IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO.
6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
Determine the Electrode Configuration and
Sensitivity of the Enclosure Dimensions When
Performing Arc Flash Analysis
Kaynat Zia , Student Member, IEEE, Anusha Papasani , Student Member, IEEE,
David Rosewater , Senior Member, IEEE, and Wei-Jen Lee , Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—Arc flash hazard prediction methods have become
more sophisticated because the knowledge about arc flash phe-
nomenon has advanced since the publication of IEEE Std. 1584-
2002. The IEEE Std. 1584-2018 has added parameters for more
accurate arc flash incident energy (IE), arcing current, and protec-
tion boundary estimation. The parameters in the updated estima-
tion models include electrode configuration, open circuit voltage,
bolted fault current, arc duration, gap width, working distance,
and enclosure dimension. The sensitivity and effect changes of
other parameters have been discussed in the previous literatures.
This article explains the fundamental theory on the selection of
electrode configurations and performs sensitivity analysis of the
enclosure dimension that have been introduced in the IEEE Std.
1584-2018. According to the newly published model for IE estima-
tion, the IE between vertical conductors inside a metal box (VCB)
and horizontal conductors inside a metal box (HCB) can differ
by a factor of two with other parameter constants. Using HCB
as the worst-case scenario to determine the personal protection
requirements may not be the best practice in all circumstances.
This article provides guidance for electrode configuration selection
and a sensitivity analysis for determining a reasonable engineering
margin when actual dimension is not available.
Index Terms—Arc flash, electrode configuration, enclosure
dimensions, incident energy (IE), plasma trajectory.
I. INTRODUCTION
N ELECTRIC arc is formed when two physically sep-
A arated and energized conducting bodies transfer charge
through air [21].
Manuscript received February 27, 2020; accepted July 3, 2020. Date of
publication August 31, 2020; date of current version November 19, 2020.
Paper 2020-PSPC-0282, presented at the 2020 IEEE/IAS 56th Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, Apr.
27–30, and approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY
APPLICATIONS by the Power Systems Protection Committee of the IEEE Industry
Applications Society. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Electricity, Energy Storage Program. This paper describes
objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that
might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the
U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government. (SAND2020-7245
J). (Corresponding author: Kaynat Zia.)
Kaynat Zia, Anusha Papasani, and Wei-Jen Lee are with the Electrical Engi-
neering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019 USA (e-mail:
kaynat.zia@mavs.uta.edu; anusha.papasani@mavs.uta.edu; wlee@uta.edu).
David Rosewater is with the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
87123 USA (e-mail: dmrose@sandia.gov).
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.2020.3020531
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
6307
The loss of insulation between conductors, due to aging;
environmental factors; human errors; and overheating, is one
of the main causes of the electric arc formation [3]. The current
flowing ionizes the air between the conductors, while converting
it into plasma and causing a rapid increase in temperature.
The plasma is responsible for giving the arc its characteristic
“flash” and contains the biggest part of the arc energy [20].
The high temperature, often compared to the temperature of the
surface of the sun [16], brings about melting and evaporation of
the conductors and other materials in the vicinity. This further
increases pressure and temperature of the area near the arc. If the
arc is not extinguished, the mounting pressure and temperature
leads to an explosion. Severed equipment and molten debris
move outward during this explosion, while burning and striking
everything around it [14].
An arc starts with a series of transitions signified by their ap-
pearance in high speed film. The glow to arc transition starts with
the “dark discharge” [5] or Townsend discharge [13], where elec-
tric field accelerated free electrons collide with gas molecules
and as a result free more electrons; this causes an exponential
increase in current versus voltage, due to the rapid ionization of
air. The dark discharge stage is followed by “glow discharge,”
where voltage drops suddenly as current increases. The final
stage involves the release of large number of electrons from the
cathode [6]. The energy released during the arc is transferred
through radiation, convection, and conduction. The hazard of
an arc flash to humans is proportional to the temperature rise of
skin due to the absorption of the released energy. If the energy
absorbed by the human skin exceeds 1.2 cal/cm2 [4], [18], it
can cause second degree burns, according to the experiments
conducted by Dr. Alice Stoll.
Incident energy (IE) is used to quantify the energy incident
on the surfaces, equipment, or human, near the arc flash. It is
the area under the curve of the rate of heat transfer to a certain
working distance, over time. By limiting the IE, personnel injury
and equipment damage can be prevented.
Electrode configuration can be a compounding factor for IE
because the shape of the plasma explosion is not necessarily
spherical. Right after arc initiation, a rapid increase in tempera-
ture causes the expansion of the hot air/plasma and can push the
trajectory of the plasma to a direction governed by the orientation
of the electrodes. According to IEEE Std. 1584-2018 [1], an
electric arc originating in horizontal conductors inside a metal
6308 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020

Fig. 1. Relationship among current (I), flux (B), and force (F).

Fig. 2. Plasma trajectory. Red arrow: Current flow. Green arrow: Trajectory
box (HCB) can have surfaces experiencing twice the IE of an of the plasma. Arrowhead : Magnetic field goes out of paper. Arrow tail :
electric arc originating in vertical conductors inside a metal box Magnetic field goes into paper.
(VCB), provided all other parameters remain the same.
As engineers may or may not know the specific dimensions
or electrode configuration of a panel being assessed for arc flash
hazard, they often assume an HCB thinking it will provide a
conservative estimate. However, using HCB as the worst-case
scenario in IE calculations may not be the best practice. The
contribution of this article is to provide physics-based guidance
to engineers performing arc flash analysis when there is uncer-
tainty in the actual electrode configuration and detentions of the
enclosure. Previous literatures [2], [8], [9], [11], [12], [15], have
discussed sensitivity and effect of changes of other parameters
besides the electrode configuration and enclosure dimensions.
Fig. 3. Example of HCB configuration.

II. DETERMINE ELECTRODE CONFIGURATIONS

In order to avoid incorrect risk category estimation due to the
electrode configurations, the right-hand rule can be employed.
Fig. 1 shows the relationship among current (I), magnetic field
(B), and force (F). The right-hand rule states that if the thumb
of the right hand points in the direction of current, the index
finger points in the direction of the magnetic field and the middle
finger will be in the direction of force or the direction of motion. Fig. 4. Example of VCB configuration.
In this case of an arc flash, the direction of force will be the
direction of the plasma flow or the plasma trajectory. For ac,
the direction of current changes, causing the magnetic field to
change but the direction of force remains the same. Because of
this phenomenon, a worker standing at a point in the direction
of F in Fig. 2, will be exposed to a much greater arc flash hazard
than the one standing at any other point near the arc flash.
Fig. 3 shows an example of HCB. The trajectory of the
plasma travels outward to the opening of the enclosure. The
red oval circle indicates the arc initiation location. Fig. 4 shows Fig. 5. Example of VCBB configuration.
an example of VCB configuration. The blue oval circle indicates
the arc initiation location. Fig. 5 shows an example of vertical
III. IMPACT OF THE ENCLOSURE DIMENSION ON THE
electrodes terminated in an insulating barrier inside a metal
box (VCBB) configuration. The arc was initiated in the lugs of IE ESTIMATION
the equipment. These examples of HCB, VCB, and VCBB use This section discusses the importance of using the exact enclo-
2-pole and single-phase ac for simplicity. The user can expand sure dimensions and electrode configuration for IE calculation.
this concept to three-phase ac as well. This is done with the help of equations provided as the IEEE Std.
ZIA et al.: DETERMINE THE ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION AND SENSITIVITY 6309

TABLE I
MAGNITUDE CHANGE IN IE WITH CHANGING ENCLOSURE DIMENSIONS

Fig. 6. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 50, and 100 kA VCB (0.48 kV).

1584-2018’s contribution to IE estimation. The IE is calculated

for the following range of values (these values are chosen based
on IEEE Std. 1584-2018 model range):
1) gap width: 1 in;
2) working distance: 18 in;
3) arc duration: 250 ms;
4) voltages: 0.48, 2.7, and 14.3 kV;
5) bolted fault current: 1, 50, and 100 kA for 0.48 kV and 1,
30, and 60 kA for both 2.7 and 14.3 kV;
6) electrode configurations: VCB, VCBB, and HCB;
7) enclosure dimensions: 20 in × 20 in × 20 in (smaller box
sizes do not affect the IE values) to 49 in × 49 in × 49 in.
The figures shown below indicate the trends of the IE with
respect to the enclosure dimensions for different electrode
configurations, bolted fault current, and voltage values. Some
figures also compare the IE profiles for the three electrode
configurations for all provided current categories.
To examine the sensitivity of IE to the enclosure dimension,
the slope or the magnitude change in IE with respect to every 1-in
change in both the width and height of the enclosure dimensions TABLE II
at 20 in, 34 in, and 48 in, that is, the change in IE when the ENCLOSURE SIZES FOR IEEE STD. 1584-2018 ARC FLASH MODEL
enclosure dimensions change from 20 in × 20 in to 21 in × 21
in, 34 in × 34 in to 35 in × 35 in, and 48 in × 48 in to 49 in
× 49 in are calculated for VCB, HCB, and VCBB, respectively,
and the results are shown in Table I.
As one can see from the plotted graphs and Table I, the IE
measured decreases with the increase in the box sizes. This is
because plasma expands and the bigger the box, the more room
it has to expand in every direction. Since the plasma source is
not changing, the plasma intensity decreases the farther you go
away from the source. Thus, the IE recorded at a fixed working
distance away from the arc will show a decrease in magnitude in × 20 in (magnitude change in IE is −0.0073), than when it is
with bigger box sizes. However, the plasma may not be able to larger, at 49 × 49 in (magnitude change in IE is −0.0012). This
fill the entire enclosure when the size of the enclosure increases trend has been observed across all the electrode configurations,
beyond a certain limit as plasma intensity is a function of distance voltages, and currents.
from the arc. Hence the sensitivity to the change in the box Table II shows enclosure types for IEEE Std. 1584-2018
size has an inflection point, that is, the IE becomes somewhat arc flash model. It shows the equipment class and the suitable
independent of the box size. In case of the enclosure dimension enclosure size used. The last three columns of the table show
uncertainty, a larger engineering margin should be applied when the magnitude change in IE at the given enclosure size values.
this sensitivity is higher. For example, for a VCB configuration The IE is calculated for a working distance of 36 in and an arc
at 480 V and 100 kA (as seen in Fig. 6) bolted fault current, IE duration of 1000 ms across the three equipment classes. The IE
is more sensitive to the enclosure size when it is smaller, at 20 calculated for 15 kV MCC using the correct enclosure size, i.e.,
6310 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020

Fig. 7. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 50, and 100 kA VCBB (0.48 kV). Fig. 11. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 100 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(0.48 kV).

Fig. 8. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 50, and 100 kA HCB (0.48 kV).

Fig. 12. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 30, and 60 kA VCB (2.7 kV).

Fig. 9. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(0.48 kV).

Fig. 13. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 30, and 60 kA VCBB (2.7 kV).

36 in × 36 in × 36 in and VCB as the electrode configuration

Fig. 10. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 50 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(0.48 kV).
is 33.22 cal/cm2 , where the magnitude change is of the order
of −0.34. Whereas, the IE estimated at 34 in × 34 in × 34
in is 33.91 cal/cm2 where magnitude change is of the order
of −0.38 and that at 38 in × 38 in × 38 in is 32.61 cal/cm2
with a magnitude change of −0.29. It can also be seen that
mistaking one electrode configuration for another also has a
considerable impact on the IE values calculated. For the 5 kV
switchgear, provided the gap length (104 mm), enclosure size
(36 in × 36 in × 36 in), bolted fault current (20 kA), working
ZIA et al.: DETERMINE THE ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION AND SENSITIVITY 6311

Fig. 14. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 30, and 60 kA HCB (2.7 kV). Fig. 17. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 60 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(2.7 kV).

Fig. 18. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 30, and 60 kA VCB (14.3 kV).
Fig. 15. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(2.7 kV).

Fig. 19. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 30, and 60 kA VCBB (14.3 kV).

Fig. 16. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 30 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(2.7 kV).

distance (36 in), and arc duration (1000 ms) are kept constant,
changing the electrode configuration from VCB to HCB changes
the IE estimated from 20.21 to 45.65 cal/cm2 with a magnitude
change of −0.17 to −0.19. That is, the change from VCB to HCB
changes the IE by a factor of 2 as is evident from Figs. 9–11,
Figs. 15–17, and Figs. 21–23. Incorrect IE calculation can have
serious repercussions as it may lead to wrong personal protective
equipment (PPE) [7], [10] category selection.
Human body takes about 0.19 s to respond to any visual stim-
ulus, 0.16 s for an audio stimulus, and 0.5 s to move away from Fig. 20. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1, 30, and 60 kA HCB (14.3 kV).
6312 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020
Fig. 21. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 1 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(14.3 kV).
Fig. 22. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 30 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(14.3 kV).
Fig. 23. Enclosure dimension vs. IE for 60 kA for VCB, VCBB, and HCB
(14.3 kV).
something that can potentially harm it [19]. The arc duration
used here is representing the worst-case scenario.
IV. CONCLUSION
With better understanding on the arc flash phenomena, the
IEEE Std. 1584-2018 [1] has added more parameters to im-
prove the accuracy of arc flash IE. Electrode configuration and
the enclosure dimensions are two parameters that have drawn
substantial discussion among the industry. According to the
newly published model for IE estimation, the difference of
the IE between VCB and HCB can be more than two times
while other parameters remain the same. Considering HCB as
the worst-case scenario and using its results to determine the
personal protection requirements may not be the best practice
in every circumstance. As seen from the results in the last
section, the IE values estimated using the IEEE Std. 1584-2018
have shown a varying degree of sensitivity to the enclosure
dimensions depending on the size and electrode configuration.
The results of the sensitivity analysis from this article provide an
engineer guidance to make practical judgment and use reason-
able estimated parameters when actual dimension is not readily
available.
Conflict of interest: This article describes objective technical
results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that
might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent
the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States
Government (SAND2020-7245 J).
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584-
2018, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, Nov. 2018.
[2] S. Mohajeryami, M. Arefi, and Z. Salami, “Arc flash analysis: Investi-
gation, simulation, and sensitive parameter exploration,” in Proc. North
Amer. Power Symp., Sep. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[3] N. Bardat, “IEC and CENELEC standards used to protect the electrical
worker against an Arc Flash,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Live Maintenance,
2017, pp. 1–3.
[4] A. M. Stoll and M. A. Chianta, “Heat transfer through fabrics as related
to thermal injury,” Trans. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 33, no. 7 Series II,
pp. 649–670, 1971.
[5] Z. Zhang, Y. Nie, and W.-J. Lee, “Approach of voltage characteristics
modeling for medium-low-voltage arc fault in short gaps,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 2281–2289, Dec. 2018.
[6] T. H. Lee, “Plasma physics and the interruption of an electric circuit,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 307–323, Mar. 1969.
[7] NFPA 70E: Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, 70E-16 25 26
27 28 30 32 33 36 37 38 39 40 84 and 85, 2015.
[8] T. A. Short, “Arc flash analysis approaches for medium-voltage distribu-
tion,” in Proc. IEEE Rural Elect. Power Conf., 2009, pp. 1902–1909.
[9] K. Cheng, J. Craighead, and S. Cress, “Arc length vs. electrode gap for
underground cable arc flash hazard analysis,” in Proc. IEEE IAS Elect. Saf.
Workshop, 2017, pp. 1–5.
[10] T. Gammon, W.-J. Lee, Z. Zhang, and B. C. Johnson, “Arc flash’ hazards,
incident energy, PPE ratings, and thermal burn injury—A deeper look,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 4275–4283, Jan. 2015.
[11] K. Sawa, S. Tsujimura, and S. Motoda, “Fundamental characteristics of
arc extinction by magnetic blow-out at DC voltages (<500V) II,” in Proc.
IEEE 61st Holm Conf. Elect. Contacts (Holm), 2015, pp. 154–159.
[12] V.V. Terzija and H.-J. Koglin, “On the modeling of long arc in still air
and arc resistance calculation,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 19, no. 3
pp. 1012–1017, Jul. 2004.
[13] D. Xiao, “Fundamental theory of townsend discharge,” in Proc. Energy
Environ. Res. China Gas Discharge Gas Insul., 2016, pp. 47–88.
[14] W. Lee, T. Gammon, Z. Zhang, B. Johnson, and J. Beyreis, “Arc flash and
electrical safety,” in Proc. 66th Annu. Conf. Protective Relay Engineers,
2013, pp. 24–35.
[15] J. Simmons, “Reducing the Arc-flash incident energy in the secondary bus
of medium and low voltage substations,” in Proc. IEEE IAS Pulp, Paper
Forest Industries Conf., 2018, pp. 1–5.
[16] J. A. Kay, J. Arvola, and L. Kumpulainen, “Protection at the speed of
light: Arc-flash protection combining arc flash sensing and arc-resistant
technologies,” in Proc. Rec. Conf. Papers – Industry Appl. Soc. 56th Annu.
Petroleum Chem. Industry Conf., 2009, pp. 1–7.
[17] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584-
2002, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, Sep. 2002
[18] N. Bardat, “IEC and CENELEC standards used to protect the electrical
worker against an Arc Flash,” in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Live Maintenance,
2017, pp. 1–3.
[19] A. Jain, R. Bansal, A. Kumar, and K. Singh, “A comparative study of visual
and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity
levels of medical first year students,” Int. J. Appl. Basic Med. Res., vol. 5,
no. 2, 2015, Art. no. 124.
ZIA et al.: DETERMINE THE ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION AND SENSITIVITY 6313

[20] A. Stokes and D. Sweeting, “Electric arcing burn hazards,” IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 134–141, Jan./Feb. 2006.
[21] K. Zia, A. Papasani, D. Rosewater, and W. Lee, “Determine the electrode
configuration and sensitivity of the enclosure dimensions when performing
arc flash analysis,” in Proc. IEEE/IAS 54th Ind. Commercial Power Syst.
Tech. Conf., 2020.
David Rosewater (Senior Member, IEEE) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees
in electrical engineering from Montana Tech, University of Montana, Missoula,
USA, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
His research interests include modeling and simulation, performance testing,
safety, and standardization of battery energy storage systems.
Dr. Rosewater is a Senior Member of the Technical Staff with the Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico and holds a professional
engineering license in the state of New Mexico.

Kaynat Zia (Student Member, IEEE) received the B.Sc. degree from Bahria
University, Islamabad, Pakistan, with a gold medal and the M.Sc. degree from the
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K. with distinction. She is currently working
toward the Ph.D. degree at the University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA.
Her research interests include energy storage systems, arc flash estimation,
power system restoration, and wind generators.
Ms. Zia received the prestigious Fulbright Scholarship to study in the USA Wei-Jen Lee (Fellow, IEEE) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees from National
for the Ph.D. degree. Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China, and the Ph.D. degree
from the University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA, in 1978, 1980, and
1985, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
In 1985, he joined the University of Texas at Arlington, where he is currently
a Professor with the Electrical Engineering Department and the Director of the
Anusha Papasani (Student Member, IEEE) received the B.S. degree in electrical Energy Systems Research Center.
and electronics engineering with distinction from the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute Dr. Lee is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas.
of Technology, Hyderabad, India, in 2011 and the M.S. degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, USA, in 2013, where
she received an honor for her academic excellence. She is currently working
toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at the University of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, USA.
From 2013 to 2018, she worked as a Lecturer with the University of Texas
at Tyler. Her research interests include power system analysis, energy storage
systems, renewable energy, arc flash estimation, and power system markets.