IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO.
6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
Understanding the Effect of Electrode Configuration
on Incident Energy and Arc-Flash Boundary
Adam Reeves , Member, IEEE, Mark Freyenberger, Member, IEEE, and Michael Hodder , Member, IEEE
Abstract—The 2018 update to the IEEE Std. 1584 Guide for
Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations has introduced new
electrode configurations that can drastically affect incident energy
calculations and labeling. The electrode configurations discussed
in this article are: vertical conductors/electrodes inside a metal
box/enclosure (VCB), vertical conductors/electrodes terminated
in an insulating barrier inside a metal box/enclosure (VCBB),
and horizontal conductors/electrodes inside a metal box/enclosure
(HCB). It is generally understood that at typical working distances,
HCB will produce a higher incident energy than VCBB, which
will produce a higher incident energy than VCB with all other
parameters equal. However, there is a counter-intuitive trend for
the arc-flash boundary, such that the boundary distance for HCB is
often lower than the boundary for VCBB and VCB. The electrode
configuration will also affect the magnitude of arcing current,
which may result in varying fault clearing times depending on
which electrode configuration is selected. This article will discuss
arcing fault current, incident energy, and arc-flash boundary re-
sults for each enclosed electrode configuration that challenge the
assumption that HCB will always yield the worst-case incident
energy and arc-flash boundary. The results of 50 arc flash studies
have been surveyed and presented in this article to supplement and
validate observations and conclusions.
Index Terms—Arcing fault current, arc flash, arc-flash
boundary, arc-flash study, electrode configuration, HCB, IEEE
1584, incident energy, VCB, VCBB, working distance.
I. INTRODUCTION
FPA 70E-2018 [1]. Annex D encourages users to consult
N the latest version of the IEEE Std. 1584 document.
IEEE Std. 1584-2002 [2] did not include electrode config-
uration as an input variable to the arc-flash calculation model.
However, equipment modeled as “arc in a cubic box” using IEEE
Std. 1584–2002 equations is equivalent to the VCB configura-
tion in IEEE Std. 1584-2018 [3]. Other electrode configurations
Manuscript received February 7, 2020; accepted July 2, 2020. Date of
publication September 14, 2020; date of current version November 19, 2020.
Paper 2020-ESafC-0203, presented at the 2020 IEEE IAS Electrical Safety
Workshop, Reno, NV, USA, Mar. 2–6, and approved for publication in the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Electrical Safety
Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. (Corresponding author:
Adam Reeves.)
Adam Reeves is with Eaton Corporation, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
(e-mail: adamreeves@eaton.com).
Mark Freyenberger is with Eaton Corporation, Fenton, MO 63026 USA (e-
mail: markafreyenberger@eaton.com).
Michael Hodder is with Eaton Corporation, Milton, ON L9T 5C3, Canada
(e-mail: michaelbhodder@eaton.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online
at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2020.3023918
0093-9994 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6069
discussed in IEEE Std. 1584-2018 that are inside a metal “box”
enclosure include VCBB and HCB.
It is possible for electrical equipment to have multiple elec-
trode configurations and in some cases even within the same
compartment. When multiple electrode configurations are con-
sidered, it is not always intuitive which electrode configuration
will result in the highest calculated incident energy and arc-flash
boundary at a single location. The effects of electrode config-
uration are now required to be considered when the worst-case
incident energy and arc-flash boundary are reported in an arc
flash report and label. The relationships discussed in this arti-
cle are valid for enclosed equipment ≤600 V. The effects on
equipment locations above 600 V and for open air electrode
configurations are not discussed.
II. ARCING FAULT CURRENT
A. Electrode Configurations
The calculated arcing fault current is dependent on the se-
lected electrode configuration. In general, the arcing fault current
of a VCBB fault will have a higher magnitude than the arcing
fault current of a VCB or HCB fault, with all other parameters
equal.
It is expected that during a VCBB fault, the insulating barrier
will collect and contain the arc plasma at the ends of the con-
ductors. The containment of arc plasma near the fault location
creates a lower impedance arc which results in a higher arcing
fault current magnitude. During a VCB or HCB fault, there is
no barrier to contain the arc plasma, so the arc can bow out
away from the fault location, creating a longer arc with greater
impedance.
The arcing current for a VCB fault is generally similar to the
arcing current for an HCB fault. The only difference between
the VCB and HCB configurations is the orientation of the
conductors to the calorimeters that IEEE Std. 1584-2018 used
to measure incident energy.
B. Sample Arcing Fault Current Calculation
Consider a sample arcing fault current calculation for a
switchgear work location with the parameters in Table I.
Table II shows the arcing current results using the calculation
parameters of Table I.
The results in Table II show that the VCBB arcing fault current
is higher than the VCB and HCB current as expected. Fig. 1 plots
this trend across the entire bolted fault current range of IEEE Std.
6070 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
TABLE I
SAMPLE CALCULATION PARAMETERS
TABLE II
ARCING CURRENT RESULTS
Fig. 1. Arcing fault current versus bolted fault current.
1584-2018 and confirms that VCBB generally yields a higher
arcing fault current with all other parameters equal.
III. INCIDENT ENERGY
A. Electrode Configurations
The calculated incident energy is also dependent on the
selected electrode configuration. VCB will yield the lowest
incident energy at a typical working distance with all other
parameters equal. VCBB will yield the next highest incident
energy, followed by HCB.
1) VCB: During a VCB fault, the arc will move away from
the source, and the plasma will be directed off the ends of
the conductors, parallel to the enclosure opening.
2) VCBB: During a VCBB fault, the arc is expected to move
away from the source and terminate at an insulating barrier.
The barrier will direct some of the arc plasma toward the
enclosure opening, resulting in a higher incident energy
than VCB.
3) HCB: During an HCB fault, the ends of the conductors
are pointed directly toward the enclosure opening. When
the arc moves away from the source, the plasma will be
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE III
INCIDENT ENERGY RESULTS
Fig. 2. Incident energy plot versus bolted fault current with fixed clearing
time.
directed out of the enclosure opening and will yield a
higher incident energy than both VCB and VCBB.
B. Sample Incident Energy Calculation With
Fixed Clearing Time
Table III shows the incident energy results from a sample
switchgear installation with same parameters of Table I.
The results in Table III show the HCB incident energy is
higher than the VCBB and VCB incident as expected. Fig. 2
plots this trend across the entire bolted fault current range of
IEEE Std. 1584-2018 and confirms that HCB yields a higher
incident energy with all other parameters equal.
C. Sample Incident Energy Calculation With
Varied Clearing Time
The calculations in Fig. 2 assume a fixed fault clearing time
over the entire range of bolted fault current, which is not realistic
in distribution systems. As the fault current varies, the line-side
protective device response time will change the fault duration
based on the device tripping characteristics.
For example, a 50 kA fault will likely result in an instanta-
neous response of a circuit breaker, whereas a 20 kA fault may
take longer to clear due to an intentional delay for coordination.
A 20 kA fault that lasts for a longer time may result in a higher
incident energy than a 50 kA fault that clears instantaneously.
Even though VCB is intuitively expected to have a lower incident
energy, the higher arcing fault current from VCBB may result in
a faster clearing time. This may cause the VCBB result to have
a lower final incident energy than VCB.
Fig. 3 plots the incident energy result over a range of bolted
fault currents, but instead of a fixed fault clearing time, it
REEVES et al.: UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION ON INCIDENT ENERGY AND ARC-FLASH BOUNDARY
Fig. 3. Incident energy plot versus bolted fault current with varied clearing
time.
TABLE IV
SAMPLE CIRCUIT BREAKER SETTINGS
considers the response of an upstream protective device with an
electronic trip unit with Short Time and Instantaneous responses
enabled. Table IV shows the device settings for this sample
calculation. Note that pickup values shown in Table IV include
typical trip unit tolerance.
Fig. 3 shows that the electrode configuration that yields the
lowest incident energy will change based on the varying bolted
fault current, which impacts arcing fault current and clearing
time.
1) Point 1 – The VCBB fault reaches the STPU.
2) Point 2 – The VCB fault reaches the STPU.
3) Point 3 – The VCBB fault reaches the INST.
4) Point 4 – The VCB fault reaches the INST.
The first observation is that HCB yields the highest incident
energy over the entire fault current range. This is expected
because the HCB arcing current is less than or equal to the
VCBB and VCB arcing current, so the clearing time of a typical
inverse or definite time overcurrent protective device for HCB
will always be greater than or equal to the VCBB or VCB
clearing time. In other words, the incident energy from HCB
cannot be lower than the energy from VCB or VCBB because
the HCB clearing time is always equal to or greater than VCB
or VCBB clearing time with the same or lower arcing current.
The second observation in Fig. 3 is that at times the VCBB
incident energy is greater than the VCB incident energy, and at
other times the VCB incident energy is greater than the VCBB
incident energy. Consider the following points on the plot.
1) For fault currents up to point 1, both the VCB and VCBB
arcing fault currents are below the STPU of the protective
device. In this example, a maximum of 2 s fault clearing
time is considered. For a fixed clearing time, VCBB is
higher than VCB.
2) At point 1, the VCBB arcing fault current causes an STPU
response of the overcurrent protective device. The lower
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6071
arcing fault current of VCB has not yet reached the STPU,
so from points 1 to 2, VCB has a higher incident energy
because of the longer clearing time.
3) At point 2, the VCB arcing fault current exceeds the STPU
of the protective device. Between points 2 and 3, both
VCBB and VCB have the same clearing time of 300 ms.
For a fixed clearing time, VCBB has a higher incident
energy.
4) At point 3, the VCBB arcing fault current causes an in-
stantaneous response before the VCB arcing fault current
exceeds the instantaneous pickup (INST). Between points
3 and 4, VCB has a higher incident energy because of the
longer clearing time.
5) Finally, at point 4, the VCB arcing fault current exceeds
the instantaneous pickup (INST). For fault currents past
point 4, both configurations have the same instantaneous
clearing time. For a fixed clearing time, VCBB has a higher
incident energy.
IV. ARC-FLASH BOUNDARY
A. Electrode Configurations
The calculated arc-flash boundary is also dependent on the
selected electrode configuration but does not follow the same
trend as incident energy. Depending on the bolted fault current
and clearing time, an HCB fault could either yield the highest
arc-flash boundary, or the lowest arc-flash boundary.
Prior to the introduction of electrode configurations, inci-
dent energy was always positively correlated to the arc-flash
boundary. This is still true when only considering one electrode
configuration. However, due to differences in arc behavior,
the highest incident energy does not always correspond to the
highest arc-flash boundary when multiple configurations are
considered in IEEE Std. 1584-2018.
As the distance from the arc increases, the incident energy
will decrease. Because the arc-flash boundary is defined as the
distance at which the incident energy is calculated to be 1.2
cal/cm2 , a higher incident energy will correspond to a higher
arc-flash boundary with all other parameters equal. However, as
working distance increases, the rate at which the incident energy
decreases is not the same for each electrode configuration.
The HCB incident energy decreases at a faster rate as distance
increases, so at a large enough distance from the arc, HCB will no
longer yield the highest incident energy and will have the lowest
boundary. The VCBB incident energy decreases at a faster rate
than VCB, so at a large enough distance from the arc, VCBB will
have a lower incident energy than VCB and a lower boundary.
This is due to the differences in how hot air and plasma will
rise as it is expelled from the enclosure, further explained in
Section V.
B. Sample Arc-Flash Boundary Calculation With
Fixed Clearing Time
Table V shows the arc-flash boundary results from the sample
switchgear installation with parameters of Table I.
6072 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
TABLE V
ARC-FLASH BOUNDARY RESULTS
Fig. 4. Arc-flash boundary versus bolted fault current with fixed clearing time.
Fig. 5. Combined plot with varied clearing time.
The results in Table V show the VCB arc-flash boundary is
higher than the HCB and VCBB arc-flash boundaries. Fig. 4
plots this trend across the entire bolted fault current range of
IEEE Std. 1584-2018 and confirms that HCB yields the lowest
arc-flash boundary for most bolted fault current values with a
fixed 2000 ms fault clearing time.
C. Sample Arc-Flash Boundary Calculation With
Varied Clearing Time
Fig. 4 assumes a fixed fault clearing time over the entire range
of bolted fault current, which is not realistic in distribution
systems. As the fault current varies, the upstream overcurrent
protective device operating response will vary the fault duration.
Fig. 5 combines the previous incident energy (I.E.) plot with
the arc-flash boundary (AFB) results when considering the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 6. Incident energy versus working distance.
effect of an upstream protective device with settings shown in
Table IV. Results for the arcing fault current and reduced (MIN)
arcing fault current are plotted and HCB has been removed for
simplicity.
Fig. 5 illustrates that when VCBB and VCB are considered,
the worst-case arc-flash boundary and the worst-case incident
energy are not associated with the same electrode configuration
for most fault current ranges.
1) Between points 1 and 2, VCBB yields the highest incident
energy, but VCB yields the highest arc-flash boundary.
2) Between points 2 and 3, VCB yields both the highest
incident energy and arc-flash boundary.
3) Between points 3 and 4, VCBB yields the highest incident
energy, but VCB yields the highest arc-flash boundary.
4) Between points 4 and 5, VCB yields both the highest
incident energy and arc-flash boundary.
V. WORKING DISTANCE
At typical working distances, HCB is always expected to have
the highest incident energy because the arc plasma is forced
directly toward the calorimeters in the IEEE Std. 1584-2018
tests. However, as the arc plasma is expelled from the enclosure,
some of the hot air and plasma will rise above the calorimeters
so the effect of HCB is lessened as distance from the enclosure
increases. During a VCB or VCBB fault, the arc plasma is first
directed downward due to the vertical orientation. It takes a
greater distance for the hot air and plasma to rise above the
calorimeters. Therefore, as distance increases, the HCB incident
energy will decrease at a faster rate than the VCBB and VCB
incident energy. This implies that at some distance from the arc,
HCB will no longer have the highest incident energy.
Fig. 6 illustrates how the incident energy will decrease as
working distance increases for each electrode configuration.
Note that the y-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale. This
calculation is performed at a typical switchgear location with
REEVES et al.: UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION ON INCIDENT ENERGY AND ARC-FLASH BOUNDARY
Fig. 7. Incident energy versus working distance.
a fixed bolted fault current of 50 kA and fault clearing time of
500 ms.
The incident energy for each configuration decreases at a
different rate. Fig. 7 expands an area of Fig. 6 to show the points
where the incident energy lines for each electrode configuration
intersect.
1) Prior to point 1, the HCB incident energy is highest,
followed by VCBB and VCB.
2) At point 1, the HCB incident energy decreases and is now
lower than the VCBB incident energy, but higher than the
VCB incident energy.
3) At point 2, the HCB incident energy decreases further
and is now lower than both the VCBB and VCB incident
energy.
4) At point 3, the HCB and VCBB incident energy decrease
further and VCB now yields the highest incident energy.
5) At point 4, the HCB is the first electrode configuration to
reach 1.2 cal/cm2 at a distance of 146 in.
6) At point 5, the VCBB incident energy reaches 1.2 cal/cm2
at a distance of 158 in.
7) At point 6, the VCB incident energy reaches 1.2 cal/cm2
at a distance of 165 in.
The distances at which each configuration is calculated to
have an incident energy of 1.2 cal/cm2 are defined as the arc-
flash boundary. In this example and many other cases, the HCB
configuration has the smallest arc-flash boundary, even though
it has the highest incident energy at a typical working distance.
VI. REAL WORLD APPLICATION
A. Survey of Arc Flash Studies
As a part of the IEEE Std. 1584-2018 calculation process,
engineering judgement should be used to select one or more
of the electrode configurations for each equipment location.
Annex C of IEEE Std. 1584-2018 offers guidance for selecting
electrode configurations based on equipment configuration. If
more than one electrode configuration is considered given the
physical construction of the equipment, multiple calculations
should be performed to determine the worst-case incident energy
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6073
TABLE VI
RESULTS OF ARC FLASH STUDY SURVEY OF 2901 BUSES
and arc-flash boundary. This article challenges the assump-
tion that HCB will yield the highest incident energy and arc
flash-boundary and VCB will yield the lowest incident energy
and arc-flash boundary.
To better understand when this assumption does not hold, the
results of 50 recent arc-flash studies performed using the IEEE
Std. 1584-2018 calculation process for facilities across North
America were examined. Of 2901 bus locations reviewed, 42%
had results that did not follow this assumption. The results for
429 buses reported a VCB incident energy that is higher than
the VCBB incident energy and 1029 reported a VCB arc-flash
boundary higher than the VCBB arc-flash boundary. The results
for 127 locations reported a VCB arc-flash boundary higher than
the HCB arc-flash boundary. The results of the arc-flash study
survey are summarized in Table VI.
Although it is possible with a combination of certain fault
current and clearing time parameters, the survey of arc flash
results did not find any locations where the VCBB arc-flash
boundary was greater than both the HCB and VCB arc-flash
boundaries. One such combination is a 200 ms clearing time
with 50 kA of bolted fault current in a 480 V switchgear bus
with typical equipment gap and enclosure size.
The survey did not find any bus locations in which HCB did
not yield the highest incident energy, which is consistent with
the observations of Fig. 3.
As discussed in Section III, the HCB will always yield the
highest incident energy compared to VCB and VCBB with all
parameters equal.
VCB will yield a higher incident energy compared to VCBB
(15% of cases in the sample survey) when a lower arcing current
results in a longer clearing time.
As discussed in Sections IV and V, the electrode configuration
that yields the highest arc-flash boundary depends on the rela-
tionship between magnitude of fault current and clearing time
and is not easily predicted. This highlights the importance of
ensuring that all relevant electrode configurations are evaluated
with the worst-case reported.
B. Reporting of Incident Energy
It is critical that the worst-case incident energy from all
considered electrode configurations be reported in an arc-flash
study report and label. This is even more important when the
incident energy results from two electrode configurations fall
across typical ratings of a PPE clothing system.
Two points of concern are 1.2 cal/cm2 and 8 cal/cm2 be-
cause these are common thresholds for choosing arc rated PPE
for energized work. The level 40 cal/cm2 is also important
to note because this is also a common PPE arc rating and
historically considered an upper limit for performing energized
work.
6074 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
Consider the example shown in Fig. 5 with a bolted fault
current between points 2 and 3. If only the VCBB incident
energy is reported because it is assumed it will be higher than
VCB, then the result is approximately 12 cal/cm2 . However, the
VCB incident energy from the same location is approximately
53 cal/cm2 . The result that is reported will determine whether
energized work can be performed at this location with PPE rated
40 cal/cm2 .
Referring again to Fig. 5 with a bolted fault current between
points 4 and 5. If only the VCBB incident energy is reported
because it is assumed it will be higher than VCB, the result is
approximately 3.5 cal/cm2 . However, the VCB incident energy
is approximately 13 cal/cm2 . The difference in these incident
energies will likely affect the choice of arc rated PPE.
C. Reporting of Arc-Flash Boundary
For similar reasons, it is critical that the worst-case arc-flash
boundary from all relevant electrode configurations is reported
in an arc-flash study report and warning labels. If the worst-case
arc-flash boundary is higher than the boundary shown on the
warning label, the physical barrier could be incorrectly set too
close to the hazard.
Consider the example shown in Fig. 5 with a bolted fault
current between points 2 and 3. If only the VCBB arc-flash
boundary is reported because it is assumed it will be higher than
VCB, then the result is approximately 85 in. However, the VCB
arc-flash boundary from the same location is approximately
255 in.
Referring again to Fig. 5 with a bolted fault current between
points 4 and 5. If only the VCBB arc-flash boundary is reported
because it is assumed it will be higher than VCB, the result
is approximately 47 in. However, the VCB arc-flash bound-
ary is approximately 106 in. The difference in these arc-flash
boundaries will affect the physical barrier setup around the work
location.
VII. CONCLUSION
A. Worst Case Incident Energy
When multiple electrode configurations are considered at an
equipment location, determining the electrode configuration that
results in the highest incident energy is not always intuitive
because it depends on the conditions for which the incident
energy is being calculated.
HCB will always yield a higher incident energy than VCBB
and VCB for a typical working distance with all other parameters
equal. The next highest incident energy can be either VCBB or
VCB, depending on the arcing fault current and device clearing
time and cannot be easily determined without detailed calcula-
tions.
At larger working distances, HCB may no longer yield the
highest incident energy because as distance from the arc in-
creases, the HCB incident energy decreases at a faster rate than
the VCBB and VCB incident energy.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B. Worst Case Arc-Flash Boundary
When multiple electrode configurations are considered at an
equipment location, the configuration that results in the largest
arc-flash boundary is not always the one that yields the highest
incident energy for specific tasks.
At lower bolted fault current values and/or lower fault clearing
times, HCB will generally yield the highest arc-flash boundary.
At higher bolted fault currents and/or higher fault clearing
times, VCB or VCBB will generally yield the largest arc-flash
boundary.
The electrode configuration that yields the worst-case arc-
flash boundary will change depending on the system parameters.
In addition, the electrode configuration that yields the largest
arc-flash boundary does not always correspond to the electrode
configuration that yields the worst-case incident energy.
C. Reporting Incident Energy and Arc-Flash
Boundary Results
IEEE Std. 1584-2018 requires the selection of at least one
electrode configuration for each arc flash calculation. It is likely
that many real-world equipment installations contain more than
one configuration. This requires the qualified person perform-
ing the arc-flash study to perform multiple calculations for a
single location because the variations in arcing current and
arc-flash boundary make it difficult to determine which config-
urations will yield a higher result without performing detailed
calculations.
It is critical that the qualified person performing the arc-flash
study understand the electrode configurations used for each
calculation and consider not only the worst-case incident energy,
but also the worst-case arc-flash boundary when reporting results
in an arc-flash study report and label.
The results of the arc-flash study survey validate these conclu-
sions. Therefore, it is important that the ability to evaluate and
report the worst-case results is a feature of the software chosen
to complete an arc-flash study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the IEEE 1584 working
group for their work in updating IEEE Std. 1584-2018 Guide for
Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, as well as previous
presentations and tutorials presented at the IEEE Electrical
Safety Workshop (IEEE ESW) and IEEE IAS Petroleum and
Chemical Industry Committee (IEEE PCIC) conferences that
have facilitated discussions and led to this article. The authors
would also like to thank Dr. Wei-Jen Lee for his input and
discussions relating to the behavior of arc plasma during arc
flash testing.
REFERENCES
[1] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E-2018, NFPA,
Quincy, MA, USA, 2018.
[2] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE Std
1584-2002, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 2002.
REEVES et al.: UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION ON INCIDENT ENERGY AND ARC-FLASH BOUNDARY 6075

[3] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE Std
1584-2018, IEEE, New York, NY, USA.
[4] A. Reeves, M. Freyenberger, and M. Hodder, “Understanding the effect
of electrode configuration on incident energy and Arc-flash boundary,” in
Proc. IEEE IAS Elect. Saf. Workshop, Reno, NV, USA, 2020, pp. 1–6.
Mark Freyenberger (Member, IEEE) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical
engineering from Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, in 2007.
He joined Eaton in 2013. He is currently working as Power Systems Engineer
Project Leader for Eaton’s Electrical Engineering Services and Systems. His
main responsibilities include performing power system studies, training regard-
ing electrical safety, and project management for national accounts.
Mr. Freyenberger is a registered Professional Engineer in six states.

Michael Hodder (Member, IEEE) received the B.A.Sc. degree in electrical

Adam Reeves (Member, IEEE) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineer-
ing from the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, in 2012.
He joined Eaton in 2012. He is currently working as a Lead Power Systems
Engineer for Eaton’s Electrical Engineering Services and Systems. His main
responsibilities include performing power system studies and training regarding
short circuit, coordination, arc flash, and power quality.
Mr. Reeves is the Chairman of Eaton’s Arc Flash Committee and is responsible
for the standardization and improvement of arc flash methods at Eaton Electrical.
He is a registered Professional Engineer with the State of Maryland.
engineering from the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, in 1977.
He is currently working as an Advisory Power Systems Engineer for Eaton’s
Electrical Engineering Services and Systems. His main responsibilities include
performing power system studies and training regarding electrical safety and
power system studies.
Mr. Hodder is a member of Eaton’s National Safety Council. He is also a
member of the Technical Committee on Workplace Electrical Safety (CSA
Z462). He is a member of the IEEE Industrial Application Society and is a
registered Professional Engineer in the province of Ontario.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on November 29,2020 at 20:13:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.