The Effect of Using Minimum and Maximum Utility Fault Contributions on

Arc Flash Study Results – A Case Study

Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. ESW-2015-10

Jean Y. Ayoub Marcelo Valdes

Member, IEEE Senior Member, IEEE
General Electric Company General Electric Company
Industrial Solutions Industrial Solutions
7320 Parkway Dr. 41 Woodford Ave.
Hanover, MD 21076, USA Plainville, CT, 06062, USA
jean.ayoub@ge.com marcelo.valdes@ge.com

Abstract - IEEE Guide for the Specification of Scope and 2) Capacitor banks are fed from and operate at 13.2 kV and
Deliverable Requirements for an Arc-Flash Hazard Calculation 2.4 kV
Study in Accordance with IEEE Std 1584, recommends that
alternate scenarios should be modeled considering minimum B. Switchgears
and maximum values of utility fault current, if actual utility fault Numerous 13.2 kV and 2.4 kV double-ended switchgears.
current cannot be obtained from the utility company. This paper
is a case history that proves the value of using minimum and C. Motor Control Centers
maximum utility provided fault contribution at an industrial Numerous 2.4 kV and 0.48 kV single and double-ended
facility served by several 13.2 kV incoming feeders. Equipment Motor Control Centers (MCC’s).
in the facility includes a wide range of electric motors; VFD’s
and double ended motor control centers. Multiple scenarios D. Electric Motors
were performed to account for the various complex modes of Electric motors operating at 0.48 kV range from 75 hp to 200
operation, and to present the worst-case arc-flash results. hp. Medium voltage motors operating at 2.4 kV range from 250
hp to 2500 hp. A standalone 3000 hp motor operate at 13.2 kV.
Index Terms — Arc Flash, Utility Fault Contribution, Motor
Control Center E. Capacitor Banks
2.4 MVAR and 4 MVAR are connected to the system both at
I. INTRODUCTION 13.2 kV and 2.4 kV, respectively.

A critical piece of data in a power system study is the three- F. Transformers

phase and single-phase Utility fault contribution and their
respective X/R values. This data becomes more important
when an arc flash hazard analysis is part of the scope. The
IEEE Guide for the Specification of Scope and Deliverable
Requirements for an Arc-Flash Hazard Calculation Study in
Accordance with IEEE Std 1584, added more challenge by
recommending alternate scenarios utilizing minimum and
maximum values of utility fault contribution. Obtaining both
these values is not always easy. This case study compiles and
compares the arc flash results of an electrical system by
utilizing the utility provided minimum and maximum fault
contributions. Even though arc flash mitigation is not in the
direct scope of this case study, setting changes were made
where possible in order to lower incident energy without
impacting selectivity or system reliability.
II. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The summary below provides a quick overview of the facility
infrastructure.
A. Utility Feeders
1) Five 13.2 kV feeders to step-down transformers that
feed local 2.4 kV and 0.48 kV substations.
Medium voltage transformers (13.2 kV to 2.4 kV) are rated 5
MVA. Main transformers (13.2 kV to 0.48 kV) are rated 2 MVA.
G. Protective Devices
Main, tie and feeder circuit breakers in the Medium Voltage
(MV) substations are associated with both electro-mechanical
and digital-based relays. Main, tie and feeder circuit breakers in
the low voltage (LV) substations are equipped with solid state
old and new generation trip units. While feeder circuit breakers
in the Motor Control Centers are thermal magnetic, main and tie
circuit breakers are a mix of molded case and solid state
equipped trip units.
III. SIMULATION SCENARIOS
The following three scenarios have been performed and the
worst-case arc-flash incident energy results at each bus are
being compiled and analyzed.
A. Scenario 1
Incident energy results in Scenario 1 are based on using the
Maximum utility fault contribution with all large motors (over 50
hp) running.

978-1-4799-4782-9/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

1
B. Scenario 2
Incident energy results in Scenario 2 are ba ased on using the Bus 2 - 13.2 kV (Existing)
(
Minimum utility fault contribution with all large
e motors (over 50
hp) running. Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3
C. Scenario 3
Incident energy results in Scenario 3 are ba ased on using the
Minimum utility fault contribution with all large
e motors (over 50 31.00
hp) turned off.

Electric motors rated up to 50 hp have been n lumped together 20.00

at the bus. They were “running” in all of the 3 sscenarios above. 15.50
11.90
IV. SIMULATIONS ARC FLASH ST
TUDY RESULTS 7.94
6.28
Incident energy results on select buses (13
3.2 kV, 2.4 kV and 2.00 2.00 2.00
0.48 kV) that are directly impacted by the m motor loads have
been explored below. Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

A. Bus 1 is fed directly from one of the e utility feeders. It

feeds to downstream step-down transformers. It does Bus 2 - 13.2 kV (P
Proposed)
not have motor loads on it. Incident energy is almost the
same in all three scenarios. Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3

BUS 1 - 13.2 -KV 8.90

Sce.#1 Sce.#2 Sce.#3

6.00 6.00
4.45
8.80 8.90 8.80
2.46 2.46
5.99 0.75 0.98 0.98
0
5.04

2.55 Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)
1.42 1.47 C. Bus 3 is a switchgear bus that feeds a downstream MCC
0.55 with five standalone motors totaling
t 2200 hp. Scenario
#2 generates the highest incidenti energy with the
Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident En
nergy (call/cm2) minimum utility fault contributio
on and all motors running.

B. Bus 2 is fed directly from one of the e utility feeders. It

feeds to downstream step-down transformers. It does BUS 3 - 2.4
4 kV
not have motor loads on it. Under “Exissting” relay setting,
Scenario #1 generates the highest inciident energy of 31 Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3
2
cal/cm as shown below. A slight decrrease in the relay
Time Dial setting that did not impact se
electivity or system
reliability reduced the incident ene ergy in all three
scenarios by more than 65%. 15.79
11.85 11.85 11.50 12.30 11.80

0.46 0.67 0.66

0

Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

2
D. Bus 4 is a MCC with five standalon ne motors totaling uced the incident energy in
or system reliability have redu
1550 hp. Scenario #1 generates the e highest incident all three scenarios.
energy with the maximum utility fault contribution and all
motors running. A slight decrease in th he relay Time Dial
setting that did not impact selectivity orr system reliability
have reduced the incident energy in a all three scenarios Bus 6 - 2.4
4 kV
by more than 35%.
Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3

19.27
Bus 4 - 2.4 kV
Sce.#1 Sce.#2 Sce.#3 14.68 14.12
11.50
14.91
9.40 8.40
11.34
11.38
9.70 9.30 9.10
0.34 0.35 0.34

Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

G. Bus 7 is the line side of a disconnect for a standalone

0.42 0.53 0.54 350 hp motor. Incident energy y for all three scenarios is
very low due to the fast clearin
ng time by upstream fuses.
Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

Bus 7 - 2.4
4 kV
E. Bus 5 is a MCC bus with five standalone motors totaling
2400 hp. Scenario #1 generates the e highest incident Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3
energy with the maximum utility fault contribution and all
motors running. Reducing the setting o on the feeder relay
to the MCC was not a good option a as it compromises 23.78
selectivity with the largest motor fuse.
21.95

17.12
Bus 5 - 2.4 kV
Sce.#1 Sce.#2 Sce.#3
14.90
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.30 0.30
11.34 11.34 11.100 10.70
10.20 Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec)) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

H. Bus 8 is the line side of a disconnect for a standalone

1500 hp motor. Incident energ gy for all three scenarios is
very low due to the fast clearin
ng time by upstream fuses.

0.47 0.60 0.61

Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incidentt Energy (call/cm2)

F. Bus 6 is a switchgear bus with two sstandalone motors

totaling 900 hp. Scenario #1 generrates the highest
incident energy with the maxim mum utility fault
contribution and all motors running. A slight decrease in
the relay Time Dial setting that did nott impact selectivity

3
 Bus 8 - 2.4 kV Bus 10 - 0.48 kV (EExisting )
Sce.#1 Sce.#2 Sce.#3 Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3

44.20 44.80
15.64 14.91
34.10
11.12

7.30 7.27 5.40

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.600 0.60 0.70 1.87 1.91 2.00

Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incidentt Energy (call/cm2)
CURRENT IN AMPERES X 10
00 AT 480 VOLTS

I. Bus 9 is the line side of a disconnectt for a standalone 1000

900
800
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T-SUB29
2 3 4 5
R-SUB29-P
6 7 8 9 100
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10000
1000
900
800

2500 hp motor. Incident energy for all three scenarios is

700 FLA
0016-B-260 700

0.9
600 600
500 500

2.0
relatively low due to the fast clearing time by upstream
400 400

300 300
R-SUB29-P
50
600/5

fuses.
200 51 200

100 100

2.0
90 90
80
70 T-SUB29 80
70
60 60
500 kVA

2.0
50 50
40
5.2% T-SUB29
500 kVA
40

30 30

Bus 9 - 2.4 kV 2.4 - 0.48 kV

5.2%

9.8
20 20

9.8
10
9
R-SUB29-P 10
9
8
7 51/50 8
7

9.8
Sce.#1 Sce.#2 Sce.#3
6 6
Very Inverse
TIMEINSECONDS

TIMEINSECONDS
5 5
BL-SUB29-M
4
CT Ratio = 600/5 4

.7
13
3 BUS 10 3
Tap = 5 (600A)
2
Time Dial = 3 2

Bus 10 Existing Condition

37.22 1
.9
.8
.7
.6
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5 BL-SUB29-M .5

32.53 .4

.3
Frame = 800A (800AT)
.4

.3
Plug = 800
.2
Inst = High (6000A) .2

.1 .1
.09 .09
.08 .08

21.91 .07
.06
.05
.04
.07
.06
.05
.04

.03 .03

.02 .02

.01 .01
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10000

CURRENT IN AMPERES X 10
00 AT 480 VOLTS

3.60 3.10 2.10

0.06 0.06 0.06
Bus 10 - 0.48 kV (Proposed)
(
Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incidentt Energy (call/cm2)
Sce.#1 Sce.#2
2 Sce.#3
J. Bus 10 is a MCC bus with six standalone motors totaling
600 hp. The subject MCC has a main 8 800A molded case
circuit breaker with 6000A instantaneous pickup. Under 8.587 8.55
existing conditions, the arcing time exxceeds 2 sec and
2
led to over 40 cal/cm in Scenarios 1 annd 2. Lowering the 6.34
instantaneous pickup setting was not a good solution as
it negatively impacts selectivity and system reliability.
Replacing the trip unit on the 800A molded case circuit
ng long time, short
breaker with digital-based one featurin
2.4 2.4
time and instantaneous would lower th he incident energy 1.7
in all three scenarios as shown below (Bus 10 – 0.084
Proposed). A fast short time band wa as enough to get 0.084 0.0
084
2
incident energy from over 30 calories/cm to below 3
2
calories/cm in all three scenarios. Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident Energy (call/cm2)

4
 CURRENT IN AMPERES X 100 AT 480 VOLTS
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10000
Case” incident energy for any on ne bus could be obtained
1000 1000
900
800
700
T-SUB29
FLA
R-SUB29-P
0016-B-260
900
800
700
when the system is operating wiith maximum or minimum

0.9
600
500
600
500 utility fault contribution or with moto
ors over 50 hp fully running

2.0
400 400

300
R-SUB29-P
300 or turned off. Bus arcing faults alo ong with protective device
200 6
600/5
50
51 200 arcing time both determine the outcome of the incident
energy. Hence, having low arrcing currents does not
100 100
guarantee low incident energy if clearing
c times become too

2.0
90 90
80 80
70
T-SUB29 70
60 60
slow. Arc flash mitigation using setting changes without

2.0
50
500 kVA 50
40 T-SUB29 40

30
5.2% 500 kVA
2.4 - 0.48 kV
30 impacting selectivity or system reliability and utilizing digital-
5.2% based trip units is readily achie evable when the different

9.8
20 20

scenarios are analyzed and th he full range of device

9.8
10 R-SUB29-P 10
9
8
7 51/50
9
8
7
adjustability available in modern de evices is used.

9.8
6 6
Very Inverse
TIME IN SECONDS

TIME IN SECONDS
5 5
BL-SUB29-M
4
CT Ratio = 600/5 4

.7
13
3 BUS 10 3
Tap = 5 (600A)
2
Time Dial = 3 2

1
.9
Bus 10 Proposed
P Solution 1
.9
.8 .8
.7 .7
.6 .6
.5
BL-SUB29-M .5

VI. RENCES
REFER
.4 .4
Sensor = 800
.3
Plug = 800 BL-SUB29-M .3

.2
Cur Set = 1 (800A) 100% .2

LT Band = C-5 Arcing Current [1] IEEE Guide for the Spec cification of Scope and
.1
STPU = 5.5 (4400A) 6221A .1
.09
.08
.09
.08 Deliverable Requirements forfo an Arc-Flash Hazard
.07
ST Delay = 3 .07
.06
.05
ST Delay I²t = Out
.06
.05 Calculation Study in Accordan
nce with IEEE Std 1584™.
.04 .04

.03 ST Override = .03

.02
12000A .02
Inst = 14 (11200A)
VII VITA
.01 .01
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10000

CURRENT IN AMPERES X 100 AT 480 VOLTS

Jean Y. Ayoub earned his Bachelorr and Master’s degrees in
K. Bus 11 is a MCC with three standalon ne motors totaling Electrical Engineering Power Sys stems from Northeastern
300 hp. Scenario #3 generates the e highest incident University, Boston, MA in 1985 an nd 1987, respectively. He
energy with the minimum utility fault co
ontribution and all has been with General Electric Co o. since March 2000. Mr.
motors off due to the relatively low arcing current of Ayoub currently holds the position of o Senior Power Systems
approximately 7.3 kA. However, even n though the 180 Engineer focusing on power system m studies, arc flash hazard
milliseconds arcing time is relatively long, the incident analysis, power system protection n and arc flash hazard
energy is kept below 6 calories due to the low arcing
training. Prior to joining GE, he spent seven years with
current involved in the calculation.
Exponent Failure Analysis Associattes as a Senior Electrical
Engineer working on electrical equip pment failure investigation
Bus 11 - 0.48 kV and causes of electrical fires. Mr. Ay
youb is a member of IEEE
1854 and IEEE P1683 Working Groups. Mr. Ayoub has
Sce.#1 Sce.#2 Sce.#3 authored and co-authored several technical papers on the
topics of power flow, power factor co orrection, motor protection
and arc flash hazard mitigation.
8.91 8.84
7.34 Marcelo E. Valdes graduated from Cornell University in 1977
with a BS in electrical engineering. Currently he is Global
5.50 Applications Leader, Product Manag gement & Innovations for
GE Industrial Solutions. He has been n with GE over 35 years, in
field engineering, sales, marketing, an
nd application engineering.
2.40 2.50 Mr. Valdes is past chair of the IE EEE Power and Industrial
Applications Engineering chapter in n San Jose, CA, and the
0.06 0.07 0.18 Industrial Applications chapter in San Francisco, CA. Mr.
Valdes has authored and co-authored over 25 papers for IEEE
Arcing Fault (kA) Arcing Time (sec) Incident En
nergy (call/cm2)
and other engineering forums, and holds 17 patents in the field
V. S
CONCLUSIONS of power systems protection and cirrcuit breaker trip systems.
Currently Mr. Valdes is chair of IEE EE P1683, Guide for Safe
Simulation results for this Case Stud dy revealed that Low Voltage Motor Control Centers and a member of several
calculated incident energy at different volttage levels in the other IEEE standard working gro oups and an IEEE IAS
system does not have a consistent patttern. The “Worst distinguished lecturer for 2014/15.