V V V V V V V Table 5.4 415. Probability of Ventricular Fibrillation 0.3 194.15 0.6 3616.0 1187.8 412.9 162.5% Soil Resistivity Shock Duration 0.0 899.6 V V V V V V V V V V 500 ( Ω• m) 858.8 V V V V V V V V V V 1000 ( Ω •m) 1169.2 559. The comparison is made in terms of permissible touch and step voltages for ranges of parameters which cover most practical − 618 − .1 521. 1986 Edition. Comparison This section presents a comprehensive comparison between the two standards.0 2039.2 136.10 0.4 297. The intersection of this line with curve 1 determines the actual body current for the specified touch voltage.40 0. Lee and A.6 2342.7 206.3 146. as shown in Fig.9 577.4 1422.45 0.9 267.1 456.5 V V V V V V V V V V 200 ( Ω •m) 608.5 241.5 95.2 166.5 1720.9 821. Permissible Touch Voltages per IEC 479-1.9 183.30 0.6 226.0 142.8 260.8 5906.9 1961.0 820.4 V 675.0 570.2 695.3 V V V V V V V V V V 50 ( Ω •m) 680.5 1877.50 sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec 10 ( Ω •m) 551.8 V V V V V V V V V V 500 ( Ω •m) 2137.9 236.2 275.6 1327.05 0.8 266.8 V 755.25 0.0 340.6 289.9 380.
2 166.5 199.5%.1 313.7 795.6 119. The results are illustrated in Tables 2-7 and in Figs.3 2342.8 V V V V V V V V V V 200 ( Ω• m) 1109.4 631.9 874.1 479.7 556.5 9482.1 432.2 462.9 251.9 1391.6 586.7 758.1 V V V V V V V V V V 3000 ( Ω •m) 10361.0 1469.45 0.7 216.7 337.35 0.6 442.5 266.2 V V V V V V V V V V 3000 ( Ω •m) 10468.0 387. hand to two feet. Permissible Step Voltages per IEC 479-1. The ranges of parameters are (1) soil resistivities 10 to 3000 ohm.4 276.4 1684. 9.2 V V V V V V V V V V 500 ( Ω •m) 2112.0 201.30 0.2 248. Fig.7 8264.6 2198.50 sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec 10 ( Ω •m) 474.5 1759.2 V V V V V V V V V V 1000 ( Ω •m) 3676.15 0.8 2953.5 3336. 8.2 499. Permissible Step Voltages per IEC 479-1.6 617.7 306. Permissible step voltages per IEEE Std 80 vs IEC 479-1.45 0.5 473.1 409.2 557.7 244.2 559.8 236.4 807. probability of ventricular fibrillation 0.4 1084.6 311.1 136.3 710.8 159.7 106.9 3000. 5% body resistance values.10 0.30 0.4 3819.7 206.5 438.5 365. probability of ventricular fibrillation 0.20 0.40 0.8 2131.2 5959.5 916.2 273.4 971. hand to two feet.8 128.25 0.9 134.1 408.1 V V V V V V V V V V 500 ( Ω •m) 2005.7 93.05 0.7 157.0 544.3 1823. 8-13.1 6027.1 7093.9 1596.2 394.3 3774.2 197.0 151.0 476.3 1920.1 4966. 5% Body Resistance Values.4 2913.5 1012.5 341.8 174.0 256.6 319.5%.0 2609.7 304.3 146. Probability of Ventricular Fibrillation 0.7 178.35 0.1 262.5%.5 V V V V V V V V V V 100 ( Ω •m) 668.7 V V V V V V V V V V 50 ( Ω •m) 501.8 436.5 750. 50% Body Resistance Values.9 1816.3 707.4 2018.20 0.1 2045.8 341.7 412.7 307.0 2531.7 V V V V V V V V V V 200 ( Ω •m) 1002.8 2922.Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 Table 6.9 380.3 398.9 731.4 1053.5 9386.50 sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec 10 ( Ω •m) 367.2 7171.1 1355. Permissible touch voltages per IEEE Std 80 vs IEC 479-1.7 500.1 667. situations.5 2370.4 120.15 0.9 V V V V V V V V V V 50 ( Ω •m) 608.4 785.7 V V V V V V V V V V Table 7.25 0.9 202.5%.3 614.5 seconds.6 4909. Hand to Two Feet Soil Resistivity Shock Duration 0.2 8177.05 0. Probability of Ventricular Fibrillation 0.40 0.4 1174.3 351.6 846.9 1028.8 V V V V V V V V V V Fig. 5% body resistance values.3 1241.5 243.6 V V V V V V V V V V 100 ( Ω •m) 775.2 1400.3 V V V V V V V V V V 1000 ( Ω •m) 3783.9 894.7 212.meters and (2) electric shock duration 0.10 0.2 499.3 164.2 600. The tables − 619 − .05 to 0.5 3432. Hand to Two Feet Soil Resistivity Shock Duration 0.
10. Finally. hand to two feet. hand to two feet. Body resistance vs electric shock duration at the maximum permissible touch voltage. Note that for the usual shock durations 0. then. 12. the 5% body resistance of the IEC 479-1 standard is near 1000 Ω or higher. Note that the points are about evenly distributed around the diagonal. Each point represents permissible voltages as allowed by the two standards computed for the same parameters of soil resistivity and shock duration. Points above the diagonal represent cases where IEC 479-1 is more conservative than IEEE Std 80 while points below the diagonal represent cases where IEEE Std 80 is more conservative than IEC 479-1. Permissible touch voltages per IEEE Std 80 vs IEC 4791. By construction. 5% body resistance values. Figures 8-11 provide the data from Tables 2-7 in graphical form. probability of ventricular fibrillation 0.5%. Summary and Conclusions The safety criteria of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 − 620 − .C.P. provide the permissible touch and step voltages as defined by the two standards for the ranges of parameters defined above. Fig. 12 and 13 compare the body resistance value used to compute the permissible touch and step voltages using the two standards.25 to 0. 50% body resistance values. The coordinates are the permissible touch or step voltages of the two standards respectively.5 seconds. probability of ventricular fibrillation 0. 50% body resistance values. 11. This is useful information for persons questioning the use of 1000 Ω in IEEE Std 80. Sakis Meliopoulos Fig.5%. Figs. Permissible step voltages per IEEE Std 80 vs IEC 479-1. Lee and A. hand to two feet. 50% body resistance values. 13. VI. Fig.H. Body resistance vs electric shock duration at the maximum permissible touch voltage. each point on the diagonal of the graph represents a case where the two standards yield the same permissible voltages. Fig. hand to two feet.
P. Joy. and G.Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Std 80 have been compared. Inc. There are cases in which IEEE Std 80 is more conservative than IEC 479-1 and vice versa. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. (1988) Power System Grounding and Transients: an Introduction. fb`= QTVJN fbbb= píÇ= UM G G GG !"#$%&'( GG ^K= mK= p~âáë= jÉäáçéçìäçë !"#$%!& !"#$%&'($)%* !"#$%&'()'*+. In conclusion. F./fb`=QTVJN fbbb=píÇ=UM !"#$%&'()*+.-.A. The IEC 479-1 safety criteria are rather complex while the safety criteria of IEEE Std 80 are simplified./012 éÉêãáëëáÄäÉ=ÄçÇó=ÅìêêÉåí !"#$ÄçÇó=êÉëáëí~åÅÉ !"#$%fb`=QTVJN !"#$%&'()*+.S. U.-. one can conclude that the simplicity of IEEE Std 80 does not compromise safety in grounding system design. 8 (1). P.-. New York. NY. A.. 13-23.. A. The opinion of the authors is that simplicity is important. 119-133. pp./01 23456789:.-. Marcel Dekker. J.<=>?@AB/0CDEABFGCDH !"#$%&'()*+. and their differences have been quantified. IEEE Std 80 provides useful procedures for grounding system safety assessment. B. E. Xia. Cokkinides (1993) An advanced compute model for grounding system analysis. Given the fact that the safety criteria include comfortable safety margins. Another major difference is that IEC 479-1 does not address all relevant computational issues while IEEE Std 80 provides approximate equations and formulas which are useful to a designer.-./0123 − 621 − . References Sakis Meliopoulos. Sakis Meliopoulos. !"#$%&'()*%+.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.