01.4TB.

097

The Debate Over Type C Arc Resistant Switchgear

April 7, 2010

A great deal of confusion exists with regard to the actual protection provided when an arc fault rating is
applied to switchgear or motor control equipment. There are several different test procedures currently
used to evaluate the ability of equipment to withstand the effects of internal arcing faults. These test
procedures are IEC 62271-200 Annex A, IEEE C37.20.7, and EEMAC G14-1. All of these documents
have differences in procedures and requirements and one can debate which provides a more complete
or appropriate evaluation methodology. Despite all of their differences they share one common
component that is critical to understanding the level of protection provided; all three of these evaluate the
equipment based on preventing the release of fault gases into designated areas and all three monitor
this effect by using cotton burn indicators. None of the documents address operator injury due to the
release of Thermo-acoustic shock waves, the risks associated with the release of toxic gases (vaporized
metal, burning insulation and paint caused by the intense heat of the arc), sound pressure, or exposure
to electrical shock. Further, the evaluation provided is based on exposure to “survivable” or “curable”
burns; not on being injury-free.

The original internal arc fault test appeared in IEC 298 Appendix AA in the mid-1970’s (the new IEC
designation is 62271-200). Two levels of protection were offered, based solely on who could access the
equipment; qualified personnel or the general public. The concept of compartment-to-compartment
protection was introduced in the EEMAC document in 1987 and designated as Accessibility Type C. In
2001, the IEEE document, C37.20.7 was published and included a suffix C designation in its annex as a
means of providing an IEEE test that covered the EEMAC design. It was specifically left out of the main
body of the IEEE document and not shown as a preferred rating because it is often misinterpreted to
imply a level of protection with open doors or with parts of the power circuit exposed. The compartment-
to-compartment rating of Type C or suffix C has, through time and overzealous marketing strategies, led
users to believe that working inside energized equipment is safe because the Type (or suffix) C test for
arc fault was passed.

The 2009 edition of NFPA 70E clearly states that the user may take advantage of applying qualified Arc
Resistant (using IEEE C37.20.7) equipment when evaluating the Hazard/Risk Category for certain
operations. Specifically, the document cites activities performed on Arc Resistant Type 1 or 2 (for
clearing times of <0.5 sec with a perspective fault current not to exceed the arc resistant rating of the
equipment) such as circuit breaker operation (opening or closing) and insertion or removal (racking) of
the circuit breaker with the doors closed can be classified as Zone 0. The document further states that
these same operations with the door open, raise the level to Zone 4. A 50% reduction in the Hazard
Zone is offered for activities in the designated control circuit (instrument) compartment (120V or below)
for arc resistant Metal-Clad gear when the circuits are energized, taking the level from Zone 4 to Zone 2.
Reading between the lines here, the control compartment must be isolated from the power circuits to
meet the Metal-Clad requirements. The document still indicates a level of risk that requires PPE once
the control compartment door is opened.

Powell Industries, Inc. Tel: 713.944.6900 • Fax: 713.947.4453

PO Box 12818 www.powellind.com
Houston, TX • 77217
©2005 Powell Industries, Inc. • All rights reserved. info@powellind.com
 01.4TB.097

The Debate Over Type C Arc Resistant Switchgear

There is no distinction made for any of the suffix ratings given in IEEE C37.20.7 Annex A. In other
words, NFPA 70E does not recognize arc resistant ratings claiming protection between adjacent
compartments, so specifying any level beyond the base rating of Type 1 or Type 2 does not gain any
advantage with respect to incident energy mitigation.

All of the ratings and protective schemes discussed in the test procedures and in NFPA70E simply
reduce the level of injury or reduce the likelihood of injury. None of these documents imply that it is safe
to work on energized equipment. There is no additional personnel protection provided in specifying a
rating beyond the Type 1 or Type 2 Accessibility found in the IEEE C37.20.7 test guide. This is not to
say that there is no value in specifying a suffix B or suffix C rating, but it does require a bit more
understanding of what the expected goals are for the protection scheme. These ratings may provide
advantages in limiting internal damage to the equipment and reduced repair times in the event of a fault
when properly coordinated with other protective devices.

Michael Wactor, P.E.

Technical Director – Research and Development

Powell Industries, Inc. Tel: 713.944.6900 • Fax: 713.947.4453

PO Box 12818 www.powellind.com
Houston, TX • 77217
©2005 Powell Industries, Inc. • All rights reserved. info@powellind.com