BY RACHEL M. BUGARIS & DAVID T.

ROLLAY

ECAUSE OF THE RECENT FOCUS ON ARC-

B flash hazards, arc-resistant equipment is becoming

increasingly common in industrial facilities throughout
North America. This article addresses arc-resistant equip-
ment as it applies to low-voltage motor control centers (LVMCCs) [National
Electric Manufacturing Association (NEMA) 600V LVMCC/International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 690V LV controlgear]. A brief overview and
history of applicable internal arc fault testing guides (IEEE C37.20.7 and IEC/TR
61641) are included. Test procedures and their considerations as well as arc-resistant
assessment criteria are reviewed. An examination of various methods to achieve an arc-
resistant rating (device-limited rating and duration rating) as well as considerations for
implementing arc-resistant equipment are addressed.
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

An Arc-Resistant LVMCC
This article deals with arc-resistant equipment as it applies to an LVMCC, i.e., NEMA 600V
class LVMCC and IEC 690V LV controlgear. An arc-resistant LVMCC can be thought of as a sub-
set of a standard Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 845 motor control center or IEC 61439 controlgear.
(In 2009, the IEC 60439 series of standards were revised and renumbered as the IEC 61439 series.)
In addition to complying with the requirements of one of these standards, the designation of arc resist-
ant is an indication that the LVMCC has satisfied certain performance criteria when subjected to internal

For low-voltage motor control center applications

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2010.939620

62
Date of publication: 17 May 2011

1077-2618/11/$26.00©2011 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
arcing conditions. An arc-resistant LVMCC may con-
tain additional features that are normally not present
in a standard LVMCC and may have additional installa-
tion requirements.
While UL 845 [1] and IEC 61439 [2] outline a series of
required short-circuit type tests to ensure that the LVMCC
will be able to withstand the effects of bolted faults, over-
load currents, etc., neither of these documents requires
testing or specifies a level of performance that the equip-
ment must meet when subjected to specific arcing fault
conditions. An arcing fault differs from a bolted fault in
that the circuit is completed through air (as a result of insu-
lation breakdown, ionized gases, etc.) rather than a conduc-
tor. The equations in IEEE 1584, which are based on test
data, predict that arcing currents in a typical LVMCC can
be as low as 40% of the rms-bolted fault current level [3].
One of the reasons that arcing faults are typically more
severe than bolted faults is because the lower arcing current
may not cause the short-circuit-protective device (SCPD),
located in or upstream of the LVMCC, to trip in a timely
manner. Clearing time during an arcing event is critical;
longer fault durations can result in increased equipment
damage and incident energy exposure. Adding provisions
to the equipment that allow the enclosure to be rated as arc
resistant will help limit and contain some of the undesir-
able mechanical and thermal effects that result from an
internal arcing fault.
The arc-resistant LVMCC has been fairly common,
particularly throughout Europe, for many years. To some
extent, this is a result of the fact that low-voltage switch-
gear and controlgear assemblies must comply with the
same standards and codes. When controlgear is used in a
distribution-type installation, the potential for greater
energies is more probable. In contrast, in North America,
there is a distinction in product standards between con-
trolgear, such as an LVMCC, and low-voltage electrical
switchgear that functions primarily for power distribu-
tion. Additionally, lineups of IEC controlgear assemblies
tend to have a larger footprint than their NEMA counter-
parts; this greater enclosure volume can be a valuable con-
dition for improving the ability of the enclosure to
withstand and contain the pressure effects resulting from
an internal arcing fault.
With regard to electrical arc safety in countries that
adopt IEC standards and directives, the focus tends to be
on arc containment or protection. In North America, how-
ever, the focus has been on arc prevention, particularly by
lowering potential incident energy levels. Recent guide-
lines in North American standards for workplace electrical
safety (NFPA 70E [4] and CSA Z462 [5]) have led to a
philosophy of working to lower the potential incident
energy level of a system, rather than reinforcing equipment
to make it arc proof or resistant.
Even with global application differences, there is still a
need in both the IEC and NEMA communities for the
arc-resistant LVMCC. Ultimately, when safety is a con-
cern, utilizing a combination of both strategies—using
preventive features to reduce the likelihood of an arc flash
occurring as well as incorporating containment features
to minimize the resulting hazards—presents a more com-
plete solution to address the dangers associated with arc-
flash hazards.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Internal Arcing Test Guides
There are no standards when it comes to arc-resistant equip-
ment but rather internal arcing test guides. The difference
between a standard and guide is that a standard specifies
mandatory requirements and performance levels that must
be met and verified, while a guide provides information,
including recommended procedures and explanations, while
leaving performance levels subject to an agreement between
the customer and manufacturer [6]. As a result, arc-resistant
ratings can vary by manufacturer, and users should ensure
that they understand not only how a specific manufacturer
has tested his/her arc-resistant equipment but also the levels
(voltage, current, arcing duration, and accessibility type) to
which the equipment has been tested.
On a global level, there are two documents that are appli-
cable to the testing and qualification of the arc-resistant
LVMCC: IEC/TR 61641 and IEEE C37.20.7. Each test
guide outlines the scope of equipment intended to be cov-
ered by the particular document. For instance, IEC/TR
61641 Enclosed Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Assem-
blies—Guide for Testing Under Conditions of Arcing Due to Inter-
nal Fault provides guidance for testing the IEC style
LVMCC that is manufactured according to IEC 61439. Both
documents are maintained by the IEC SC (subcommittee)
17D—LV Switchgear and Controlgear Assemblies. Cur-
rently, there are no internal arcing test guides that directly
include in their scope the NEMA style LVMCC that com-
plies with UL 845. The most relevant document is IEEE
C37.20.7 IEEE Guide for Testing Metal-Enclosed Switchgear
Rated Up to 38 kV for Internal Arcing Faults. Originally, a
medium-voltage test guide, the 2007 release of IEEE
C37.20.7 incorporated some guidance for testing low-volt-
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS
age equipment. This article is maintained by the IEEE
Power Engineering Society Switchgear Committee, specifi-
cally the Switchgear Assemblies Subcommittee. Addition-
ally, some countries have adopted or are developing their
own guides for testing electrical equipment, including
LVMCCs, for internal arcing faults. Furthermore, since the
internal arc testing documents are guides subject to agree-
ment between the manufacturer and customer, customers
may occasionally have additional (or fewer) requirements
based on a specific application.
These internal arc test guides are similar in that each
document typically includes guidelines for configuring test
samples, laboratory calibration requirements, test procedure,
evaluation criteria, and information to be included in the
test report. However, these documents are not harmonized
and are not always in agreement. Typical differences include
anything from minor variations in terminology to more
significant discrepancies within the test evaluation criteria
or test procedures. For example, the type and placement of
thermal indicators, shorting wire size and location, and
requirements for repetition of the test if the fault self-clears
all vary between these two documents. This is understand-
able owing to the difference in the scope of the two guides.
Specifically, the difference in voltage levels has an impact
since voltage affects the amount of incident energy present
during an arc flash.
Arc-resistant guides typically evaluate the degree of
protection provided by equipment against the thermal and
mechanical effects of an arcing fault. Note that in the title
63
of each test guide, a distinction is made that the testing is
 for internal arcing faults; this indicates that during testing
doors and covers are secured and latched.
It is important to point out that even on equipment
rated as arc resistant, safe work practices are paramount
and must always be followed. Arc-resistant equipment
alone is not enough to satisfy the requirements for safe
work practices outlined in NFPA 70E or CSA Z462. Arc-
resistant equipment is not exempt from the arc-flash haz-
ard analysis described in these documents, and it must
still be field marked with the available incident energy or
the required level of personal protective equipment.
When doors and covers are open while the equipment
is energized, an arc-resistant LVMCC, like a standard
LVMCC, has the potential to release energy should an
arcing fault occur.
Equipment Testing
Arc-resistant equipment provides several benefits within the
previously described framework. The extent of these benefits
depends on the assessment criteria and the degree to which
the test guide was followed when testing took place.
Assessment Criteria and Accessibility Type
After an internal arcing test is conducted, equipment is
typically inspected for, at a minimum, the following crite-
ria [7], [8]:
n doors and covers do not open (some distortion
is allowed)
n parts are not ejected (i.e., the enclosure remains
intact and does not fragment)
n arcing does not cause holes to develop in external
parts of the enclosure (i.e., assessment of burn-
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS
through, a thermal effect)
n thermal indicators do not ignite (i.e., any gases
released are not hot enough to cause ignition at
a specific distance from the enclosure) and
n the grounding or protective circuit remains effective.
The above criteria are primarily focused on the protec-
tion of personnel who are in the vicinity of the LVMCC
from the thermal and mechanical effects of an internal arc-
ing fault. Some internal arc test guides, including IEC/TR
61641, provide additional criteria that can be used to assess
the equipment. Optional criteria [8] that can also be used
as part of the assessment include the following:
n the arc is confined to the compartment in which it
was initiated (e.g., an arc initiated in a unit does not
flash over and ignite in the bus compartment)
n emergency operation of equipment is possible
(verified by a dielectric test).
The criteria for personnel and equipment protection
may apply to one or more external surfaces described by
accessibility type. Two accessibility types are defined in
IEEE C37.20.7: Type 1—front only and Type 2—front,
sides, and back [7]. (IEEE C37.20.7 also defines suffixes
that can be applied, but these are typically used only for
medium- or high-voltage equipment and do not apply to
LVMCCs.) Distinction is not made between different levels
of accessibility types of IEC/TR 61641; the document
states that all sides of the equipment readily accessible by
personnel must be evaluated [8]. This is essentially equiva-
lent to IEEE Accessibility Type 2 assessment. Note that
64
although the accessibility-type assessments are similar, the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
actual arc-resistant ratings may not be equivalent since the
guides are not harmonized.
Selection of Compartments for Testing
When qualifying configurable equipment such as an
LVMCC for an arc-resistant rating, a series of internal arc-
ing tests may be necessary. Because the nature of an arcing
fault can be unpredictable, it is often difficult to determine
the fault location that will lead to a worst-case condition
without testing. Therefore, a thorough test program is nec-
essary to assess the effects of an internal arcing fault in
several locations including bus compartments, outgoing
units and feeders, and incoming units (mains).
1) Bus compartments: Although energy levels will vary by
manufacturers and designs, in the case of an LVMCC,
the highest energy levels generally are expected to
occur in the bus compartment. This is due to the fact
that there is less impedance at this point in the cir-
cuit, and unless the bus is insulated, an arc that devel-
ops in the bus compartment is not likely to self-
extinguish. Both the main power and distribution
bus should be considered for testing.
2) Outgoing compartments (units and feeders): When an
arc fault occurs, high temperatures cause materials to
vaporize, resulting in rapidly expanding gases that
produce a pressure wave. In an LVMCC unit, or
bucket, the volume is typically much smaller than
the volume of the bus compartment. Smaller volumes
leave less space for gases to expand, which could lead
to higher pressures and more stress on the equipment.
Since the effects of an arcing fault are mitigated
by distance, barriers and proximity to areas of the
equipment that are accessible by personnel are the
factors that need to be considered when developing
an arc-resistant test strategy. When units are
installed in an LVMCC, they are typically located
toward the front of the enclosure that is usually
more accessible than the bus compartment.
Conversely, depending on the location in the unit
where the fault occurs, the arcing current and clearing
time might be considerably less than a similar fault in
a bus compartment, leading to lower energy levels.
There may be a protective device within the unit
upstream of the fault, or the unit may be designed
with careful attention to spacing and insulation that
would make an arcing fault likely to self-extinguish
even before an upstream protective device would open.
3) Incoming compartments (mains): The line side of an
LVMCC incoming device or main lug compartment
has the potential for the highest arc-flash energy,
because if a fault were to occur at this location, the
upstream device may be slow to operate. The volume
of the compartment, spacing and arrangement of con-
ductors and components, and speed of the upstream
clearing device all factor into evaluating this com-
partment for testing.
Test Sample
The test sample(s) should be constructed so that the worst-
case scenarios can be evaluated. Since an LVMCC is typi-
cally configurable with an almost infinite combination of
options, bus sizes, and unit layouts, it would not be
realistic to test every possible arrangement. Thus, engi-
neering judgment must be used in establishing a test
program. An example of the worst-case construction
could be a bus compartment with the smallest spacing
between phases or a unit compartment with the highest
rated device packaged in the smallest possible volume.
Devices that allow the largest current let-through (I2 t)
should also be considered. When designing a test sam-
ple, externally mounted options should be taken into
account (e.g., pilot lights and buttons, viewing win-
dows, meters). Enclosure strength is critical, and any
options that may weaken the integrity of the LVMCC
should be evaluated.

Conducting the Test

Once the test sample is constructed, testing can begin. The
manufacturer must determine the particular test parame-
ters that, upon the completion of successful testing, will
become the arc-resistant rating of the equipment. Proce-
1
dures for calibrating the test circuit are provided in the test
guide documents. Low-voltage equipment tests can usually Arc-resistant test setup with horizontal and vertical thermal
be performed at full voltage (this is not always the case when indicators arranged around an LVMCC. A simulated ceiling
testing medium- or high-voltage equipment). is also constructed above the test cell. (Photo courtesy of
Arc-resistant equipment is tested by applying a short- Rockwell Automation.)
ing wire and then subjecting the equipment to a specific
current and voltage for a specific duration, as selected by
the manufacturer. The size of the shorting wire, specified
in the test guide, is typically sized so that the wire will
quickly ionize. Before the circuit is energized, all doors and
covers are closed and secured, and thermal indicators are
arranged at a specific distance around the enclosure surfaces
that will be assessed (Figures 1 and 2).

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

The thermal indicators are squares of fabric, untreated
with flame retardants that are intended to approximate typi-
cal industrial clothing. The test guides specify the type,
color, and density of the indicator material. Although some
test guides require vertical and horizontal indicators, others
only require that vertical indicators be present for low-volt-
age equipment tests. The thermal indicators are used to eval-
uate any materials, including hot gases, which may be
released during an internal arcing event. Horizontal indica-
tors are used to evaluate the arc shower and are often used in
conjunction with a ceiling above the test cell. An arc shower
is the result of gases or molten material being ejected and
reflecting off nearby surfaces such as a ceiling or walls. If the
equipment is designed to exhaust out the top of the enclo-
sure, the horizontal indicators will help ensure that any gases
or material ejected in the arc shower will not be hot enough
to cause serious burns.
Test conditions should be as similar as possible to nor-
mal operating conditions. Although replications of full
installations are generally not required, manufacturers may
be asked to provide installation guidance. Considerations
such as the ceiling height, distance between the LVMCC
and adjacent walls, and floor mounting are important.
Testing should simulate these types of conditions so that
practical guidance can be provided.
Methods to Achieve Arc-Resistant Ratings
The internal arcing test guides define two methods to
achieve arc-resistant ratings. The two methods are device-
limited ratings and duration ratings (Table 1).
2
An LVMCC with horizontal thermal indicators. (Photo
courtesy of Rockwell Automation.)
Device-Limited Ratings
A device-limited arc-resistant rating is based on the inter-
nal arcing fault being limited by a specific protective
device. The device may be located in the LVMCC or
upstream in the distribution system feeding the LVMCC.
This protective device will limit the peak current and/or
time duration of the arcing fault. (If an arc-resistant rating
is achieved as a result of using a protective device, the loca-
tion of that device is important. For instance, when using a
current-limiting device, the arc-resistant rating applies
only downstream of the current-limiting device and not to
the supply side.)
When an arc-resistant rating utilizes current- or dura-
tion-limiting devices, the protection ultimately relies on
the function of the specific device. When using device-
limited arc-resistant equipment, care should be taken to
ensure that the device that will provide the protection is
reliable and robust and complies with any applicable
industry standards. Additionally, if a manufacturer specifies
that certain device settings are required, the user must fol-
65
low these instructions (as well as all other manufacturer

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 instructions) for the device-limited arc-resistant rating to
remain valid.
Device-limited ratings are a simple method of applying
arc-resistant equipment since any application that uses the
defined protective device(s) will be protected as long as
the system voltage and maximum available fault current
are not exceeded for which the manufacturer conducted
the arc-resistant testing. However, the requirement to
utilize specific protective device(s) may limit the flexibility
of the user in selecting a device that will achieve the
system coordination and performance desired in a spe-
cific application.
1) Current-limiting devices: These devices are most fre-
quently used, and they can be either current-limiting
fuses or fast-acting circuit breakers. These devices
will limit the peak current and time duration of the

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF ARC-RESISTANT RATINGS.

Device-Limited Arc-Resistant Ratings
Methods A specific protective device is used to achieve the arc-resistant rating. The device
helps reduce the severity of the fault by limiting the fault current and/or duration
(e.g., current-limiting fuses, fast acting circuit breakers, crowbar).
Testing Current-limiting devices Duration-limiting devices
Two tests are required:
Devices intended to automatically trip an
upstream device (e.g., protective relay).
Test 1
The SCPD is part of the circuit and is The device is made inactive.
installed in the equipment under test.
Current: Rated arcing short-circuit current
Current: Rated arcing short-circuit current Voltage: Rated voltage*
*
Voltage: Rated voltage Duration: The maximum clearing time of
Duration: Rated arcing duration (the the device and circuit interrupter (this
observed arcing duration will be deter- becomes the rated arcing duration)
mined by the performance of the SCPD;
this is typically much shorter than the
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

rated arcing duration) Devices intended to limit the duration by

other means (e.g., crowbar).
The device is active and part of the test
Test 2
circuit.
The SCPD is not part of the circuit. Current: Rated arcing short circuit current
Current: The time–current curve of the Voltage: Rated voltage*
SCPD is used to determine the current
Duration: Rated arcing duration** (IEEE
that will be used in the test circuit.
C37.20.7 requires the preferred arcing
Voltage: Rated voltage* duration of 0.5 s to be used)
Duration: Rated arcing duration**

Duration Arc-Resistant Ratings

Methods Arc-resistant equipment with a duration rating typically has structural modifications that
enable it to withstand an internal arcing fault and contain certain effects (mechanical
and thermal).
This type of arc-resistant rating does not require the use of a specific protective device.
Testing One type of test is required; this test may be repeated in various compartments or config-
urations. Protective devices are not used during this test.
Current: Rated arcing short-circuit current
Voltage: Rated voltage*
Duration: Rated arcing duration**
*
Voltage is applied for the entire rated arcing duration.
**
The observed arcing duration may vary from the rated arcing duration due to equipment designs (e.g., spacing and insulation
between conductors and ground), which may cause the arc to self-extinguish.
66

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 arcing fault. Table 2 lists how some common protec-
TABLE 2. TYPICAL DEVICE PERFORMANCE UNDER
tive devices performed under arcing conditions in a
INTERNAL ARCING CONDITIONS IN AN LVMCC.
typical LVMCC. With either of these protective
devices, the user should consider both the bolted Actual Arcing
fault and reduced arcing fault currents. Both fuses Device Rating (A) Duration (ms)
and circuit breakers can be effectively used when Test per IEC/TR 61641 at 415 V and 65 kA
their current-limiting characteristics are understood.
Typically larger protective devices are not as effec- MCCB 25 1.7
tive at lower arcing currents. 1.7
a) Current-limiting fuses: These fuses are very effec-
tive, particularly at lower currents, but may have 225 3.7
more limitations as fuse ampere ratings increase. 6.2
Typical arcing currents seen in LVMCC applica-
4.2
tions may not put larger current-limiting fuses
(fuses rated above 1,200 A) into the current- 7.2
limiting range. This results in longer clearing 600 7.1
times and reduced protection (Figure 3). How-
ever, current-limiting fuses may offer advantages 10.4
in achieving coordination with downstream pro- Test per IEEE C37.20.7 at 480 V and 65 kA
tective devices.
b) Fast-acting circuit breakers: These breakers that Class L fuse 1,200 9.7
provide current-limiting or current-reduction char- 12.9
acteristics may also be used. Circuit breakers may
provide better protection as part of a device- 8.5
limited rating package than the time–current 9.9
curve of the circuit breaker would indicate. Under
9.6
arcing conditions, current-limiting circuit break-
ers reduce both the fault current and duration [9]. 9.6
Note that circuit breaker (and fuse) curves repre- 10.0
sent the worst-case conditions and what is shown
on the curve is often conservative. 7.6
c) Additional testing for current-limiting devices: Since MCCB 1,200 13.5

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

device-limited ratings are dependant on the per-
14.0
formance of a specific device and the performance
of current-limiting devices can vary under differ- 18.7
ent circuit conditions, the guides require that the Other Optical and 2.5
manufacturer successfully complete two tests to current sensor
classify the equipment as arc resistant. These tests with crowbar
are conducted as described in the section
“Equipment Testing.” One test is conducted
at the maximum available prospective short-
circuit current with the device installed and
active. Then the second test is conducted, with- 15
Incident Energy (cal/cm2)

out the protective device, at a lower current for a

longer arcing duration. The second test repre-
sents applications where the prospective short- 10
circuit current may be low, resulting in lower
arcing currents and long device clearing times.
This test verifies that the LVMCC will still com- 5
ply with the assessment criteria under these con-
ditions (Table 1).
2) Duration-limiting devices: These devices can also be 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
utilized in arc-resistant equipment with a device-
Available Current (kA)
limited rating. (Provisions for testing duration-lim-
iting devices are not mentioned in IEC/TR 61641.) 800 A Fuse
800 A Circuit Breaker
These devices operate by utilizing various methods 1,200 A Fuse
to sense the arcing fault and then use this informa- 1,200 A Circuit Breaker
tion to trigger the operation of a circuit opening 2,000 A Fuse
2,000 A Circuit Breaker
device. Although the sensing method may be very
fast, the opening and clearing time of the circuit 3
opening device must be included when evaluating Comparison of typical LVMCC main protective devices
67
the performance of the duration-limiting device. (energy calculations based on IEEE 1584 equations).

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Methods to limit the duration of an arcing fault include
diverting the arcing current to a low-impedance short-circuit
device (e.g., metallic short circuit or crowbar) or transfer-
ring the arc to an isolated arc chamber to reduce arc-inci-
dent energy exposure. These methods can be quite fast
(Table 2) but requires the user to consider any stresses that
this may cause to the electrical system.
Duration Ratings
Duration arc-resistant ratings are based on rating the
equipment to withstand an internal arcing fault for the
maximum time duration. The maximum system voltage
and maximum available prospective short-circuit current
are also part of the duration rating, similar to a device-
limited rating.
This rating method provides the user with more flexi-
bility in selecting a main protective device to achieve
desired system performance and coordination. Nonethe-
less, the selection of the upstream short-circuit protec-
tion is still critical. When using this method, an arc-
flash hazard analysis should be performed to determine
the potential arcing current levels at the LVMCC. This
information is then used to select an appropriate pro-
tective device that will clear a potential arcing fault
in a time that is less than the rated arcing duration of
the equipment.
Identifying Arc-Resistant Equipment
(Rating Nameplates)
Arc-resistant equipment should be clearly marked with a
nameplate, or rating label, located on the exterior of the
enclosure, where the level to which the equipment has
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS
been tested is indicated (Figure 4). The internal arcing test
guides indicate that the arc-resistant rating label should
specify attributes such as the maximum prospective short-
circuit current, maximum nominal operational voltage,
maximum arcing duration, and accessibility type. If
the arc-resistant rating is a device-limited rating, then the
Arc-Resistant Equipment
Per IEEE C37.20.7
Accessibility: Type X
Arc Short-Circuit Current: XX kA
Arc Duration: XXX ms
(a)
Arc-Resistant Equipment
Per IEEE C37.20.7
Accessibility: Type X
Arc Short-Circuit Current: XX kA
Arc Duration: Device Limited
Protective Device: Manufacturer and Part Number(s)
Rated Max Clearing Time
Protective Device: XX ms
(b)
4 ful when specific breakers are tested in conjunc-
Typical arc-resistant nameplate: (a) duration rating and
68
(b) device limited.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
label must identify the equipment as device limited and
list the specific devices that must be utilized. There are no
guidelines or calculations for extrapolating test data for
longer arcing durations at lower currents or voltages, so the
requirements on the rating label should not be exceeded.
It is possible that different compartments may carry dif-
ferent arc-resistant ratings. If this is the case, the rating for
each compartment should be clearly marked.
Considerations for Applying Arc-Resistant
Equipment to LVMCC Systems
Considerations for Electrical System Design
Many of the same techniques that help reduce arc-flash
energy levels at the LVMCC will also reduce the arc-resistant
rating requirements of the LVMCC equipment. Some tech-
niques that will improve performance include the following:
1) Reduce the ampacity of the LVMCC bus system: This will
reduce the size of the main SCPD. Smaller devices
clear faster under the arcing currents that are typical
in LVMCC applications. The typical arcing currents
allow lower rated protective devices (typically devices
up to 1,200 A) to operate in their current-limiting
range, leading to faster fault clearing times (Figure 3).
2) Select high-performance current-limiting protective devices:
The selection of the main SCPD for applications
using arc-resistant LVMCC equipment is an impor-
tant activity. If a device-limited rating is used, a
specific main SCPD may be required. Even for arc-
resistant equipment with a duration rating, it is
advantageous to select a device that will clear any
faults as quickly as possible to limit personnel expo-
sure and equipment damage. Current-limiting pro-
tective devices are designed to reduce the amount of
energy released during a fault. At the same time,
these devices can provide other desirable electrical
system performance, such as system coordination.
Another benefit of using a high-speed current-lim-
iting device is that it will help reduce potential
incident energy levels when an arc-flash hazard
analysis is conducted.
a) Use high-performance current-limiting fuses: Some
fuses provide more current-limiting performance
than others. Evaluate both the clearing time and
let-through characteristics when selecting current-
limiting fuses.
b) Use high-speed current-limiting or -reduction molded
case circuit breakers: Molded case circuit breakers
may provide better performance in protecting
equipment against internal arcing faults than
their clearing time curves indicate because of
their current-reduction characteristics. When a
circuit breaker clears a fault, an arc develops
between its contacts. The impedance of the arc
between the contacts reduces the fault current,
resulting in lower incident energies [9]. This
advantage, combined with the fact that the cir-
cuit breaker will often clear faster than the
time–current curve would indicate, can be use-
tion with a device-limited arc-resistant rating.
However, in cases where a duration rating is
 used, the circuit breaker must be selected based
on the trip curves that may not show this im- 45
proved performance. 42 kA Available Current

Current at LVMCC (kA)

40
3) Keep the system in the current-limiting range of the protec- 35 42 kA Arcing Current
35 kA Available Current
tive device: When designing the system and laying 30
25 35 kA Arcing Current
out the floor plan, be aware of factors that might
lead to increased impedance in the system. For 20
example, the impedance in long runs of cable can 15
lead to much lower available current levels at the 10
5
incoming terminals of the LVMCC than the avail-
0
able current level found upstream before the cable 0 500 1,000 1,500
run (Figure 5). Remember that arcing current is Cable Length (ft)
only a fraction of the available current. When using 5
arc-resistant equipment, it is critical that the protec- Effects of cable length on available current at incoming
tive device will clear the arcing fault in a time that LVMCC terminals (based on 800A LVMCC with three
is less than the rated arcing duration. 350 kcmil cables per phase at 480 V).
4) Use intelligent devices: Incorporating intelligent devi-
ces and technologies that allow remote monitoring
and control is beneficial when using arc-resistant 4) Utilize protective devices with dual settings (e.g., normal
LVMCCs. Remembering that the arc-resistant rating operation and maintenance): Devices with dual set-
only applies when doors and covers are closed and tings allow coordination to be maintained at the
secured, it is particularly helpful to be able to re- expense of higher potential incident energies dur-
ceive real-time feedback from devices and have the ing normal operation. The alternate settings,
capability to adjust device parameters via a network which may sacrifice some coordination but reduce
connection in an office environment, rather than hav- incident energy levels, can be activated when sen-
ing personnel enter the arc-flash boundary to open a sors indicate an arcing fault has occurred. Another
door or cover on live equipment. way to maximize coordination by using devices
In critical process applications, it is desirable to provide with dual settings is to activate the alternate set-
system coordination so that a downstream SCPD will clear tings when maintenance activities are scheduled.
faults under short-circuit conditions without causing the Technology now allows these alternate settings to
main SCPD feeding the LVMCC to open. This can mini- be automatically triggered by a presence sensing
mize unnecessary outages and improve reliability for criti- device that can determine when personnel are pre-

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

cal processes and loads. Selecting high-speed protective sent in a predefined perimeter. This same technol-
devices for LVMCC mains to minimize arc-resistant rating ogy will return the device to normal operating
requirements may make it more difficult to achieve the settings when personnel are no longer detected in
coordination. The following are some considerations that the vicinity.
will help a user achieve system coordination when using an 5) Utilize other coordination methods: It is sometimes
arc-resistant LVMCC. possible to achieve faster protective device clearing
1) Sacrifice or compromise some system coordination: Since it
is so critical to achieve low energy levels during an
arc-flash hazard analysis and it is also desirable to
achieve performance that will allow the use of arc- 800 A
100 MCCB
resistant rated equipment, the user may elect to
MCC
utilize the best and fastest current-limiting protec- 150 A
tive device upstream even when some system coor- MCP
dination may be compromised. When using this 10
method, it is important that any potential arcing
currents fall within the current-limiting range of
Time (s)

the selected protective device. 1

2) Achieve system coordination for only low- and medium-
level short circuits: It may be easier to achieve coordi-
nation only for lower level fault currents than for .1
the entire range of possible fault currents. Since the
chance of a bolted fault occurring at very high cur-
rent levels is so unlikely, users may elect to compro-
.01
mise coordination for this rare condition (Figure 6).
3) Select the type of protective device based on application
requirements: Many a times, a facility may prefer to .1 1 10 100 1,000
standardize by using only fuses or only circuit Current (kA) at 480 V
breakers for LVMCC protection. Users should con- 6
sider the advantages and disadvantages of using Coordination for low- and medium-level fault currents.
69
each type of device for a particular application. Faults at high currents are unlikely.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 times for upstream devices while still maintaining
selective coordination. Consider an approach such
as zone-selective interlocking or bus differential
protections. The use of these methods can provide
a broad range of selective protection operating in
minimum time [10].
Considerations for Installing Equipment
To meet the criteria established in arc-resistant test guides,
an arc-resistant LVMCC may have some additional fea-
tures that are not provided in a standard LVMCC. When a
device is used to limit the fault (device-limited arc-resist-
ant rating), the arc-resistant LVMCC may be constructed
very similar to the standard LVMCC equipment. This is
because the device will typically limit the peak current
and clear the fault in a relatively short time before exces-
sive pressures and thermal energies build up. Similarly,
with short duration arc-resistant ratings, the equipment is
typically not subjected to extreme thermal stresses. Arc-
resistant equipment ratings that do not require a specific
protective device may contain additional features such as a
pressure relief system, additional insulation, thicker or
reinforced sheet metal, as well as require the use of larger
enclosures. If additional features or requirements are in-
cluded in an arc-resistant-rated LVMCC, the user must be
aware of any special installation considerations. For exam-
ple, if a pressure relief feature is part of the arc-resistant
LVMCC design, it is critical that when the LVMCC is
installed there is adequate free space around the feature to
allow for proper operation without interfering, impeding,
or blocking the operation of the system or the controlled
release of gases that build up during an arcing fault. The
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  JULY j AUG 2011  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS
energy experienced during an arcing fault in low-voltage
equipment is typically lower than that associated with
medium-voltage equipment. Although medium-voltage
arc-resistant equipment often requires some type of ple-
num, ductwork, or chimney to channel hot gases and/or
molten metal and particles to a specific location, this addi-
tional feature will not necessarily be a requirement for
LVMCCs (although such a system could be used if a user
opted to have one installed).
Once the initial pressure is relieved, as the arc continues
to burn, the effects on the LVMCC enclosure are mostly
thermal. A manufacturer can employ several strategies to
design the equipment to sustain these thermal effects.
Examples of features or techniques used to mitigate these
thermal stresses include the use of strategically placed insu-
lation or barriers, careful design and placement of compo-
nents with respect to electrical spacing, and the use of
thicker external sheet metal. It is important that the user
follows all instructions from the manufacturer to ensure
that these types of features are correctly installed when the
equipment is energized and operational.
Conclusions
When arc-flash safety is a concern, using equipment that
offers both arc prevention features and arc containment fea-
tures is a good strategy for developing a comprehensive
solution to dealing with the many dangers associated with
arc-flash hazards. Arc-resistant equipment offers enhanced
protection against the thermal and mechanical effects of an
70
internal arcing fault, but an arc-resistant rating alone is not
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de Concepcion. Downloaded on May 27,2022 at 15:19:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
enough to ensure safety or compliance with NFPA 70E or
CSA Z462.
Arc-resistant equipment is governed by test guides,
not by standards. For this reason, arc-resistant ratings can
vary by manufacturer. Users should ensure that they
understand the level and extent to which the manufac-
turer has tested the equipment. Additionally, users
should be aware of the type of arc-resistant rating the
equipment carries (device limited or duration rating)
and understand any limitations or restrictions that rat-
ing might include.
Careful consideration and planning when designing
an electrical system will help reduce both incident
energy levels when an arc-flash hazard analysis is con-
ducted and the necessary rating for arc-resistant equip-
ment. The balance between arc-flash safety, system
performance, and coordination may present difficulties,
but there are many techniques that can be used to help
overcome these challenges.
While the manufacturer is responsible for the design
and testing of arc-resistant equipment, it is the responsibil-
ity of the user to ensure that the equipment is suitable for
the application, installed as intended, and properly used
and maintained. Safe work practices (training, equipment,
etc.) must always be observed around arc-resistant equip-
ment, especially when doors and covers are open. This is
true for any electrical equipment, not just arc-resistant
designs. If possible, work on a deenergized system is
always preferred.
The use of arc-resistant equipment is a good way to help
contain the mechanical and thermal effects associated with
an arc flash as well as limit personnel exposure should an
internal arcing fault occur. In many instances, the use of
arc-resistant LVMCC equipment could be yet another
aspect of a comprehensive arc-flash safety strategy.
References
[1] The UL Standard for Safety for Motor Control Centers, UL 845 Fifth
Edition, UL 845-2005.
[2] Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Assemblies—Part 1: General
Rules, IEC 61439-1:2009.
[3] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584-
2002.
[4] NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace 2009 Edition,
NFPA 70E-2009.
[5] Workplace Electrical Safety, CSA Z462-08.
[6] 2009 IEEE Standards Style Manual, New York, NY, IEEE.
[7] IEEE Guide for Testing Metal-Enclosed Switchgear Rated Up to 38 kV for
Internal Arcing Faults, IEEE C37.20.7-2007.
[8] Enclosed Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Assemblies—Guide for
Testing Under Conditions or Arcing Due to Internal Fault, IEC/TR
61641:2008.
[9] G. Gregory and K. J. Lippert, “Applying low-voltage circuit breakers
to limit arc flash energy,” IEEE PCIC Conf. Rec., 2006.
[10] M. Valdes, P. Hamer, T. Papallo, R. Narel, and B. Premerlani, “Zone
based protection for low voltage systems; Zone selective interlocking,
bus differential and the single processor concept,” IEEE PCIC Conf.
Rec., 2007.
Rachel M. Bugaris (rmbugaris@ra.rockwell.com) and David
T. Rollay are with Rockwell Automation in Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin. Bugaris is a Member of the IEEE. Rollay is a Senior Mem-
ber of the IEEE. This article first appeared as “Arc-Resistant
Equipment for Low-Voltage Motor Control Center Applications”
at the 2010 IEEE Pulp and Paper Industry Conference.