ARC-FLASH ENERGY MITIGATION BY FAST ENERGY CAPTURE

Copyright Material IEEE

Paper No. PCIC-(_________)

George Roscoe Tom Papallo Marcelo Valdes, PE

IEEE Member IEEE Member IEEE Senior Member
GE Consumer & Industrial GE Consumer & Industrial GE Consumer & Industrial
George.Roscoe@ge.com Tom.Papallo@ge.com Marcelo.Valdes@ge.com

b A s at cr – The predominant technologies for reducing arc-flash I. INTRODUCTION

incident energy today rely on the speed of protective devices,
remote operation, encapsulating arc-flash energy in arc- A. Backgrnou d
resistant enclosures, which channel energy where it is less
dangerous, and on crowbars to divert the arc energy into a Arc-flash protection has emerged as an important
bolted fault. Though more thoughtfully applied than they may consideration in the design and operation of power distribution
have been in the past, none of these methods has provided a systems. The industry has developed several methods and
solution for all situations, particularly in existing installations. products to address the hazard posed by arc-flash energy in
This paper will describe a method and include test results of an new systems. For reducing the arc-flash hazard in existing
arc-flash energy sequestration that is able to divert an arcing systems without complete replacement of equipment, , the
fault’s energy into a specific environment within a half-cycle available solutions are more limited. All of the existing methods
after initiation of the arc. This is achieved without the need to provide solutions that are limited in one extent or another and
introduce bolted fault current like a crowbar or for fast current can incur significant costs in terms of material or operational
interruption, such as a current-limiting fuse. The system risk. The most common low-voltage arc-flash incident-energy or
protection provided has the benefits of arc-resistant switchgear hazard reduction methods are listed and compared in Table 1.
without reliance on equipment sheathing and can be added after
normal equipment is installed. Further advantages include the B. Curent and Time; ht e Effect ponu Arc-Fault Curent
protection system and switchgear’s ability for reuse after an Inteptiru no
arcing event, as well as the ability to easily test without the need
for cumbersome high-current test equipment. The model developed for IEEE 1584-2002 “Guide for
Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations” [1] includes several
Index Terms – Arc-flash, Arc-flash Protection, Arcing Fault empirically derived formulas for predicting arcing current and
Diversion, Crow Bar, Arc-Resistant Switchgear, Fast Arc-flash consequently incident arcing energy. Once a system is
Protection. designed, the fault clearing-time at the expected arcing fault
level is usually the only variable for control of the incident
energy.
Method Detection Mechanism Benefit Drawbacks
Fuses as Direct current Relies on current- Fastest interruption if Ia > Large fuses have CL thresholds > arcing
protective devices energy limiting interruption current-limiting energy current and hence may be slow to react.
threshold Concern over fuse replacement and lack of
other capabilities offered by circuit breakers.
Current-limiting Direct current Relies on current- Fast current interruption Limited in availability relative to fuses and
circuit breakers energy limiting interruption similar to fuses if Ia > subject to similar limitations. May require
current-limiting threshold replacement after limited number of operations.
Not easily available in a broad range of sizes.
Circuit breaker Current; may be Relies on fast fault Provides fast current Not as fast as current-limiting fuses or circuit
with instantaneous combined with light interruption interruption breakers. Use of the instantaneous at arcing
trips detection current levels may negatively affect selectivity.
Requires adjustable-trip circuit breakers.
Arc-resistant None Enclose switchgear Protects in proximity to Enclosure integrity must be maintained. Blast
switchgear volume switchgear from arc flash energy must be exhausted. Complex
and blast energy installation. Does not improve equipment
protection nor may be added to existing
equipment.
Crowbar system Light detection and Fast protection from Protects in proximity to One-time use, may damage distribution
current arc blast and flash switchgear from arc flash equipment and other equipment connected in
and blast energy the system. Localized protection only.
Remote operation None Operator outside arc No impact on system Does not improve downstream or equipment
flash boundary selectivity protection, may be costly and difficult to retrofit
into existing installations.
Temporary Current More sensitive and Reduces incident energy Requires specific capable trip systems and
reduced settings measurement faster temporarily under specific conditions does not provide protection if the event does
not occur during planned activity.

Table 1. Arc-flash energy mitigation methods.


A plot of the expected 85–100% arcing current for a low-
voltage switchgear assembly was calculated per the IEEE 1584
arc-current model. Fig. 1 demonstrates that arcing currents can
be relatively low. A plot of incident energy at 18” working
distance, Fig. 2, for a switchgear system illustrates the
advantage of fast arcing fault mitigation by interruption or any
other means.
Fig. 1. Arcing current vs. available fault current.
Fig. 2. Incident energy at various clearing times.
From Figs. 1 and 2 it can be seen that a system able to
deliver a 60 kA bolted fault current through a main circuit
breaker may deliver ~24–28 kA arcing current over a 32 mm
gap or 26–30 kA over a 25 mm gap. Arcing fault current will be
significantly lower than the current-limiting threshold of a 3000–
4000 A fuse. Arcing current may also be below the
instantaneous pickup level of a main circuit breaker in a system
that has been optimized for maximum selectivity. However, to
obtain a level of energy lower than the HRC-2 (Hazard Risk
2
Category) maximum of 8 cal/cm over a broad range of possible
fault currents, the protection must clear at the typical low-
voltage power circuit breaker’s clearing time of three cycles
(0.05 s) or less. To be at or below HRC-1 maximum levels of 4
2
cal/cm , the system must clear in the time frame of a molded-
case circuit breaker’s instantaneous (0.025 s) or less. To
2
achieve less than 1.2 cal/cm clearing should be in the half-cycle
range or less (<0.01 s). Tests performed by various
manufacturers with current-limiting molded-case circuit breakers
have demonstrated energy levels below those predicted by the
IEEE 1584 model when devices operate in the half-cycle range.
Nevertheless, these graphs illustrate the need for sensitivity to
low fault currents and achieving arc-fault current mitigation
within a half-cycle to maintain an optimum level of protection.
C. Alternate Methods
Once it has been determined that exposure to hazardous
levels of incident energy is a risk, PPE (personal protective
equipment) is the last barrier for worker protection. PPE is
designed to shield the worker from the thermal energy of an arc-
flash event. Glasses or a face shield provide eye protection, and
ear protection is typically used to provide some level of hearing
protection. However, current PPE and supplementary protection
does not provide complete defense against all physical harm.
PPE is not intended to provide protection from the effect of
ejected debris, arc blast, or the toxic effect of vaporized
material. Even in the case of thermal injury PPE is only intended
to reduce injury to a curable level, not prevent it completely. Arc-
resistant switchgear shifts the burden of the PPE to the
equipment itself, which should be designed and tested to
recognized industry standards. In the US the standard is IEEE
C37.20.7 D11 [4].
Arc-resistant switchgear should provide protection from
incident heat energy, ejected debris, and arc blast as long as
the workers do not have the equipment open. Depending on the
exact arrangement, some level of protection from the toxic effect
of fumes could be provided as well as some protection from the
extreme noise possible during an event. A characteristic of arc-
resistant switchgear is its dependence on the integrity of the
enclosure. An improperly secured panel, door, or cover can
compromise the equipment’s ability to contain the explosion. In
addition, most installations of arc-resistant equipment will
require some sort of flue system to channel energy to the
exterior to the building. This limits where equipment may be
installed and may significantly increase installation costs. In
applications where the system relies solely on the equipment’s
arc-resistant properties, an arc-flash event internal to the
equipment may result in significant damage to the equipment.
The arc-resistance rating may not be sufficient to withstand the
energy of a fault in a tie compartment or section where the
ionized air from a fault initiated on one bus causes both buses
to arc simultaneously, effectively doubling the arc energy and
increases effects such as pressure and heat. Since arc-
resistance capabilities are dependant on the enclosure, typically
installed indoor equipment cannot be converted from a normal
NEMA1-type enclosure to arc-resistant after installation.
A crowbar is another method available to reduce exposure
to arc-flash energy. A crowbar typically consists of a mechanical
device that, when commanded, introduces a minimum-
impedance bolted fault into the system. The expectation is that
the bolted fault will absorb all the available energy and
extinguish the arc. This type of arcing-fault mitigation introduces
the maximum possible bolted fault, which may include a large
DC offset current. This introduces significant thermal and
mechanical stress on the entire power delivery system along
with a sudden voltage collapse. Though the method will
extinguish an arcing fault within a half-cycle or less, several
cycles of maximum bolted fault current flow through the system
until an upstream device clears which raises concerns for the
integrity of the power distribution system after an event.
A temporary reduced pickup setting, referred to by various
names by manufacturers, is a method to reduce worker
exposure. This method is similar to alternate setting groups
employed in medium voltage where protective relays may
change settings based on automatic logic driven by system
topology or manual user controls; thereby allowing users to set
a protective device to respond faster when dangerous work is
planned. This is a good method to optimize the protection that
an overcurrent device can provide. Modern trip systems from
multiple manufacturers may be retrofitted into existing circuit
breakers to improve the performance of older devices. However,
an alternate trip setting cannot accelerate a protective device
beyond its mechanical capability. Additionally, such settings do
not provide improved protection for the unexpected event that
occurs when live work is not planned but occurs accidentally
during routine operation. Use of alternate settings should be
part of a rigorous maintenance procedure to ensure that the
settings are enabled whenever they are needed and disabled
when normal, more selective protection is desired.
Remote operation, such as remote racking, remote
metering, remote controls combined with modern powerful
diagnostic tools and information, is a way to reduce worker’s
exposure to arc-flash risk. Optimum use of diagnostic tools,
information, and remote operation may reduce the need for
hands-on maintenance by facilitating condition-based
maintenance practices and reducing the frequency with which
employees must access equipment. Proper use of these
mechanisms requires planning and forethought.
In summary, various methods exist to minimize exposure to
arc-flash energy. Each may have specific benefits in particular
situations; however, each also has its limitations with regard to
ease of application and scope. The method described in the rest
of this paper provides an alternative method to achieve
protection without some of the limitations encountered by other
methods.
II. ARCING FAULT TRANSFER TO AN ALTERNATE
ARCING CURRENT PATH
The principle of arc transfer is to create an alternate current
path to conduct fault current away from an arcing fault. A
crowbar accomplishes this by providing an alternate current
path via a short circuit. The proposed method accomplishes the
same goal by providing an alternate arcing current path. The
mechanism is to generate a second arc within an enclosed,
controlled environment to provide a lower-impedance current
path. The alternate current path conducts the fault current and
causes the original arc in open air or in equipment to extinguish.
The new arc must have lower impedance than the original arc to
assure that no restrike can occur. The impedance however
should not be so low that it causes full bolted-fault inrush
currents on the bus. The alternate arc must be enclosed within a
controlled pressure chamber to prevent a significant release of
energy into the environment. The enclosed arc is quenched
when an upstream overcurrent device quickly stops current flow.
The open-air or in-equipment arc that may have otherwise
lasted for three cycles or more is now limited to about ½ cycle.
The arc in the protected chamber will have a maximum duration
of three to five cycles, depending on the type of overcurrent
device used to protect the circuit.
The alternate arcing current path is initiated by ionized air
created by a trigger arc fired within the mitigation device that
involves no moving parts and is able to fire in a few
microseconds. The trigger arc creates a dielectric breakdown
between phase electrodes inside the chamber. The electrodes
then maintain the arc through ionized air initially created by the
triggering arc. This maintains the alternate current path until the
upstream current-interrupting devices remove power.
Several practical ramifications of relying on an arc-transfer
device for arc-flash protection should be considered:
• Does the device lower the BIL rating of the power
distribution system?
• What are the effects of operation on the power
delivery system and are there negative unintended
consequences?
• Can the device be tested to assure operation after
use or installation for extended periods of time?
• Can the device be used multiple times?
• What are the possible failure modes and can the
device be set to compensate for them so that
protection is reliable?
The paper will address these and other concerns.
III. PRINCIPLES OF ARC CAPTURE
A. Arc Transfer
Successful arc capture depends on three factors: providing
a lower impedance path than the fault path, a more stable circuit
than the fault arc, and a fast transfer. Arcing current capture and
transfer follows the basic law of electric circuits—current will
follow the path of least impedance. Fig 3 illustrates the
equivalent circuit during an arcing event.
Fig. 3. Arc transfer equivalent circuit.
Transfer time will be affected by the time it takes to sense
and trigger the arcing fault capture devices and the
commutation time. Minimum fault-current commutation time is
achieved by limiting the inductance in the transfer circuit.
Placing the capturing device within the equipment can minimize
impedance, enabling rapid transfer of the fault arc; however the
arc-absorbing device may be electrically connected ahead or
below the fault arc that it is intended to extinguish, as long as
the conductor impedance between the arc-capture device and
the source is not significantly higher than the impedance
between the fault arc and the source.
B. pe
O n-Air c
Ar Stability .vs Enclosed Arc aSt bility
In an enclosed volume an arc is more stable than in open
air. The large volume and venting of the equipment results in
lower temperatures and the phase-conductor geometry results
in magnetic forces extending the arc. However, when an arc is
confined to a smaller volume, the arc is easier to maintain. By
transferring fault current to an arc within an enclosed volume
with a specific electrode gap, a stable arc with predictable
properties is created and sustained. The lower-impedance
transfer circuit forces the open-air arc to be unsustainable. The
original fault arc is quenched by the changing dynamics in the
system.
C. Energy Dissiap tion thougr h Controlled e
R sistance
The electrode gap is a major component of the controlled
arc impedance and can be adjusted to fine tune impedance and,
hence, optimize behavior in systems with different voltages and
different available bolted-fault currents. The electrode’s
geometry is also configured to balance the magnetic forces on
the arc, preventing the magnetic forces from lengthening the
arc. This creates a stable and predictable arc. Fig. 4 is a model
of the arc-containment device. The containment chamber’s
vented design must cool and contain the arc. Fig. 4 shows the
venting pattern used to cool the gases generated by the internal
arc. The device must cool and vent fast enough to prevent a
buildup of pressure that could otherwise destroy the chamber.
Fig. 4. Arc-containment device.
The electrode gap within the arc-containment system must
maintain dielectric integrity under normal system operating
conditions, and must not decrease the equipment’s BIL rating.
The voltage-withstand capability of the device also must be able
to handle impulses from lighting or other high voltages
impinging upon the low-voltage system during normal use. This
is especially important, as the device must be resilient against
nuisance activation. Nuisance activation would adversely affect
system reliability and protection. The resiliency can be
ascertained by voltage-impulse testing. The NEMA standards
offer no guidelines on the appropriate BIL (Basic Impulse Level)
testing for LV equipment. IEC 60947-1 [5] standard for low-
voltage switchgear and control gear recommends up to an 8 kV,
2 µsec rise, 50 µsec pulse to test dielectric integrity. Table 13 in
IEC 60947-1 lists the recommended gaps for the impulse test
voltages. The table states that for a homogenous field, a smooth
voltage gradient, such as the gradient supplied by the
electrodes in the arc-containment device, is needed. The
minimum required gap for a homogenous field is 3 mm;
doubling the minimum distance provides additional margin. A
test was performed with an immediately available pulse
generator to verify the general gap estimates. The gap
successfully withstood a 14.5 kV, 20 µsec rise, 400 µsec pulse,
further proving the viability of the 6 mm gap.
D. Triggering via Dielectric e
R ductino thugro h l
P asma
The activation of the system is done via the break down of
high dielectric air gap between the phase electrodes with a
plasma pulse generator, also known as a plasma gun. The
plasma gun is similar to an arc welder and is placed directly
under the electrodes. The arc from the plasma gun derives its
power from a capacitor array. The energy released by the
plasma gun is approximately 60 J. Fig. 5 is an illustration of the
plasma gun and shows it placed under the three-phase
electrodes. The plasma gun is isolated from the power system.
The ionized air created by the plasma gun causes a breakdown
of the dielectric properties of the air between the electrodes and
arcing current starts to flow.
Fig. 5. Arc flash plasma gun.
The plasma gun barrel has two internal conductors that are
isolated from the power conductors, as they are part of an
isolated plasma-discharge circuit. The plasma gun discharge
circuit receives a firing signal from the arc-flash sensing relay.
The plasma discharge circuit creates a pulse of 15 kV, 5 kA
across the gap within the plasma gun. The plasma caused by
the pulse exits out the top of the gun and is channeled to the
space between the three phase electrodes.
The fault arc on the electrical system creates a voltage
divider between the system impedance and the fault arc
impedance given by Eq. 1,
⎛ Z arc ⎞
Vcapture = Vsys ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1)
⎝ Z arc + Z source ⎠
where V sy is the system voltage, Z rcsou e is the source system
and conductor impedance, Z arc is the open-air arc impedance,
and V capuret is the arc-capture device impedance. The voltage-
divider network determines the voltage across the phase-
electrode gap. The plasma created by the trigger arc must break
down the dielectric strength of the air between the electrodes so
that the available system voltage is sufficient to initiate arcing
current between the main electrodes. The arc is in series with
the source impedance, as shown in the one-line drawing in Fig
6. For a given available bolted-fault current on a system, there is
specific impedance. The IEEE 1584 equations for arcing-fault
currents can be used to calculate the arc resistance. The
voltage available to support an arc at the main bus of the
equipment can be calculated as a voltage divider with the
impedance of the arc divided by the total system impedance
times the system voltage. This inductance and resistance
determines the voltage available at the bus that must be
triggered by the plasma gun. It is more difficult to initiate an arc
when there is high source impedance (low available fault
current). A larger fraction of the total available voltage is
dropped across the higher source impedance, resulting in lower
arcing voltage and lower arcing current. This means that testing
the device in a system that delivers low arcing current is a more
difficult challenge to the ability of the plasma gun discharge
system to break down the gap. A system able to deliver 10 kA Ibf
was chosen to test the low available fault current cases.
Fig. 6. One-line drawing.
The analysis of the arc voltage at 10 kA determined that the
minimum voltage available between two electrodes was 250
VRMS at any given time. Testing was then performed at 250 Vdc
to determine the reliability of the plasma gun at the lower, more
difficult transfer voltage. The test passed 150/150 sample shots.
E. Electir cal yste
S me
Str s es
Stresses on the power delivery system depend on the
current traveling through the conductors of the arc-mitigation
device after a successful transfer. Eq. 2 defines the arcing
current flowing within the arc containment chamber,
Vsys ⎡ −
Rt
I= ⎢sin ( wt + θ − ϕ) − e
L
Z sys + Z capture ⎣ ⎦
where Vsys is the system voltage, Zsys is the source system and
conductor impedance, Zcapture is the arc impedance, ωt is the
sample time in radians, t is time, θ is the arcing current power
factor angle, ϕ is the closing angle, R is the total system
resistance (including Rsys + Rarc), L is the total system
inductance, and I is the total current flowing through the arc
containment device. System voltage and the power distribution
system impedance, consisting of the source and conductor’s
impedance up to the arc chamber, are the other factors that
determine the arcing current. The total system impedance,
consisting of the power distribution system impedance and the
arc’s impedance, then determines the current peak and RMS
current that causes stresses on the electrical components
within the system.
The magnetic repulsion and attraction forces that produce
mechanical stress are related to the multiplication of current
traveling through each conductor. Eq. 2 illustrates the
instantaneous current flowing through system once the arc
chamber is conducting current. It is a function of time and each
phase is offset by 120 degrees from the others. The exponential
term with the negative R/L exponent combined with the power
factor angle and the closing angle determines the maximum
possible dc offset. The larger the R/L term, the smaller the
potential offset may be. The R in this equation is a summation of
the source impedance resistance and the arc resistance. The
exact offset on any one phase depends on the closing angle
and system power factor. The magnetic forces can cause
damage to current-carrying conductors within transformers and
other equipment. In a highly inductive system the peak current
caused by the dc offset from a bolted fault can exceed two times
the RMS value. The arc within the chamber has the typical
resistive impedance characteristics of an arc. Because of the
resistance of the arc in the chamber, the arc current is lower
than the bolted fault RMS and particularly with respect to the
peak dc offset.
The other electrical stress on the system is the energy,
2 2
measured by I t. The I t effect on the system is a function of the
instantaneous current integrated over time. The impedance of
2
the arc in the chamber also limits damaging I t effects on the
power distribution system. However, high arcing current flowing
for too long can still cause damage to power distribution system
components and cause unnecessary wear of the arc
containment device. A circuit breaker operating in three to five
cycles from the arcing fault’s inception is fast enough to prevent
damage to system components, as well as minimizing device
wear.
IV. DETECTION SYSTEM
A. Sensing
To initiate an arc fault transfer, use of an arc-fault-current
detection system is required. The system must differentiate
bolted faults and downstream faults from arcing faults in the
volume or bus protected. Arc-flash sensing systems are capable
of differentiating between the fault types with light sensors.
Light-based sensing is used for arc-flash detection in various
available commercial systems. To assure positive detection and
minimize the probability of nuisance firing, current sensing may
be used as a confirming signal. Light sensors are simple
⎤ devices; the basic technology has been available for several
sin (θ − ϕ) ⎥ (2) decades. Light detection is fast as light is given off within tens of
microseconds of an arc fault initiation. Protective-relay systems
for medium-voltage applications able to operate with light
sensors are commonly available in the industry today.
When photo sensors are placed within an enclosure, the
sensor devices will only sense light within that volume and any
adjacent volume with enough reflected light to trigger the
sensor. In order to protect the entire system, light sensors must
be placed throughout the equipment where they have access to
direct or reflected light from any possible arcing-fault location.
This includes the main bus compartment, cable run-ins,
transition sections, and breaker compartments. The location of
current sensors used for confirmation determines the protected
zone electrically. If the entire equipment is to be protected, the
current sensor must be on the line side of the switchgear and
the light sensor must be placed in the main equipment
compartments. Also, a controllable remote device must be
located ahead of the protected volume or bus. For a main
secondary bus, the main circuit breaker will protect most of the
equipment, as shown in Fig. 7. However, to protect a complete
low-voltage substation it may be necessary to provide a
medium-voltage circuit breaker or remote low-voltage main, as
shown in Fig. 8.
 breakers, which do not vent into open air. Low-voltage
equipment breakers use air interrupters. Air circuit breakers
produce significant light from internal arcing while interrupting
XFMR high currents. A light-sensing system must not be triggered by
the light emissions of a properly interrupting circuit breaker.
Filtering the light is an easily achieved workable solution. Light
Relay filters can be designed that block light from interrupting circuit
Main Bus CT breakers as well as from normal ambient conditions.
Light given off by an arcing event at 10 kA, 480 V is in the
range of 200 klux. For reference, typical lighting in an office is 2
Main klux[7], so the light intensity is of the order of 100X brighter than
Breaker normal lighting. Off-the-shelf light sensors normally saturate at
about 1 klux. An implementation with filtration materials that can
tailor the light sensor thresholds anywhere from 1 to 2,000+ klux
using the same light-sensing technology has proven to provide
reliable arcing-fault event indication while filtering light from non-
arcing fault sources. This light sensor filtration method
dramatically reduces the risk of nuisance operation.
Light The detection system is set up to detect high intensity arc
Sensor flashes, such as those from line to line or line to ground on
solidly grounded systems. These types of faults fall in the range
of high current (>5 kA) and are best dealt with by using the arc-
mitigation system as the primary solution. Even if an arc starts
Feeder as a single line-to-ground fault, there is a chance that the arc
Arc will propagate into a three-phase arc [8]. For such events where
there is sufficient current on single line-to-ground fault, the
Device
transfer of the arc is desirable versus the alternative option,
Fig. 7. Arc containment device, sensing and control for which is full-scale propagation. For very low intensity arcing
system protected by LV or local main. currents that may be of low magnitude or intermittent so that not
enough light is produced, other sensing and protection may be
Main Bus CT used that provides satisfactory protection. The article
“Understanding IEEE 1584 Arc Flash Calculations”[8] provides
MV some related discussion.
Breaker
52 .B e
R nspo se Time

XFMR The sensing, triggering, and arc-transfer will require some

Relay time. This time may be divided into three segments:
• Time to generate signals of light and current
• Processing time for the relay
• Arc-transfer time
Tests using a commonly available medium-voltage
protective relay with logic capability have demonstrated that
sensors can communicate sufficient light and current
information to the relay in less than 2 ms after initiating fault
current. The relay can issue a firing signal to the arc-absorbing
Main LV device and a trip signal to a circuit breaker in less than 6 ms and
Breaker the arc-transfer time is less than 1 ms. The relay used for the
testing is a powerful multifunction digital processor-based relay.
A dedicated logic device should be able to produce firing and
Light trip signals in less than the 6 ms the relay required. All tests
Sensor performed resulted in a total transfer time under 8 ms.
The sensing time included the effect of the light filtering and
the current confirmation logic. Reducing filtering and not
Feeder employing current confirmation may be used to reduce overall
Arc transfer time as part of a live work procedure. This would
Device temporarily provide a greater level of protection.

Fig. 8. Arc containment device, sensing and control for
system protected by MV or remote main.
The current state of light-detection systems does not take
into account failure modes that may occur in low-voltage
equipment. Medium-voltage equipment has vacuum circuit
V. INCIDENT ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS
A comparison of the incident energy allowed by a circuit
breaker clearing in three cycles versus the arc-absorption
system transferring the arc in one half-cycle yields significant
improvements. For a high-resistance-grounded, 480 V system,
an arcing gap of 32 mm and a working distance of 18 in., the
2
incident energy may be reduced from 6.84 cal/cm to 1.09
2
cal/cm . That is equivalent to a reduction from Hazard Risk
Category 2 range to Hazard Risk Category 0. Fig. 2 includes an
incident energy line for arcs lasting three cycles and one half-
cycle. For most of the bolted-fault current range of 30 to 100 kA,
a reduction in arc duration from three cycles to one half-cycle
reduces the incident energy from the Hazard Risk Category 2
2 2
range of 4–8 cal/cm to less than 1.2 cal/cm or from over 8
2 2
cal/cm to less than 4 cal/cm .
VI.TEST RESULTS
The device has three possible failure mechanisms:
• Inability to transfer the arc because the device’s arc
impedance is too high relative to the fault’s
impedance.
• Inability to maintain an arc because the system
impedance in series with the device’s impedance is
too high.
• Inability to maintain the arc due to excessive pressure
or wear within the arcing device.
Tests were preformed to confirm that the arc-containment
device was able to operate within a reasonable range of
operating parameters. The propensity for restrike or failure to
transfer the arcing fault may be caused by the arc impedance in
the device being high relative to the original’s fault impedance.
To verify the reliability of the arc-transfer and arc-sustaining
mechanism, the device was tested with high- and low-power
distribution system impedance. Tests on a system able to
deliver 65 kA of bolted-fault current confirm that the initiating arc
in the chamber reduces impedance sufficiently to commutate
the fault arc into the chamber as expected. Tests in a system
able to only deliver 10 kA bolted-fault current confirm that the
device is able to commutate the current in the chamber and
sustain it to ensure that the fault arc does not have an
opportunity to re-ignite. Additional tests were done on a system
able to deliver 85 kA at 635 V, sustaining the arc for several
cycles to determine the device’s ability to withstand pressure
and electrode wear.
Each of the tests was performed using UL1558 standard-
construction indoor low-voltage switchgear. Light and current
sensing was installed in the switchgear. A light sensor was
placed in each of the breaker compartments and in the cable
compartment. Current transformers were installed on the
incoming bus. Measurements were taken of each line current
and the phase-to-phase voltages. The tests were also
videotaped to document the arc transfer. The arc was created in
a 2000 A breaker compartment by wrapping a trigger wire
around the three-phase incoming run-in bus into the
compartment in a manner similar to that used in IEEE 1584
e
R commended Practice for Arc Flash Incident Energy
Calculations . plasma were gone from the area of the original arc. Using the
Each test was performed four or more times. The 65 kA test
was completed five times at 480 V to ensure structural integrity
of the chamber and successful transfer. One way to test the
reliability of the arc transfer under more difficult transfer
conditions is to decrease arcing fault gap. Two of the tests were
done with 25 mm gaps, increasing the arcing current and
facilitating restrike at the fault. These tests were also performed
at 10 kA, making it the most difficult of the arc transfer tests.
Other tests were done with gaps as large as 50 mm to simulate
an arcing gap that may be found in the internal bus structure of
some low-voltage switchgear. All tests were successful and the
arc-absorption device transferred current reliably within the
expected time.
Measurements were also performed per the low-voltage
arc-resistant equipment standard testing protocol, IEEE
C37.20.7 D11. The test provided confirmation of the arc-
containment device’s ability to comply with the arc-resistance
equipment standard’s requirements. Arc resistance means that
the switchgear is capable of containing an arc that forms within
its enclosure and does not allow any significant effects of the
arc to project externally from the enclosure where operating or
maintenance personnel may be standing. Successful
completion of the test requires that cotton panels mounted a
short distance from the enclosure not ignite, and that no part of
the enclosure be forced open or breached by the blast forces
within the enclosure. Typical arc-resistant switchgear requires
that the enclosures be vented to release arc-blast energy into a
flue system or in a direction deemed less dangerous, such as
toward the top or rear of the enclosure. The switchgear used for
the test was not provided with a path to relieve pressure caused
by arc-blast energy and hence required mitigation of the arc
energy before sufficient arc-blast energy could be created to
damage the enclosure or cause excessive heat energy or gases
to exit the enclosure.
A. 65 kA Tets at 480 V
Fig. 9 shows the transfer of an arc in a 65 kA, 480 V
system. Full transfer of the arc from initiation required 6.9 ms.
The dotted part of the sine wave seen in the oscillograph (~3
cycles) shown in Fig. 9 is three cycles of arc current flowing
within the arc-containment chamber, where it was safely
contained.
Fig. 9. Arc-absorber transfer behavior on a 65 kA system.
Visual evidence provided by a high-speed camera showed
that 10 ms after fault initiation all visible traces of ionized gas or
IEEE 1584 incident energy formula with an arc-mitigation time of
6.9 ms reduced the calculated incident energy to less than 1
2
cal/cm . The entire event ended at less than 58 ms with the arc-
mitigation device current lasting about 50 ms. The 50 ms
includes the circuit breaker being triggered via its shunt trip,
which is slower than an internal flux shifter that would be used if
the circuit breaker’s trip system had initiated the tripping. The
device’s maximum Ipk was 90 kA between all of the conducted
tests versus the 150 kA that would be expected for a bolted
fault. Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the various current and
energy let-through characteristics for an arcing fault, arc-
containment device current, and bolted-fault current, assuming Test
that all three currents lasted a full three cycles, but the fault Fault Gap, Duration, # of
arcing current lasted less than one-half cycle. Ibf, A Volts, V mm cycles tests
65,000 480 50 3.5 5
10,000 480 25 3.5 2
10,000 480 50 3.5 2
85,000 635 None 3.5 1

Table 2. Tests performed on one arc-containment device

under a variety of conditions.

VII. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

After each test, the main electrodes were examined. Each

Fig. 10. 65 kA Ibf, 480 V, HRG, three cycle clearing.
The important comparisons are between the peak current
2
and I t characteristics of the arc-containment device versus the
characteristics of the bolted fault that a crowbar arc-fault-
mitigation device would cause. The worst case arc-containment
device peak current is less than 2/3 of the bolted-fault current
2
and the I t energy is about 1/3 that of a bolted fault on the same
system. The lower values of peak current and energy result in
significantly less mechanical and thermal stress on the power-
distribution system.
test consumed some material from the main arcing electrodes;
however the arc-containment device was used for several tests
with minor adjustment of the electrodes. This limited adjustment
allowed multiple uses of the same device. The degree of wear
depends on the intensity of the event. Some maintenance
consisting of cleaning of the chamber and adjusting or replacing
the main electrodes may be needed after an event. The overall
structural integrity of the device was not compromised after the
full battery of tests was concluded. The detection and triggering
circuitry are fully reusable and should not require replacement
after an event. The damage to the electrical equipment was
limited to minimal damage around the immediate area of the
initial arc. The cubicle used for arc initiation, when protected by
the device, required no more than cleaning to be put back in
operation. Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 display two compartments that
were used for 65 kA arcing fault tests. Fig 11 is a compartment
protected by a circuit breaker operating in three cycles. Fig 12 is
a compartment protected by the arc-containment device.

B. 10 kA Ibf tests at 480 V

The 10 kA Ibf arc-capture tests were completed to confirm

the ability of the system to transfer the arc into the system in the
presence of collapsed system voltage. As described previously
in this paper, this is due to the lower available breakdown
voltage at the arc-containment device main electrodes. Tests
were performed on a 10 kA system at 480 V. Melting the trigger
wire on this system required 5–6 ms. This resulted in an overall
slower transfer time of about 13 ms due to the additional time
taken by the fault-initiating wire’s melting. When the wire-melting
time is subtracted, a net transfer time of 7–8 ms is observed.
The arc transfer occurred as expected. The observed
difference between the initial fault current and the transferred
arc is minimal, due to the substantial portion of the fault current
carried by the trigger wire prior to fault-arc initiation. This is
because most of the system impedance is higher than the
actual arc impedance, so that the current variation from internal Fig 11. Compartment protected by a circuit breaker.
arc versus external arc is less at higher levels. This test was
successfully completed four times with the described gap
variation.
Table 2 contains a summary of the arc-containment tests
that were performed.

Fig 12. Compartment protected by arc containment.
Testing an arc-containment device in the field may be
accomplished by connecting a small capacitor bank to the
electrodes, thus imposing a low voltage on the electrodes. This
would simulate a low breakdown voltage as would be available
during an arcing fault in the system. Firing the plasma gun and
causing the capacitors to discharge indicates the device’s ability
to initiate an arc at the main electrodes in the presence of low
breakdown voltage. This would prove the device’s ability to
trigger and conduct arcing current. A low-energy test would not
cause any significant wear on the electrodes. This primary-
voltage test technique is analogous to primary-current injection
testing of a circuit breaker. Testing of the sensing system may
be accomplished using a calibrated light source and confirming
that a trigger signal is issued by the relay. A high-current test of
the current sensor can confirm that the current confirmation and
logic is operational. Continuous integrity of the CT can also be
assured by using the CT input for metering at the same arc
containment device’s triggering relay. Installing the arc-
containment device in a rack-out assembly, similar to how a
feeder circuit breaker is installed in switchgear, would facilitate
testing, installation, maintenance, and replacement of the
device, if required. Testing of the device’s ability to fire may be
accomplished on a racked-out device or on a test bench.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Testing of the arc-containment device confirmed that fast
energy capture by transferring an arcing current from an open-
air arc to an enclosed, controlled chamber provides a high
degree of protection to low-voltage switchgear. Tests confirmed
the ability of the device to perform within the requirements of
applicable IEEE standards for low-voltage, arc-resistant
switchgear, without relying on special enclosures or blast-
pressure conduction methods. Tests also confirmed the ability
2
to reduce incident energy levels to less than 1 cal/cm at an 18
in. working distance with no barriers between the arc source
and the measurement devices. Furthermore, testing at low- and
high-available fault current, with larger and small arcing-fault
gaps, confirmed the ability of the device to reliably function
within a range of low-voltage power-distribution fault currents
and equipment arrangements that may be found in many
industrial facilities.
Circuit theory demonstrates that the device is flexible with
regard to where it is connected within the protected system. As
long as the impedance between the device and the arc to be
extinguished is low, the device should function properly. The
ability to install the device in a normal feeder circuit breaker
cubicle, without reliance on modification of the enclosure’s steel,
indicates that the technology is available to existing systems
where other arc-flash-hazard mitigation mechanisms are difficult
to apply without replacement or major modifications of the
equipment and operating characteristics. Since the device may
be located ahead of or downstream from the protected bus,
significant flexibility is possible in configuration topologies,
potentially allowing the technology to be applied in a wide range
of installed systems, as well as new equipment.
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] IEE Guide for Performing Arc-flash Haaz rd Calculations ,
IEEE Std 1584-2002.
[2] Standard for Electrical aS fety e R uiq rements for Emple
oy e
Workl p aces , NFPA 70E, 2000.
[3] R.H. Lee. “The other electrical hazard: Electric arc blast
burns.” IEE Trans. Ind. Aplications . Vol. IA-18, pp. 246–
251, May/June 1982.
[4] IEE Guide for Testing Medium-Volat ge Metal-Enclosed
Siw tchgear for Intenr al c Ar ing Faulst , IEEE C37.20.7-2001.
[5] o-
wL l vo tage isw tchgear and conl tro gear , IEC 60947-2004-
03.
[6] Mauro, J.A. tipO cal Engineering aH ndbook . GE. 1963.
[7] Kussy, Frank W. and Jack L Warren. Design Fundamentals
for Lo- w Voltage Distributino and Conl t ro . New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.1987.
[8] Jones, Ray A., Danny P. Ligget, Mary Capelli-Schellpfeffer,
Terry Macalady, Lynn F. Saunders, Robert E. Downey, L.
Bruce McClung, Arthur Smith, Shahid Jamil, and Vincent J.
Sapporita. “Staged Tests Increase Awareness of Arc-Flash
Hazards in Electrical Equipment.” IEE Trans. Ind.
Aplications . Vol. 36-2, March/April 2000.
[9] Lippert, Kevin J, Donald M. Colaberardino, and Clive W.
Kimblin, “Understanding IEEE 1584 Arc Flash Calculations.”
IEE Industry Aplicatino s Magazine . May/June 2005.
X. VITAE
Mr. Tom Papallo manages the Innovation Engineering
team for GE’s Industrial’s power distribution business. Mr.
Papallo has co-authored several IEEE papers for conferences,
IAS Magazine, and IAS Transactions. Mr. Papallo has over
three dozen patents in circuit breaker design, power system
protection, and other subjects. Mr. Papallo holds a degree in
Mechanical Engineering from the University of Connecticut.
Mr. George Roscoe is a member of GE’s Innovation design
team and has several patents in the field of arc-flash protection
pending. Mr. Roscoe has a master’s degree in Electric Power
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and has
headed GE’s internal program for arc-flash testing for several
years.
Mr. Marcelo Valdes is Application Engineering Manager for
GE Industrial’s power distribution business and has co-authored
and authored several IEEE papers for conferences, IAS
magazine, IAS transactions, and other journals. Mr. Valdes has
one patent and several pending in the area of power systems
protection and circuit breaker trip design. Mr. Valdes holds a
degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University.