Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HAZARD
CALCULATIONS
MYTHS, FACTS, AND SOLUTIONS
P ing electrical distribution system can be a daunting task. Efforts have been
made to limit the required scope of the evaluation, but portions of a sys-
tem are often overlooked due to faulty assumptions. Overlooked areas may
have dangerous incident energy levels. The scope of the evaluation may be reduced to a
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE • JAN|FEB 2007 • WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS
manageable size, but any assumption must be carefully scrutinized to guarantee an accu-
rate determination of the arc flash hazard. This article discusses a method for generalizing
the arc flash calculations for select areas of a power distribution system. A spe-
cific application of this general method is then presented.
Background
The NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, 2004 edi-
tion references the equations from IEEE Standard 1584–2002 as a method
for quantifying the incident energy available during an arc flash event.
The equations in IEEE Standard 1584–2002 are applicable for a voltage
range of 208–15,000 V, three-phase and for a range of bolted fault cur-
rent magnitudes between 700–106,000 A. In addition, IEEE Standard
©ARTVILLE, LLC.
1584-2002 states that “equipment below 240 V need not be considered
unless it involves at least one 125 kVA or larger low-impedance transformer in its
immediate power supply [2].
Time (s)
most important system variables, however, will change
Upon the determination of the optimum settings for plying individual loads or smaller pieces of distribution
the overcurrent protection and analysis of the resulting arc equipment. To accurately determine the incident energy
flash hazard at each location, the power systems engineer and corresponding HRC for the downstream locations, the
is able to investigate possible solutions to reduce the arc impedance of the feeder circuit must be considered.
flash hazards. These solutions may include the recommen-
dation of additional or replacement overcurrent protective Solution to the Problem
devices, the implementation of procedures to provide safer To reduce the overall scope of the arc flash hazard analy-
access to energized equipment, and/or the installation of sis, one must limit the required number of calculations.
solutions that either increase worker distance or decrease Below is a description of a generalization method devel-
protective device clearing time. oped by the authors to reduce the effort required to pro-
Upon the completion of an arc flash analysis, the vide a comprehensive analysis at a specific location.
results of the calculations must be clearly presented. Similar methods may be applied at other industrial or
Warning labels, applied to the outside of equipment commercial locations.
enclosures, are often considered to be the most effective
means of displaying the results of the arc flash analysis Making Accurate Generalizations
for qualified persons. Article 110.16 of the National Using accurate generalizations, an arc flash study can
Electric Code (NEC) 2005 requires industrial and com- include all equipment locations that are likely to require
mercial electrical equipment to “be field marked to examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while
warn qualified persons of potential electric arc flash energized. Using the following steps, this analysis can be
hazards” [4]. Specific quantities, ranges, boundaries, performed without the need to model every location:
and HRCs are not expressly required by the NEC. ■ Step 1. Conduct a detailed analysis from the utility
Many facilities have found that presenting the arc flash feeder connections down to MCCs, bus ducts, split-
hazard warning and listing the HRC on a prominently ters, or panels (600 V or less) fed by overcurrent
displayed label enables qualified persons to easily deter- devices (fuse or trip rating) that are sized at 200 A or
mine the appropriate PPE requirements. larger. Future enhancements of the generalization
method may allow an increase above 200 A. Detailed
Current-Limiting Devices and the Arc Hazard analysis can be accomplished using a commercial
Current-limiting devices are very important for equip- software package to develop a model that provides
62
ment protection when they operate to prevent equip- the following for each location studied:
" bolted fault magnitude and ■ If the fault current at the load end
X/R ratio of the feeder is higher than the
" arcing fault magnitude TO REDUCE THE threshold point, then the HRC at
" protective device clearing time the load end bus location does
and duration of the arc flash OVERALL SCOPE not increase to the next category.
" flash protection boundary ■ If the fault current at the load end
" incident energy calculated at a OF THE ARC of the feeder is lower than the
working distance (cal/cm2 ) threshold point, then the HRC at
" HRC based on NFPA 70E-
FLASH HAZARD the load end bus location may
2004, Table 130.7(C)(11), (see increase to the next category and
Table 2) [1].
ANALYSIS, ONE further analysis is required.
■ Step 2. Extend the analysis to MUST LIMIT THE The spreadsheet model uses conserv-
locations fed from MCCs, bus ative values for threshold point:
ducts, splitters, or panels. This REQUIRED ■ 50 X trip rating for MCCB trip
can be accomplished by ratings from 15–225 A
" using the results from Step 1 NUMBER OF ■ 20 X trip rating for MCCB trip
in a spreadsheet to calculate ratings from 250–600 A
the maximum cable length CALCULATIONS. ■ 20 X trip for MCP trip ratings
for each feeder size from from 3–1,200 A
MCCs, bus ducts, splitters, ■ 25 X fuse amp rating for CLF
or panels, from 15–600 A.
" conducting a site survey to find all feeders that are
longer than the maximum cable length in the Applying the Method at an Industrial Facility
spreadsheet, We will illustrate this method using an example from
" collecting data for the feeders that exceed the max- an arc flash hazard analysis study at an industrial loca-
imum length (including protective device and tion. Step 1 was performed from the utility connection
conductor data), and at 27.6 kV down to a total of 280 locations at 600 V or
" adding these feeders and locations to the model below (MCCs and panels sized at 200 A or larger). In
developed in Step 1. Step 2, a spreadsheet was developed for these 280 loca-
The spreadsheet calculates a conductor size based on tions for protective device types MCCB, MCP, and CLF.
the feeder trip or fuse amp rating, which is converted to a The spreadsheet included calculations of the maximum
conductor size based on cable length from each of the 280 locations out to a dis-
were at least five at each of the 280 locations. An esti- must be analyzed using a commercial software pack-
mated total of 1,400 (280 × 5) locations required age. In an industrial example, this method reduced the
investigation on site to determine if the circuit length number of small feeder locations that required a
exceeded the values in the spreadsheet. The results of detailed analysis by 94%. This resulted in a large
the site survey indicated that there were only 85 feed- reduction of onsite data collection, detailed modeling,
ers where the circuit length was exceeded. For each of and arc flash warning labels.
the 85 additional feeders, additional data gathering at
the site was required to enable the power system engi- Acknowledgement
neer to add these feeders to the commercial software The authors thank W.S. Vilcheck for his sponsorship,
package model that was created in Step 1. This addi- advice, and encouragement.
tional information is summarized below:
1) circuit name References
2) feeder protective device manufacturer [1] NFPA 70E-2004, Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces,
3) feeder trip unit or fuse ampere rating 2004.
[2] IEEE Standard 1584–2002, IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Haz-
4) feeder length ard Calculations, 2002.
5) feeder configuration, which is one of the following: [3] IEEE Standard 242–2001 (IEEE Buff Book), IEEE Recommended Practice
" conduit (magnetic or nonmagnetic) for Protection and Coordination, 2001.
" free air spacing. [4] NEC 2005 NFPA 70, National Electric Code, 2005.
[5] IEEE Standard 141–2001 (IEEE Red Book), IEEE Recommended Practice
The result of the additional analysis in the commercial for Electrica Power Distribution for Industrial Plants, 2001.
software package revealed that out of the 85 new subfeed-
ers that were modeled, there were only 17 small-panel
locations with HRC downstream that was greater than the H. Wallace Tinsley III is with Eaton Electrical in Warren-
HRC at the upstream MCC or panel location. Based on dale, Pennsylvania. Michael Hodder is with Eaton Electrical
this analysis, it was concluded that all other small-panel in Mississauga, Oregon. Aidan M. Graham is with Eaton
locations in the power system that were fed from panels Electrical in Bellevue, Washington. Tinsley and Hodder are
and MCCs would have the same HRC as the upstream Members of the IEEE. Graham is a Senior Member of the
location that feeds them. IEEE. This article first appeared as “Arc Flash Hazard Cal-
The electrical workers at this site were instructed culations: Myths, Facts, and Solutions” at the 2006
64
that there were only 17 small-panel locations where the IEEE/IAS Pulp and Paper Industry Committee Conference.