Arc Flash Hazards and Electrical Safety Program Implementation
Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. IAS54p2
H. Landis Floyd, P.E. Daniel R Doan, P.E.
Fellow, IEEE Senior Member, IEEE
DuPont DuPont
PO Box 80723 PO Box 80723
Wilmington, DE 19880 Wilmington, DE 19880
USA USA
Abstract – Electrical Arc Flash is a significant hazard
associated with electrical power systems. Understanding of
this hazard is developing, and the electrical hazards our
workers encounter can be reduced with proper design and
work practice management. This paper provides an
introduction to the electrical arc flash hazard, and description
of a comprehensive arc flash management program that
includes analysis, electrical system design, and work
practices and protective clothing plans. A case history of an
industrial site's arc flash hazard mitigation program is
included.
Index Terms —arc flash, electrical safety, electrical
hazards, hazard reduction, protective clothing.
I. INTRODUCTION
Beginning in the 1980s, with the formation of the IEEE
Standard P902[1] working group, several technical
committees in the IEEE Industry Applications Society led
efforts to advance standards, regulations, and technology to
reduce workplace electrical injuries. This work has
significantly increased understanding of burn injuries caused
by exposure to arcing faults in electric power distribution
systems. Most importantly, cost effective techniques to
eliminate or mitigate arc flash hazards have been developed.
This includes arc flash hazard analysis tools and techniques,
equipment and system design methods to reduce or
eliminate personnel exposure to arcing faults, work practices
to reduce risk of exposure to potential arcing faults, and the
development of personal protective equipment and clothing
to minimize injury if workers are in proximity to an arcing fault.
As noted by Doan, Floyd and Neal[2], a comprehensive arc
flash hazards management program that includes arc flash
hazard analysis to identify and quantify hazardous exposures
and to assure proper selection of personal protective
equipment and clothing, the application of engineering design
solutions to reduce frequency and magnitude of arcing faults,
and improved safe work practices can be cost effective.
II. ELECTRICAL ARC FLASH INJURIES
An arcing fault involves an intense transfer of energy from
the power system to the environment surrounding the fault.
The energy of an arc flash can cause burn injury on bare skin
and possibly cause ignition of conventional clothing. The
burn injury sustained can be more severe if the worker’s
clothing catches fire or melts as a result of this thermal threat.
Burn injuries can be avoided or at least minimized by the
identification of job tasks and work areas where electric arc
IAS 2005
C T Wu Susan L Lovasic
DuPont DuPont
Cheng Kung Road PO Box 27001
Kuan Yin, Tao-Yuan Hsien Richmond, VA 23261
Taiwan USA
flashes can occur, quantification of the expected thermal
hazard, and selection and use of the last line of defense –
personal protective equipment (PPE). In the U.S. alone, an
estimated 2000 workers are seriously injured with arc flash
burns each year. Hospitalization and rehabilitation costs are
estimated to exceed $US 1 billion annually. The life-altering
affect to burn injury survivors – including lost work time due to
hospitalization and rehabilitation, disfigurement, and
reconstructive surgeries – can be avoided or at least
minimized by implementation of a comprehensive electric arc
hazard safety program as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A comprehensive arc hazard safety program.
III. ANALYZING THE HAZARDS
A. Methods of Analysis
Research into the nature and hazard of the electrical arc
flash has been published in many papers in recent years.
Lee published an early paper describing this hazard and
providing a theoretical incident energy equation [3].
Subsequent papers by Doughty, Neal and others [4][5][6]
have discussed protective clothing testing and methods for
estimating the arc flash incident thermal energy that is
present in a system.
In 2002, an IEEE standards working group gathered test
data, performed further testing on the arc flash hazard, and
published IEEE-1584 “Guide for Performing Arc Flash
Hazard Calculations” [7]. The development of the Guide was
described in a paper given at the IEEE/IAS/PCIC conference,
and was published in the IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine [8]. The equations published in IEEE-1584 provide
a method for estimating the thermal incident energy hazard
1919 0-7803-9208-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
1
for workers who are exposed to electrical power systems and
equipment. These equations have been accepted by local
and national codes and standards bodies (such as NFPA
70E, “Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace” [9]) as
one of the permissible means of assessing arc flash hazards.
There are other hazard exposures during an electrical arc
flash, such as blast, pressure wave, and shrapnel. Some
papers have been published on these subjects [10][11][12],
and more testing is required to determine the extent of these
hazards. The thermal hazard is generally accepted as the
most significant hazard from arc flash, since documented arc
flash injuries are predominantly burn injuries[13].
Further research into the arc flash hazard has been
published recently which points out the high variability of the
arc flash hazard, depending on design of the equipment. In
particular, Stokes and Sweeting[14] have shown that
horizontal bus bars, pointing at the worker, can have very
high incident energy exposures, since the plasma in the arc
can be pushed off the ends of the bus bars, toward the
worker. In equipment with this geometry, such as the end
section of a bus compartment with the end plates removed,
special safety procedures should be in place to ensure that
the worker is not exposed to the arc plasma during an
incident.
B. Results of Typical Industrial Site Analysis
A summary of the arc flash hazard analysis for a typical
industrial company was published as a recent paper [15].
The hazard analysis data for 9 660 pieces of equipment, and
over 1 000 000 annual exposures was evaluated for incident
energy, type of equipment, and type of work being done. A
summary of the results for incident energy is shown in Figure
2. Incident thermal energy can be measured in calories per
square centimeter (cal/sqcm) or joules per square centimeter
(J/sqcm). One cal/sqcm is equivalent to 4.18 J/sqcm.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 1.2 1.2 - 4 4 - 20 20 - 40 > 40
Incident Energy in cal/sqcm
Figure 2. Percent of annual exposures by incident energy.
Nearly 75% of the exposures can be protected by a single
layer of flame-resistant fabric. Many manufacturers make
garments such as shirt and pants or coveralls that have an
arc rating of at least 4 cal/sqcm. At a minimum, all electrical
workers should be wearing garments of this type that have
been tested and approved for arc flash exposure. Also, other
workers who operate electrical equipment should also be
protected. For this industrial company, everyday protective
clothing (pants and shirt) or coveralls of this fabric can be a
simple and effective means of protection from 75% of the arc
flash exposures during work. See section V below.
IAS 2005
The exposures over 40 cal/sqcm are of particular concern,
since these high energy exposures can bring significant injury
to the worker. Injuries to the ears through the loud noise, and
to the body through blast effects and shrapnel, are difficult to
quantify for these high-energy exposures. The hazards
should be reduced by careful attention to design, over-current
protection, and safety practices.
IV. REDUCING THE HAZARDS
The data from an arc flash hazards analysis provides the
basis for identifying opportunities to eliminate or reduce
hazardous exposures. Often thermal energy exposures can
be lowered by an order of magnitude by making changes in
protective relay and circuit breaker settings or selection, often
at little or no cost. For fuse applications, the substitution of a
faster current limiting fuse can be a low cost solution to
reduce arcing fault current and/or fault duration. Switchgear
designs that contain or direct arcing fault energy away from
workers are also an option.
Motor control centers and switchgear, employing “smart”
technology or sensors and measuring devices, enable
shifting some maintenance and trouble-shooting tasks to the
safer environment of a remote computer screen.
The data from the arc flash study can also be used in
redesigning administrative controls to reduce the frequency
of hazardous situations, and limit their time exposure. The
redesign of a routine switching procedure to isolate an
industrial unit substation is an example of applying
enhancements to administrative controls. A typical unit
substation may have one or two primary switches or circuit
breakers and 10-15 secondary circuit breakers. Depending
on the switching sequence employed, the task to isolate the
substation may require a worker’s hazard exposure of 5
minutes minimum to 45 minutes maximum. Our goal when
planning a switching sequence should be to minimize
hazardous switching operations.
Other administrative and engineering controls include
designing procedures or methods that place workers at a
greater distance from potential exposure. Examples include
remote switching and remote racking of drawout circuit
breakers.
V. PROTECTING AGAINST THERMAL HAZARDS
A. Evolution of Arc Protective Clothing and Standards
Use of flame resistant clothing to protect workers from the
intense heat of an electric arc flash has been used by some
employers in the chemical industry and electrical utility sector
since the 1980’s. However until the mid 1990’s, their ability
to select the most appropriate arc flash protective garments
was limited. The development of an industry recognized test
method (ASTM F-1959[16]) to assess the protective qualities
of flame resistant fabrics to the unique thermal hazards
associated with an arc flash has greatly aided efforts to
protect workers from burn injury. Additionally, updating of a
key industry standard for electrical workplace safety (NFPA
70E [9]) along with the development of improved methods to
conduct workplace hazard assessments (IEEE 1584[7]) have
also helped put the pieces together. Employers have
increased awareness regarding the need to protect their
workers from the hazards of electrical arc flashes. Employers
1920 0-7803-9208-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
have additional means to conduct assessments of their
workplace hazards, and once they have quantified the level
of hazard associated with particular workplace activities, they
can seek out appropriate flame and arc resistant clothing and
other PPE to match these hazards.
B. Steps To Implement An Arc Protective Clothing Program
Once the arc flash protection boundary and arc energy
hazard level has been determined for the various work tasks,
then the next step is to match these identified arc hazard
levels with the corresponding protective clothing and PPE.
Note that the appropriate PPE will likely include protection for
the worker’s body (flame resistant clothing) as well as
protective items for the worker’s eyes, head, hands, and feet,
as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Example of Arc Flash Hazard PPE.
In the case of protective clothing, the arc rating (expressed
in cal/sqcm) of the clothing system should meet or exceed
the arc energy level determined by the hazard analysis. Look
for the “arc rating” provided in the label of the protective
garment. Also be sure that the garment is compliant with the
appropriate performance standards. One key standard for
clothing is ASTM F-1506[17]. Other specialized standards
also exist. These include ASTM F-1891[18] for flame
resistant rainwear and ASTM F-2178[19] for face shields and
hoods.
For simplicity, the employer might choose to group
together tasks with similar arc protection requirements and
create a few levels of protection that meet their particular
needs. This approach would cluster similar arc energy levels
to simplify the number of clothing ensembles to be
purchased. The approach will also increase the likelihood
that all workers required to wear the arc protective clothing
will understand which level of clothing they must wear for a
particular assignment. It is important to note that if the
employer chooses to cluster the work tasks, that the task with
the highest arc hazard will set the minimum requirement for
the arc protective clothing at that level.
For many higher energy arc hazards (e.g. those ≥ 15
cal/sqcm), layering of two flame resistant garments should be
considered. This approach would permit the worker to wear
a lightweight base flame resistant garment to meet work
tasks expected to have lower energy hazards while providing
added thermal protection due to the second flame resistant
IAS 2005
garment worn over the base garment for specific tasks. For
example, a single layer 6 oz/sqyd aramid fabric garment such
as a shirt and pant combination would provide an arc rating
of approximately 6 cal/sqcm. If another 6 oz/sqyd aramid
fabric garment, such as a coverall, were worn over this shirt
and pant combination, the combined arc rating for this two-
layer system would be approximately 20 cal/sqcm. This
layering approach can improve worker comfort since it only
requires the use of heavier weight flame resistant garment
systems for specific tasks.
In addition to identifying and providing flame resistant
clothing with the appropriate arc rating for the work tasks, the
employer must also ensure that any garments worn over the
designated arc resistant clothing (e.g. rainwear, jackets,
sweat shirts) are also flame resistant. As for underlayers,
meltable fibers such as nylon and polyester must not be worn
next to the skin. These materials could increase skin burn
injury even if worn under flame resistant clothing. The use of
non-meltable undergarments (such as those made with
100% cotton or a flame resistant fabric) is permitted.
C. Criteria To Consider
There are many criteria an employer may use in deciding
exactly what type of PPE to use for electric arc flash
protection. For flame resistant clothing, these criteria usually
include: level of protection – including compliance to relevant
standards, garment durability, ease of care, and wearer
comfort. Cost effectiveness is another important factor. In
addition to the initial cost of the garments, employers must
consider life cycle costs, such as how long the garment will
last and how often it will need to be removed from service for
repair.
When selecting flame resistant clothing for arc flash
protection, the employer should consider the following steps
for implementing a clothing program:
1) Organize
• Determine what job task workers may conduct which
could expose them to an electric arc flash
• Determine the possible arc hazard level of each of
these tasks
• Select appropriate PPE and protective clothing options
for all of the tasks.
2) Implement
• Develop a plan for implementing PPE, especially
protective clothing solutions, for each hazard identified
• Make sure that all involved parties (e.g. workers and
supervisors) understand the plan
• Distribute the PPE and protective clothing along with
instructions for its use and care to all those involved
• Educate workers to the need for the new PPE and
protective clothing to ensure a seamless integration of
the plan.
3) Monitor
• Schedule regular meetings to discuss how well the
plan has been implemented at the work sites
• Be prepared to address questions about protection
level, comfort, durability, and use and care.
VI. CASE STUDY
A. Site information
1921 0-7803-9208-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
 A manufacturing facility near Taipei, Taiwan was built in
1990. The plant electrical system includes a 69 kV
substation with a set of gas-insulated switches, two 69/13.8
kV main transformers and a 13.8 kV main switchgear. The
main switchgear supplies power to five switch centers. Each
switch center powers three to four motor control centers
(MCCs). Total electricity demand for the system is 16,700
kW. The site electrical operations workers wear two-layer
aramid suit and hood to protect them from thermal arc flash.
B. Arc flash study
In 2001, the operating management received information
regarding the requirement to meet NFPA 70E changes which
have impact on arc flash PPE. The business unit electrical
safety network invited a corporate electrical safety resource
to study the impact of the changes and received
management support to complete a study on arc flash
incident energy hazards.
As this manufacturing plant is the newer plant in the
business, and had a recently completed short circuit study on
file, the site was selected to be the first plant to complete an
arc flash study. The study was completed in March 2001.
The results of the study are summarized in Figure 4. Over
70% of the exposures were estimated to be below 4
cal/sqcm, and approximately 1% of the exposures were
above 20 cal/sqcm. No design changes to further reduce
these exposures were recommended.
Percent of Annual Exposures
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
<1.2 1.2 - 4 4 - 20 20 - 40 >40
Incident Energy in cal/sqcm
Figure 4. Case Study results, percent of annual exposures.
C. Clothing Testing and Program Implementation
At the same time, to fully meet compliance on garment
selection, the regional engineer communicated with a local
aramid garment manufacturer in Taiwan to conduct a test of
available clothing. This test included selected compositions
of two-layer 4.5 oz/sqyd aramid cloth, two-layer 6 oz/sqyd
aramid cloth, and two-layer 7.5 oz/sqyd aramid cloth. The
test helped the engineer develop an understanding of the
capability of locally-made aramid clothing manufacturers.
After the arc flash incident energy study was completed,
the company started a local team consisting of
representatives from seven company sites in Taiwan to
discuss the garment selection program, and to share the
requirements of arc flash incident energy studies. The intent
is to purchase the locally made aramid garments to reduce
IAS 2005
replacement cost and work with other local sites to set up
PPE programs consistently. An example of the PPE used is
shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Typical PPE used.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Engineers, managers, and workers are beginning to realize
that electrical arc flash contains serious hazards. Research
is continuing, and there is a lot more to learn about these
hazards. A comprehensive arc hazard safety program
includes understanding the hazards, analyzing the electrical
system to estimate the energy released, reducing the
hazards through design and work practices, and protecting
with arc protective clothing as a last defense.
A case study for a facility in Asia was described, and
shows the importance of detailed review of hazards and work
practices. Local manufacturers of clothing may be available
to help set up and maintain a personal protective clothing
plan.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] IEEE P902, “IEEE Guide for Maintenance, Operation,
and Safety of Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems”.
[2] D.R. Doan, H.L. Floyd, and T.E. Neal, “Comparison of
methods for selecting personal protective equipment for
arc flash hazards”, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, Vol 40, Issue 4, July/Aug 2004, pp 963 –
969.
[3] R.H. Lee, “The Other Electrical Hazard: Electric Arc
Blast Burns”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Applications, Vol. 1A-18, No. 3, May/June 1982, p246.
[4] T.E. Neal, A.H. Bingham and R.L. Doughty, “Protective
Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Exposure”, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol 33, Issue 4,
Jul/Aug 1997, pp 1041-1054.
[5] R.L. Doughty, T.E. Neal, T.A. Dear, and A.H. Bingham,
“Testing Update on Protective Clothing and Equipment
for Electric Arc Exposure”, IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, Vol 5 Issue 1, Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 37-49.
[6] R.L. Doughty, T.E. Neal and H.L. Floyd II, “Predicting
Incident Energy to Better Manage the Electric Arc
Hazard on 600-V Power Distribution Systems”, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol 36, Issue 1,
Jan/Feb 2000, pp 257-269.
1922 0-7803-9208-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
[7] IEEE 1584, “Guide for Arc Flash Hazard Calculations”.
[8] D.R. Doan, et. al., “Development of the Guide for
Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations”, IEEE
Industry Applications Magazine, Volume 11, Issue 3,
May-June 2005, Page(s):30 - 39
[9] NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the
Workplace, National Fire Protection Association,
Boston, MA 02210.
[10] G.E. Heberlein, Jr., J.A. Higgins, R.A. Epperly, “Report
on enclosure internal arcing tests”, IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, Volume 2, Issue 3, May-June
1996, Page(s):35 – 42.
[11] M. Wactor, G.H. Miller, J. Bowen and M. Capelli-
Schellpfeffer, “Modeling of the Pressure Wave
Associated with Arc Fault”, IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, Volume 10, Issue 4, July-Aug. 2004,
Page(s):59 – 67.
[12] T.E. Neal and R.F. Parry, “Specialized PPE testing for
electric arc hazards beyond heat exposure - shrapnel,
pressure, and noise”, IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, Volume 11, Issue 3, May-June 2005,
Page(s):49-53.
[13] EPRI (R.E.Wyzga and W. Lindroos), “Health
Implications of Global Electrification”, Occupational
Electrical Injury: An International Symposium, Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol 888, October
30, 1999, pp 1-7.
[14] A.D. Stokes and D.K. Sweeting, ‘Electric arcing burn
hazards’, IEEE/IAS/Petroleum and Chemical Industry
Technical Conference, Sept 2004, Page(s):351 - 359.
[15] D.R. Doan and R.A. Sweigart, "A Summary of Arc Flash
Hazard Calculations”, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, Volume 39, Issue 4, July-Aug. 2003,
Page(s):1200 – 1204.
[16] ASTM F-1959, ”Standard Test Method for Determining
the Arc Thermal Performance Value of Materials for
Clothing”, ASTM International.
[17] ASTM F-1506, “Standard Performance Specification for
Flame Resistant Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel
for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary
Electric Arc and Related Thermal Hazards”, ASTM
International.
[18] ASTM F-1891, “Standard Specification for Arc and
Flame Resistant Rainwear“, ASTM International.
[19] ASTM F-2178, “Standard Test Method for Determining
The Arc Rating Of Face Protective Products”, ASTM
International.
IX. VITA
C T Wu is an Electrical Safety and Technology Consultant
for DuPont, supporting operations in the Asia/Pacific region.
C T majored in Electronic Engineering at the Taipei Institute
of Technology. C T is chair of the DuPont Taiwan electrical
safety team, promoting arc flash hazard analysis at facilities
in the region. He is also developing electrical safety practices
in local language for DuPont China sites.
Daniel R. Doan (S’80, M’81, SM’00) is a Consultant for
DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware. Dan received the BSEE
and MSEE degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of
IAS 2005
Technology. He has co-authored IEEE papers at IAS/PCIC
and Pulp&Paper on subjects ranging from electrical safety to
electrical system reliability and operations. He has co-
authored PCIC Tutorials on Electrical System Reliability and
Arc Flash Hazard Analysis, and has participated in many IAS
Electrical Safety Workshops as author and presenter. Dan is
a senior member of the IEEE, a member of the IEEE 1584
‘Guide for Arc Flash Calculations’ Working Group, a member
of the IEEE/NFPA Research and Testing Planning
Committee, and is a registered Professional Engineer in
Pennsylvania.
H. Landis Floyd, II (M’73, SM’91, F’00) received his BSEE
degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
in 1973. He has been employed with the DuPont Company
since then, with assignments in manufacturing facilities
design, operation and maintenance. He currently serves as a
Senior Consultant in electrical technology and specializes in
power system reliability and electrical safety in plant
construction, operation, and maintenance. He chairs the
DuPont Corporate Electrical Safety Team. Lanny currently is
Vice-Chair of the PCIC. He is Past Chair of the PCIC Safety
Subcommittee and the Awards Nominating Subcommittee. In
the IAS Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
Department, he is Past Chair of the Power Systems
Engineering Committee, the Power Systems Engineering
Maintenance, Operation & Safety Subcommittee, and the
IEEE Standard, “Guide to Maintenance, Operation and
Safety of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems. Lanny
is a member of the board of directors for the Electrical Safety
Foundation International and chairs the ESFI Workplace
Safety Committee. He is a Professional Member of the
American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), a member of
Panel 1 of the National Electrical Code, and a registered
professional engineer in Delaware. He was the 1999
recipient of the PCIC Electrical Safety Excellence Award, the
2002 recipient of the IEEE’s Richard Harold Kaufmann
Award, and a 2004 co-recipient with Thomas E. Neal and
Richard L. Doughty of the IEEE Medal for Engineering
Excellence.
Susan L Lovasic is a Research Associate with DuPont
Personal Protection in Richmond, Virginia. A graduate of
Penn State with a bachelor’s degree in Chemical
Engineering, she has worked for DuPont since 1984. Susan’s
work experience has included both research and marketing
responsibilities in several DuPont fiber businesses, including
® ® ®
Kevlar aramid, Stainmaster and Antron nylon, and
®
Nomex aramid. Her current research efforts focus on
materials for use in garments to protect workers from the
thermal hazards of flash fire and electric arc exposures.
Susan has participated on various ASTM and NFPA
technical committees related to thermal protection and flame
resistant clothing and is a member of AIChE, ASSE, and
AATCC. She has conducted extensive research to assess
critical properties of flame resistant apparel including
instrumented thermal mannequin flash fire and electric arc
flash testing as well as broad assessments of the comfort
and durability properties of garments.
1923 0-7803-9208-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE