Arc-Flash Incident

Energy Analysis
By Paul B. Sullivan, Daniel R. Doan, and Kenneth S. Jones

GENERALLY ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARDS, SUCH
as National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E-2018,
require arc-flash incident energy analysis to be updated
when changes occur in the electrical power distribution
system, and the analysis shall be reviewed for accuracy at
least every five years. NFPA 70E also requires the data used
for creating equipment labels, which contain arc-flash energy
information, to be reviewed at least every five years, and, if
the review identifies a change that renders the arc-flash ener-
gy label inaccurate, the equipment label must be updated.
The challenge for consultants and end users is to
determine how much of a data review is required. NFPA

RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS

©SHUTTERSTOCK.COM/PINYO PROMPRASERT

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2021.3063094

Date of current version: 15 April 2021

1077-2618/21©2021IEEE NO V E M BE R/DE CE M BE R 2021 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 53

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 70E does not address this specific issue. For a small
facility with only a few substations, the entire sys-
tem model can be reviewed without too much work.
For large facilities with many substations, a complete
review of the entire system could take a year, which
would be costly or a large burden on resources. In this
article, the authors provide suggested guidelines for
performing the five-year review. The authors provide
their recommended arc-flash incident energy analy-
sis renewal approach that would help ensure that the
system labeling can be updated appropriately while
allowing the model to be reviewed and updated in a
reasonable amount of time.
Arc-Flash Hazards
There have been many technical papers written and pre-
sentations given to explain electric arc-flash hazards and
how to perform an arc-flash incident energy analysis to
predict the arc-flash incident energy associated with a
specific piece of equipment with a specified set of system
conditions [1]–[8].
This article provides suggestions from the authors on
how to perform an update of the arc-flash incident energy
analysis. These suggestions come from the experiences of
the authors as they have performed this work at numer-
ous locations.
Why Do An Update?
There are many reasons that performing a comprehen-
sive update of an arc-flash incident energy analysis is an
important activity. In the following sections are descrip-
tions of just a few of those reasons.
Selection of Personal Protective Equipment
Electric arc-flash personal protective equipment (PPE)
is selected based on the results of the arc-flash incident
energy analysis. The updated incident energy analysis will
be used to identify any meaningful changes in the inci-
dent energy for the equipment at a facility. Those changes
will initiate the creation of new arc-flash incident energy
labels for the affected equipment, possible PPE changes
when interacting with the equipment, and training for
the affected personnel on the changes determined by the
updated analysis. The updated arc-flash incident energy
analysis will help ensure that personnel select the right
PPE and are protected from arc-flash hazards.
Opportunities for Reduced Incident Energy Exposure
A complete review of the arc-flash incident energy analy-
sis will revisit the portions of the electrical power sys-
tem where the arc-flash incident energy is higher than
desired. This awareness can lead to site personnel consid-
ering modifications to the equipment or changing the way
personnel interact with the equipment so that personnel
are exposed to less incident energy. The modifications or
changes that reduce exposure are as follows:
54 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ NOVEMBER/DECE M BE R 2021
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
●●modifying the settings of protective devices or replac-
ing protection devices (such as fuses) to provide a
faster arcing fault current clearing time [9]–[11]
●● purchasing and installing remote racking or remote
operating devices to allow the person to be outside the
arc-flash boundary of the equipment [12]
●● changing work practices to reduce or eliminate expo-
sure to the energized operation of equipment with
very high arc-flash incident energy
●● replacing older, low-voltage power circuit breaker trip
units with trip units that include an energy-reducing
maintenance switch with a local status indicator [9]
●● adding in fiber-optic arc-flash sensing for both low-
and medium-voltage equipment. Numerous manufac-
turers have this capability, which allows for significant
reductions of arc-flash incident energy. When it is
applied, it can be combined with a current input to
prevent false trips. This application is particularly suit-
ed to vacuum-interruption circuit breaker equipment.
The normal coordination time intervals required are
not necessarily applicable.
Many other papers on various methods used to reduce
arc-flash incident energy are available in the literature.
Updated System-Modeling Software
The most common method utilized for performing arc-
flash incident energy calculations is to use a commercial
software package. Like most software, these commercial
software packages are routinely updated to address errors
in the software or provide more or enhanced features.
Over a five-year period, the authors have experienced more
than 10 updates to just one commercial software package.
Updating a site’s electrical model to the latest version of
the software will identify arc-flash incident energy values,
which may change due to corrections or modifications in
the software while all other parameters remain the same.
Revised Arc-Flash Incident Energy Calculation
Formulas and Methodology
Arc-flash incident energy calculations are performed using
the formulas and methodologies provided in consensus
standards. Those standards are periodically updated.
Some of the updates can result in changes to the formulas
and methods used for calculating arc-flash incident energy.
Those updated formulas and methods provide more accu-
rate arc-flash incident energy calculations. Updating the
facility arc-flash incident energy analysis to use the updat-
ed formulas and methods is important to ensure that the
most accurate incident energy values can be determined.
For example, IEEE 1584-2002 [14] includes instruc-
tions on how to calculate arc-flash incident energy at the
expected arcing current along with the need to calculate
arc-flash incident energy using 85% of the expected arc-
ing current. This additional calculation at a lower arcing
current may result in a longer arcing current duration and
can provide higher incident energy than at the full arcing
 current value. The calculation providing the higher level
of incident energy was to be used as the predicted inci-
dent energy at that equipment. This arcing current varia-
tion factor is different in IEEE 1584-2018 [15] and is now
based on electrode configuration and voltage. The factor
is no longer a fixed percentage. Using outdated formulas
and methodology for specific configurations could lead to
underestimating the actual available incident energy.
The IEEE 1584-2018 arc-flash energy calculations may
also lead to significantly higher levels of arc-flash energy
for some equipment. For example, the equipment with
a horizontal-electrode configuration can lead to two or
more times the arc-flash incident energy as compared to
calculations for vertical electrode configuration.
Examples of equipment with a horizontal-electrode
configuration include low-voltage draw-out, metal-
enclosed switchgear; low-voltage, metal-enclosed busway
with plugs; and medium-voltage, metal-clad switchgear.
Figure 1 shows an example of a horizontal bus in a low-
voltage switchgear, power circuit breaker compartment.
With this style of construction, many conductors in the
equipment point horizontally toward a person interfac-
ing with the equipment. This is especially true in circuit
breaker compartments. If an arc fault occurs in this equip-
ment, the arc and incident energy from the arc can be
directed out of the equipment and toward the person.
The IEEE 1584-2002 calculations were based on a ver-
tical conductor orientation for most equipment types. A
vertical electrode configuration, typically found in a panel-
board or switchboard, has the arc fault running off the end
of the bus to the enclosure, with it then being deflected out
toward the user. This creates a much longer arc path then
being pointed directly out of the equipment with horizontal
electrodes. The IEEE 1584-2018 calculations for incident
energy for horizontal-electrode configurations are higher
than the calculations based on IEEE 1584-2002 because
IEEE 1584-2018 more accurately includes consideration of
the direction of the arc and the arc energy.
Another significant area of change in the incident
energy calculations is the revision to the calculations for
the equipment fed from the three-phase sources operating
at 240 V and below. In the IEEE 1584-2002 calculations,
the sources below 240 V with a single transformer source
rated at below 125 kVA could use a calculation exception
to classify the equipment as having incident energy below
1.2 cal/cm2 at a standard 18-in working distance. As fur-
ther testing has revealed, it is not as likely to sustain an
arcing fault at or below 240 V as compared to higher volt-
ages; however, it was still possible and presented a poten-
tial incident energy hazard at greater than 1.2 cal/cm2.
The IEEE 1584-2018 standard revised the exception to
the calculation to be current based. This amperage level
chosen for applying the exemption is 2,000 A. The per-
son performing the study update can use this exception
or can perform the calculations. There is a concern that
many study engineers have used the IEEE 1584-2002
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
exception for calculating incident energies for 208/120-V
panelboards. Many industrial users have 208/120-V
panelboards with transformers that provide greater
than 2,000 A at the secondary level. When the 2,000-A
threshold is reached, the incident energy is calculated to
be significantly higher, in the range of 4–10 cal/cm2 or
more. The ramifications of operator interface for these
panels regarding PPE requirements and so must be care-
fully considered.
Many industrial systems’ 208/120-V transformers above
30 kVA will produce more than 2,000 A of fault current.
Many facilities have transformers of 45–75 kVA and larger
and are quite common. The incident energy calculation
in the 240-V-and-below area is certainly a matter for fur-
ther development.
Identifying Human Errors
Electrical system modeling for incident energy calcula-
tions is typically done by entering electrical system data
into a commercial software package. Humans make
mistakes, so data errors can exist in the electrical system
model created in the software package. For example, it
is easy to enter a cable length of 10 instead of 100 ft and
for that error to go unnoticed. Updating a facility’s arc-
flash incident energy analysis allows for a check of the
model to be performed to identify and correct errors in
the model.
Lost Electrical System Model
When starting some arc-flash incident energy analysis
updates, facility owners have determined that they do not
always have the computer model of the study previously
performed for the facility. The facility owner may have an
electronic or printed copy of a report but not the actual
electronic files that are needed to run the facility model.
This problem often occurs if a facility uses a contractor
to perform this work, and the services agreement does not
include a requirement for the service provider to include
the actual model files. For guidance on how to specify
FIGURE 1. A horizontal bus in a low-voltage switchgear power
circuit breaker compartment.
NO V E M BE R/DE CE M BE R 2021 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 55
 the scope and deliverables for arc-flash hazard calculation
study, see [16]. The electronic files may also be unavailable
if a facility was purchased and the original files were not
transferred to the new owner as part of the sale.
Performing a regular update of the site electrical
model allows the facility owner to identify this type of
issue and work to either get an electronic copy of the
previous electrical system model or work to create a new
model based on the available documentation from the
previous analysis. Some facility owners may not have a
copy of the software used to perform the system study as
the software can be expensive, and they may not have a
competent person on site to operate the software. How-
ever, facility owners should always require service pro-
viders to include a copy of the computer electronic files
as a part of their work.
Meeting the Requirements of National Regulations
or National Consensus Standards
The national regulations and consensus standards develop-
ment organizations are beginning to update their documents
to address the need to have routine updates to arc-flash
incident energy calculations. For example, NFPA 70E-2018
section 130.5(G) includes the following new language [17]:
The incident energy analysis shall be updated when
changes occur in the electrical distribution system
that could affect the results of the analysis. The inci-
dent energy analysis shall also be reviewed for accu-
racy at intervals not to exceed five years.
The companies that strive to follow the national regu-
lations and national consensus standards need to have a
process in place to update their arc-flash incident energy
analysis at periodic intervals.
Incorporating Utility System Changes
Electric utility companies often perform system updates
to replace aging equipment or increase electrical service
to an area. Those changes can have a significant impact
on the available short circuit current at a facility. When
utility system changes are identified, they could prompt a
review of the facility’s electrical system model to address
the potential impact in incident energy within the facility.
Opportunity to Provide Refresher Training
As personnel assist with the data collection process or
attend presentations on the progress of the study update,
they will likely have questions about the work being per-
formed. This provides an excellent training or refresher
training opportunity on the following types of topics:
●● Incident energy calculation equations: Changes to the
incident energy calculation equations can be discussed,
with a focus on horizontal-electrode configurations and
the potential higher hazards calculated for lower-volt-
age equipment, such as 208/120-V power panels.
●● Incident energy changes: Any significant changes in
incident energy levels can be reviewed. That discus-
56 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ NOVEMBER/DECE M BE R 2021
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
sion can include the changes in different PPE require-
ments and possible modifications to site procedures
that address interactions with the equipment.
●● Impact of working distance: This topic discusses the
effect of working distance and its relation to incident
energy. It also presents ways to increase the working
distance for personnel interface, such as using remote
operation and racking equipment, longer racking han-
dles for draw-out circuit breakers, and insulated oper-
ating rods to operate circuit breakers.
●● Demonstration of work skills: This topic coordinates
with site facility personnel to demonstrate skills for
training compliance as required in some standards.
Update Methodology Recommendations
This section provides recommendations on how to per-
form an update to the facility’s electrical system model,
which is used to perform the arc-flash incident energy
analysis. As with all work on or near energized electrical
equipment, using qualified electrical personnel and prop-
er job planning and required to ensure that work may be
performed safely. For each of these items, any differences
between the installed equipment and the system model
should be investigated and corrected.
Software Update
It is very likely that the commercial software package
used to perform the previous analysis has been updated
since the previous analysis. An important first step in the
update is to create a new copy of the previous model and
update that new copy to the latest version of the software
package. Keeping an original version of the analysis is
important in case there are issues with the converted ver-
sion of the model.
Updating the model to the new version should
include
1) validating the project to make certain that the updating
did not create any errors.
2) checking for any library devices that are missing from
the updated software. Some library devices may not be
in the standard library provided with the software, or a
specific device may have been created and included in
the previous library. Any missing library items will
need to be identified and corrected.
3) running system studies such as load flow and short
circuit current calculations. Any errors identified need
to be investigated and corrected.
4) comparing arc-flash incident energy calculation results
from the new version of the software with the results
from the calculations performed with the previous ver-
sion of the software. Any differences should be reviewed
and the reasons for the changes should be understood
and either accepted or investigated, as appropriate.
Once the project has been updated and the validation
has been completed, the work to make the changes to the
model can be started.
 Facility Tour ally installed. This is especially helpful in medium-voltage
One of the best methods to obtain updated system infor- motor starters and in medium-voltage control power or
mation is to go on a tour of the facility and visit all voltage transformer circuits as that equipment is not rou-
the parts of the power system that are (or should be) tinely available for inspection.
included in the system model. Taking printed copies of
single-line diagrams on the tour is highly recommended Data Collection Apps
as field information and changes can be recorded on the Some system-modeling software companies provide a
printed copies of the diagrams. Highlighting verified por- data collection app that can directly add data from a
tions of the diagrams helps keep track of what has and field survey to the proper equipment on the single-line
has not been verified. Figure 2 depicts the typical data to diagram. This app helps to reduce human error as the
be updated. data are entered and can be verified at the time of data
Single-line diagrams printed on 11-in × 17-in paper entry instead of recording the data at one time and then
may be easier to manage than drawings printed on larger- interpreting and entering those data into the model at a
format paper. Having a clipboard or similar hard support later time.
for the drawings provides a good surface for holding the
drawings while the marks are made. Electric Utility System Data
Electric utilities routinely make changes to their electric
Pictures transmission and distribution systems to make them more
An excellent way to quickly record field data is to take reliable and to support the growing electrical needs in
pictures of the equipment during the facility tour. Of an area. Those changes often include increasing circuit
course, the ability to take pictures depends on the poli- conductor size, installing larger power transformers,
cies in place at the specific facility where the work is and modifying system configurations. These changes
being performed. can greatly impact the available fault current and pro-
One of the authors uses the following process to docu- tection device clearing time at a utility customer’s facil-
ment equipment through pictures: ity. The authors’ experience shows that the available
1) Take a picture of the name of the
equipment.
2) Take a picture of the protective
Utility
device or other item of interest. Isc 3P 6,000 A
3) Download the pictures to a com-
puter.
P Transformer Main Bus
4) Rename each picture to include 750 kVA 480 V/WD 18 in
the name of the equipment and S 5.00 %Z-X/R 5.2 PPE Class 4/58.36 Cal/cm2
any other desired details (such as 13,800 V-480 V AF Boundary: 205 in
date taken). Prot Dev: Max TripTime at 2 s
AF Bolted Fault: 16.337 kA
The pictures provide for quickly
and accurately recording the protec-
Switch Feed Fuse Breaker 1
tion-device settings (such as all of Manufacturer Name Manufacturer Name
the settings on a low-voltage power Manufacturer Frame/Style Manufacturer Frame/Style
circuit breaker trip unit). Be sure to Trip (Size) 200 A Trip (Size) 800 A
check each picture taken to ensure LTPU (A); LTD 1 (800 A); 12
STPU 4 (3,200 A)
that it is in focus. STD 0.1 (ls T Off)
Figure 3 shows an example of a INST 2 (1,600 A)
picture of details for a circuit pro- INST or Fixed (24,000 A)
tection device. Note the amount of Switch Cable MCC Cable
details captured quickly in the pic- 1 - 3-1/C+G Number 500 kcmil THWN 2 - 3/C+G Number 750 kcmil THHN
ture. That level of detail would be Copper 100 ft Copper 180 ft
difficult to manually capture quickly,
Switch Bus MCC Incoming Bus
especially in low lighting, an awk-
480 V/WD 18 in 480 V/WD 18 in
ward location, and while wearing PPE Class 0/0.18 Cal/cm2 PPE Class 3/1.23 Cal/cm2
protective eyewear. AF Boundary: 6 in AF Boundary: 18 in
Another excellent time to take Prot Dev: Switch Feed Fuse Prot Dev: Breaker 1
AF Bolted Fault: 12.498 kA AF Bolted Fault: 13.893 kA
pictures of equipment is during
equipment commissioning and main- FIGURE 2. An example of a drawing to be reviewed. Prot. Dev.: protective device; STD: short time
tenance activities. Taking pictures of delay; LTD: long time delay; AF: arc flash; Isc: short circuit current; kcmil: 100 circular mills; MCC:
fuses helps document what is actu- motor control center; LPTU: long time pick up; STPU: short time pick up; INST: instantaneous.

NO V E M BE R/DE CE M BE R 2021 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 57

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

FIGURE 3. A very detailed picture of a protection device type, model,
and its settings.
short circuit current typically increases due to utility
system modifications. For more information on how util-
ity changes can affect arc-flash incident energy calcula-
tions in a facility, see [18].
Updated utility short circuit current and protection
device information is needed when performing an arc-
flash incident energy analysis update for a facility. Some
utilities are slow in providing updated data, so it is impor-
tant to ask for updated information early in the incident
energy analysis update process.
FIGURE 4. An example of an LVPCB trip unit with rotary dials.
58 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ N OV EM BE R/ DE CE M BE R 2021
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The previous incident energy analysis for a facility may
have been completed using only the “normal” or possibly
the “maximum” available utility short circuit current. A
better practice is to perform the analysis using the utility
normal, maximum, and minimum short circuit current
values and determine which case may provide the highest
incident energy at a facility. The data request to the util-
ity should request these three short circuit current values.
The conference record version of this article [19] includes
an appendix that provides an example of a form that
could be used to request updated electrical system data
from an electric utility.
Transformers
The authors have found many errors with transformer
data in the system models. Small errors in transformer
information can have a large impact on the arc-flash cal-
culation values. Some of those errors include
● wrong impedance (the typical transformer impedance
was used instead of the actual transformer impedance)
● wrong full-load kVA (the previous model did not
include the dual-temperature or supplemental-cooling
rating of the transformer)
● wrong tap setting
● wrong grounding method (it was shown as solidly
grounded instead of low- or high-resistance grounded)
● wrong information due to the transformer being
replaced since the last model update.
The quantity of transformers in a facility is not typically
that numerous as compared to the other equipment at the
facility. The authors recommend verifying the transformer
data for every transformer in the system model. Taking
a picture of the transformer nameplate is a quick way to
capture transformer data. The picture can also be kept on
record and used for future system model verification work.
Low-Voltage, Power Circuit Breaker Trip Units
In the authors’ experience, the trip-unit settings for low-
voltage power circuit breakers (LVPCBs) are the protection-
device type, where the settings of the devices in the facility
often do not match what is in the system model. There-
fore, the authors recommend performing a verification of
the settings of all these devices as much as it is practical.
The most reliable way to determine the trip-unit set-
tings is to verify them during the facility tour. Many trip
units have rotary dials that are turned to the desired pro-
tection setting. A good picture of the settings can quickly
document numerous settings. An example of this is pre-
sented in Figure 4.
Some trip units have displays and pushbuttons on
the trip unit. These pushbuttons are required to be ope-
rated to determine the protection-device settings. It will
take slightly longer to verify these data via this method,
but the effort is worthwhile to ensure that the system
model is correct. Some trip units have internal batteries
that can power the trip-unit display if the trip unit is not
 powered due to the level of load on
the circuit breaker or if no exter-
nal trip-unit display power source The circuit breaker
is available. If the internal battery
is not working and the display is testing companies
not powered from another source, often change the
the circuit breaker maintenance test
reports may be the only source for settings on the
the trip units setting the data.
Newer LVPCB trip units may be circuit breakers to
able to communicate through a net- allow for lower test
work (such as an Ethernet network)
or via Bluetooth and allow the set- currents to be used
tings to be read without having to
directly interact with the trip unit. during the circuit
Some LVPCBs may be behind an breaker’s primary
equipment door, so the trip unit for
those circuit breakers may not be vis- injection testing.
ible. When the trip-unit settings are
field verified for that equipment, extra
job planning may be required due to
the exposure created when opening the equipment door.
The most likely time for the trip units setting the chang-
es to be made is during maintenance activities on the cir-
cuit breakers. The circuit breaker testing companies often
change the settings on the circuit breakers to allow for
lower test currents to be used during the circuit breaker’s
primary injection testing. If that happens, the arc-flash
incident energy may be less than what would be calcu-
lated in the system model, but the system coordination
may still be impacted. If the field verification of trip-unit
settings cannot be performed due to equipment design or
safety concerns, the latest equipment maintenance records
could be used to perform a level of setting verification.
Fuses
Many electrical power systems use fuses to provide over-
load and short circuit protection of equipment. Fuses are
not typically replaced unless a piece of equipment has
experienced a failure and a fuse has been operated to iso-
late the fault. Therefore, the authors do not feel that every
fuse in the system needs to be verified during the update
of the system model.
Facility personnel may know of equipment that has
failed since the last electrical system model update. Outage
records can be reviewed to determine if any fuses need to be
replaced. The fuses in that equipment could be field verified
to ensure that the right fuses are modeled. This may not be
critical for smaller amperage fuses as a small change in fuse
size would not typically result in a change in arc-flash energy.
Occasionally, the procurement department for a facil-
ity decides to switch electrical equipment suppliers
due to a possible cost-savings opportunity. Sometimes
those changes result in a change to the default sup-
plier of fuses for the facility. It would be a good idea to
check the facility storage areas to determine the fuses
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
readily available at the facility and
make certain that they match the
fuses in the system model. If they
match, then it is likely that the facil-
ity personnel will install the same
manufacturer, model, and amperage
fuse if an installed fuse operates so
that the system model would remain
correct. If they do not match, a dis-
cussion should be held with facility
personnel to determine how to man-
age the system model because the
fuse information in the model would
be different than what is installed
in the field for the new equipment
as well as the equipment that expe-
rienced failure. Perhaps the facility
owner needs to establish a process
to update the system model any time
that a fuse is replaced.
When checking the fuse invento-
ry at the facility, be sure to verify that only the desired
fuse types are available. For example, if a facility has
standardized using only UL Class RK1 fuses (current-
limiting fuse) in their 480-V system, ensure that the
facility does not have UL Class K5 fuses (noncurrent-
limiting) fuses in their inventory.
Molded-Case Circuit Breakers
Molded-case circuit breakers may be located throughout
the facility because many companies use these in motor
control centers and power distribution panels. These circuit
breakers are not typically replaced unless there is a project
to install a new circuit or if a circuit breaker experienced an
issue and had to be replaced. Therefore, the authors do not
feel that every molded-case circuit breaker in the system
needs to be verified during the update of the system model.
During a facility tour, it may be easy to see the model
of the circuit breaker through openings in the power dis-
tribution panel. Where possible, some samples of these
circuit breakers should be compared to the information in
the system model to ensure that they match.
New molded-case circuit breakers installed in older
power distribution panels may indicate the recent addi-
tion of a circuit to a panel. For these circuit breakers, the
system model should be checked to ensure the correct
molded-case circuit breaker is included in the model.
Protection Relays
Electromechanical- and microprocessor-based protection
relays may be located throughout the facility. The test
reports for these devices usually provide reliable setting
information for this equipment. A sample of recent test
reports can be compared to the system model to look for
any discrepancies. A sample of electromechanical relays
should be visually inspected to determine the actual relay
NO V E M BE R/DE CE M BE R 2021 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 59
 settings for the elements, which are affecting production. For example,
visible. Those should be compared to there are often additional cool-
the settings in the system model. Molded-case circuit ing tower water pumps and motors
The settings for a sample of the installed than what is in operation.
microprocessor-based protection
breakers may be The authors have seen studies where
relays should be checked and com- located throughout all the equipment, including the spare
pared to the system model. The set- equipment, is in the “running” state.
tings could be determined through the facility because This may not accurately represent the
1) a manual interface with the pro- normal operating condition of the
tection relay using front-accessible
many companies facility as the spare equipment may
controls; 2) a communications cable use these in motor be offline as opposed to it being run-
connected to a serial port, Ether- ning and being lightly loaded. It is
net port, or similar interface on the control centers and advisable to check the normal oper-
device; or 3) by reviewing the saved ating status of the equipment and
setting file used to program the relay.
power distribution adjust the system model as needed.
panels.
System Changes Scenarios
The facility owner should be asked Many facilities may have a simple
to provide information on the radial system with a single utility
changes made to the system since the last major system electrical supply that provides power to the facility’s elec-
model review. The owner may indicate that “no changes trical equipment. In those facilities, there may be only one
were made,” but the facility tour may easily contradict operating condition (or scenario) to address during the
that answer. arc-flash incident energy update process.
Ideally, the facility owner has a Management of Change Some facilities have a simple radial system, as described
process in place, and that process would require detailed previously, but add a standby generator in case of power
project information for all the electrical system changes. loss from the utility. Those facilities need to consider at
Unfortunately, the ideal case is not reality. Often, system least two operating scenarios when performing the arc-
changes are not well documented, and the personnel cur- flash incident energy analysis. The first scenario would be
rently at the facility do not recall the details of the changes with power coming from the utility supply, and the second
that have occurred during the past so-many years. would be with power coming from the on site generator.
The facility tour is probably the most secure method Many facilities have very complex systems, with dual
for understanding the changes to the facility that may feeders throughout the system, from the incoming utility to
impact the site’s arc-flash incident energy calculations. the final electrical power system’s distribution equipment.
Additional loads to substations, motor control centers, There may be multiple generators throughout the facility.
and power distribution panels are usually readily identi- Some generators may be standby, used only during utility
fied when that equipment is compared to the existing power interruptions, while others may be paralleled with
system model. the utility, providing power to a part of the site load. The
numerous different operating scenarios for the facility need
Motors to be considered. For example, one scenario may be with
The authors had a common practice to include motors in one of two utility sources that are out of service. Another
the system study only if they are rated 50 hp or larger, scenario may be when two low-voltage substations are con-
which is in accordance to IEEE 1584-2002. IEEE 1584- nected while performing electrical switching operations.
2018 does not have a specific horsepower guidance for Arc-flash incident energy can vary greatly among sce-
what size motors to include in the study. It refers to other narios. For example, arc-flash energy in a 480-V motor
standards for what to include in a short circuit current control center may be very low when the motor control
study. The other industry standards referenced may not center is powered from a utility source, but it may be very
provide a clear motor horsepower to include in the study. high when powered from a temporary generator. Figure 5
A part of the system model update should include a dis- depicts a very simple system consisting of a single source
cussion of what motors to include in the study. At a mini- (a utility or generator), a single protection device (a 200-A
mum, the authors recommend ensuring that all motors current-limiting Class RK1 fuse), and a single-load bus.
rated 200 hp or larger are in the model. The incident energy is 0.13 cal/cm2 when connected to
System-modeling software often includes the option to the utility but changes to 5.63 cal/cm2 when connected to
add a “lump” load. That type of load could be added to a a 250-kW generator, which may be the typical-size generator
model instead of adding it to many individual motors. used to power equipment during a maintenance outage.
The facilities often include redundant equipment to When modeling generators, it is advisable to model
allow for maintenance on some equipment while not the generator properly and to include the right ­generator

60 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ NOVEMBER/DECE M BE R 2021

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 parameters, such as per-unit sub- The facility tour should help iden-
transient impedances, transient and tify whether labels are missing or are
steady-state parameters, and decre- Some generators damaged. The equipment without
ment curve. These can affect the cal- a label but that is likely to have an
culated short circuit current available
may be standby, used arc-flash hazard should be investi-
from the generator [20]. only during utility gated. The damaged labels should
A careful consideration of all the be replaced as part of the update
realistic operating scenarios is an power interruptions, work, and the labels with inaccurate
important part of the arc-flash inci- or missing information should be
dent energy analysis update. Not
while others may replaced with proper labels.
evaluating realistic scenarios can be paralleled with Occasionally, a facility may have
leave personnel underprotected from many different styles of arc-flash
arc-flash hazards in specific, expect- the utility, providing incident energy labels. This can
ed system operating conditions. happen when a facility starts an arc-
power to a part of the flash incident energy labeling pro-
Equipment and Maintenance Records site load. gram and modifies that program or
Some equipment cannot be field ver- they do not have label standards
ified because of issues with gaining and new labels are created in a
safe access to the equipment while different format than that of their
it is in service. Waiting until a maintenance outage to existing labels. Applying standardization with respect
gather information about the equipment is not always to one specific style of label is preferred. Replacing any
practical as the next maintenance may be years away nonstandard labels should be considered. For more
despite the desire to update the system model in the info on the importance of labels and best practices for
immediate future. labels, see [21].
Even if the equipment can be accessed, the settings
may be hard to see or may have a continuously adjustable Component State
range. For either of those issues, a field verification of the Some software packages can categorize the state of
settings cannot be completed. the data for a specific item. The following are exam-
Equipment specifications, manufacturer’s documen- ples of component-state categories for each item in the
tation, and equipment maintenance records can all system model:
be good sources of information for equipment design ●● incomplete

and protection devices. For example, the typical bill of ●● abandoned

material for a medium-voltage motor control center will ●● complete

list the manufacturer, model, and

amperage of the fuses used in the
motor starter. This type of infor-
mation can be used and compared UTIL-0001 GEN-0001
Isc 3P 20,000 A X˝d 0.2 pu
to the system model. That informa- 250 kW
tion could later be verified during a
maintenance outage.

Labels 200-A Fuse Number 1 200-A Fuse Number 2

Manufacturer Manufacturer
Labels are the primary means of Device Ratings Device Ratings
communicating equipment incident Trip (Size) 200 A Trip (Size) 200 A
energy levels to personnel who inter-
act with equipment. It is important Load Cable—Utility Load Cable—Generator
1 - 3/C+G Number 4/0 AWG THWN 1 - 3/C+G Number 4/0 AWG THWN
that arc-flash incident energy labels Copper 50 ft Copper 50 ft
●● are installed on all equipment

with an arc-flash hazard Load Bus—Utility Load Bus—Generator

●● are legible, not damaged or too
deteriorated due to environmental
conditions
●● indicate the correct available arc-
flash incident energy, the minimum
arc rating of PPE, or the site-specif-
ic PPE level.
480 V/WD 18 in 480 V/WD 18 in
PPE Class 0/0.13 Cal/cm2 PPE Class 3/5.63 Cal/cm2
AF Boundary: 4 in AF Boundary: 47 in
Prot Dev: 200-A Fuse Number 1 Prot Dev: 200-A Fuse Number 2
AF Bolted Fault: 16.889 kA AF Bolted Fault: 2.188 kA
FIGURE 5. An arc-flash incident energy with a utility-versus-generator source. Dev.: protective
device; AF: audio frequency.

NO V E M BE R/DE CE M BE R 2021 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 61

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ●● estimated
●● as built
●● future
●● verified.
Many people fail to use this component-state catego-
rization in the system model, but it can be a great tool
when working on a large model and when trying to keep
a good understanding of what has been verified or what
has been estimated. The software packages often have a
query that can be done to identify all the items that fall in
a certain category. That report can be exported and used
to track the completion of the system’s model update. The
data state can often be added to the data block used on
the single-line diagram, as displayed in Figure 6.
A Recommendation
on the Detail Level of the Review
One challenge for any system update is to determine how
much of the system needs to be field verified to ensure
that the facility’s computer model properly represents the
electrical power distribution system. The authors provide
the following recommendations.
Verify the information on 100% of all power transform-
ers over 100 kVA. Verify the settings and circuit breaker
ratings on 100% of the power circuit breakers located in
low-voltage switchgear. These circuit breakers are often
draw-out circuit breakers and are periodically removed
for maintenance and trip-unit testing. Circuit breaker
testing personnel often need to change circuit breaker
trip-unit settings, so the circuit breaker can be tested
with the available test equipment. Sometimes the cir-
cuit breaker trip-unit settings are not returned to their
original settings when the testing is completed.
Verify the settings and ratings of 25% of the other
equipment (e.g., other protection relays and fuses).
These devices are not regularly replaced, so a verifica-
tion of 25% of those items is usually adequate. A higher
percentage of items can be verified if many discrepan-
cies are identified. Sometimes 100% of the settings and/
or ratings for this equipment may need to be verified,
such as when the installed equipment is not yet included
in the system model.
A backup protection study can provide a prioritized list
of the most important protective devices for the arc-flash
Load Bus—Utility
480 V/WD 18 in
PPE Class 0/0.13 Cal/cm2
AF Boundary: 4 in
Prot Dev: 200-A Fuse Number 1
AF Bolted Fault: 16.889 kA
Data State Incomplete
FIGURE 6. A data block with a component (data) state information.
Prot. Dev.: protective device; AF: audio frequency.
62 IEEE Industry Applications Magazine œ NOVEMBER/DECE M BE R 2021
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
calculations in the system [22]. The backup protection
study will perform the arc-flash calculation for each piece
of equipment, assuming a failure of the primary (first
operating) protective device and based on the next operat-
ing device. The resulting arc-flash incident energy increase
for every piece of equipment in the system will provide a
list of protective devices that are most critical in the system
for arc-flash safety. These devices should be in the listed
devices, which are verified during the study update. In
the referenced article, an example industrial model with
314 LVPCBs, 67 of those circuit breakers were identified as
critical to arc-flash incident energy reduction. Those LVP-
CBs should be included on the list to be verified.
Additional Benefits
Periodically performing a complete review of an electri-
cal power system model has many benefits in addition to
having an updated arc-flash study. Some of those benefits
are listed in the following section.
Identifying Underrated Equipment
Reviews of equipment can identify installations where
the equipment’s short circuit current ratings are less than
the available short circuit current. In many cases, the
authors have identified field-installed equipment with a
5-kA short circuit current rating that has been installed
in a system with more than a 5-kA short circuit current
available. The identification of these underrated pieces of
equipment can enable facility owners to seek out methods
to correct the condition.
If a protective device is found to be underrated, addi-
tional work is required to determine the action required
to address the underrated device, either by replacing the
device with one that has adequate ratings or by reducing
the short circuit current at that location in the circuit. The
underrated devices may not interrupt the fault current;
therefore, any incident energy calculations based on their
operation are not valid.
Updating System Model Formatting
As personnel perform system studies, they often develop
standards or best practices on how information should be
displayed in the model. Those standards could include
items such as
●● sizing single-line diagrams to enable printing on 11 ×
17-in paper
●● choosing certain font types, sizes, and formatting for
text on single-line diagrams
●● determining what information to include in data
blocks
●● including links among single-line drawings to allow for
faster navigation in the computer model.
Updating Equipment Names
The authors have experienced numerous cases when
the equipment name in the electrical system model did
 not match the equipment name on the facility single-line
diagrams and/or the equipment name on the equipment.
Equipment-naming issues can be identified and corrected
when updating the electrical system model. These chang-
es are especially easy to make when using software pack-
ages that have a data collection app.
Reviewing Maintenance Practices
Updating the facility electric arc-flash study regularly leads
to a discussion concerning the maintenance practices for
the electrical power system. The study update provides
the opportunity to review the types of maintenance that
are (or are not) being performed on the facility’s electri-
cal power system and the frequency of that maintenance.
That review could lead to modified maintenance plans
and frequencies that could help to improve the reliability
of the system [22]. NFPA 70B is an excellent resource to
use when developing or reviewing a maintenance pro-
gram for electrical power system equipment [13].
One excellent maintenance practice is to use the sys-
tem model and print the protection-device settings for the
equipment being maintained when planning for electrical
equipment maintenance. Maintenance personnel can then
use those settings to verify the actual settings. This is an
excellent way to regularly check the system model against
the actual settings.
Conclusions
The routine updating of electric arc-flash incident energy
calculations is an important activity that helps ensure
that the electric arc-flash hazards at a facility are identi-
fied and understood. There are many reasons to update
a facility’s electrical system model, with the main reason
being to make certain that facility personnel are properly
protected from arc-flash hazards while they interact with
energized equipment.
Updating the electrical system model and performing
arc-flash incident energy calculations can be a significant
undertaking. Smaller facilities can be easily inspected and
directly compared to the computer system model of the
facility. For large and complex facilities, a different strat-
egy must be used because being able to physically inspect
every component in the system is a near-impossible task
and would be overly burdensome. A methodology for
how the electrical system model would be updated should
be developed and agreed upon by the facility owner and
the personnel performing the update.
Author Information
Paul B. Sullivan (paul.b.sullivan@ieee.org) is with
DuPont, Cassatt, South Carolina, 29032, USA. Daniel R.
Doan is retired from DuPont, New Albany, Pennsylvania,
18833, USA. Kenneth S. Jones (kjones@pintegration.com)
is with Project Integration, Inc., Spartanburg, South Caroli-
na, 29301, USA. Sullivan and Jones are Senior Members of
IEEE. Doan is a Fellow of IEEE. This article first appeared
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL). Downloaded on September 16,2022 at 14:33:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
as “Arc Flash Risk Assessment Energy Analysis-Renewal
Recommendations” at the 2020 IEEE IAS Electrical Safety
Workshop. This article was reviewed by the IIEEE IAS Elec-
trical Safety Committee.
REFERENCES
[1] R. L. Doughty, T. E. Neal, and H. L. Floyd, “Predicting incident energy
to better manage the electric arc hazard on 600-V power distribution sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 257–269, Jan./Feb. 2000.
doi: 10.1109/28.821823.
[2] D. R. Doan, G. D. Gregory, H. O. Kemp, B. McClung, V. Saporita, and
C. M. Wellman, “Development of the guide for performing arc-flash haz-
ard calculations,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 30–29, May/
June 2005. doi: 10.1109/MIA.2005.1423900.
[3] P. E. Sutherland, “Arc flash and coordination study conflict in an older
industrial plant,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2009.
doi: 10.1109/TIA.2009.2013597.
[4] T. A. Short, “Arc-flash analysis approaches for medium-voltage distri-
bution,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1902–1909, 2011. doi:
10.1109/TIA.2011.2153810.
[5] A. M. Graham, M. Hodder, and G. Gates, “Current methods for con-
ducting an arc-flash hazard analysis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 44, no.
6, pp. 1902–1909, 2008. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2008.2006325.
[6] G. T. Homce and J. C. Cawley, “Understanding and quantifying arc
flash hazards in the mining industry,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no.
6, pp. 2437–2444, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2011.2169170.
[7] H. W. Tinsley and M. Hodder, “A practical approach to arc flash haz-
ard analysis and reduction,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 41, no. 1, pp.
144–154, 2005. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2004.841010.
[8] H. Wallace Tinsley, M. Hodder, and A. M. Graham, “Arc flash hazard
calculations,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 58–64, 2007. doi:
10.1109/MIA.2007.265802.
[9] C. G. Walker, “Arc-flash energy reduction techniques: Zone-selec-
tive interlocking and energy-reducing maintenance switching,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 814–824, 2013. doi: 10.1109/
TIA.2013.2244831.
[10] D. L. Hodgson and D. Shipp, “Arc-flash incident energy reduction
using zone selective interlocking,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 3,
pp. 1243–1251, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2010.2046284.
[11] J. C. Das, “Protection planning and system design to reduce arc-
flash incident energy in a multi-voltage-level distribution system to 8cal/
cm2(HRC 2) or less—Part II: Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no.
1, pp. 408–420, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2010.2091378.
[12] W. S. Hopper, “One Mill’s response to a specific type of arc flash
problem,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1184–1193, 2009. doi:
10.1109/TIA.2009.2018983.
[13] Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance, NFPA
70B-2019, NFPA, Quincy, MA.
[14] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE
1584-2002, IEEE, New York.
[15] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE
1584-2018, IEEE, New York.
[16] IEEE Guide for the Specification of Scope and Deliverable Require-
ments for an Arc-Flash Hazard Calculation Study in Accordance with
IEEE Std 1584, IEEE 1584.1, IEEE, New York.
[17] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E-2018,
NFPA, Quincy, MA.
[18] I. Balasubramanian and A. Graham, “Impact of available fault current
variations on arc-flash calculations,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 5,
pp. 1836–1842, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2010.2058083.
[19] P. Sullivan, D. Doan, and K. Jones, “Arc flash incident energy
analysis—Renewal recommendations,” in Proc. IEEE IAS Electrical Safety
Workshop, Mar. 2020, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1109/ESW42757.2020.9188317.
[20] L. Grainger, D. Leschert, A. Bennett, and K. Zehr, “Arc flash consider-
ing generator decrement curves,” in Proc. IEEE Petroleum Chemical Ind.
Committee, 2014, pp. 279–288. doi: 10.1109/PCICon.2014.6961893.
[21] D. Hill, P. Ruhland, “The label says…A collection of examples from
facilities with arc-flash labeling programs,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 34–37, 2012. doi: 10.1109/MIAS.2011.943101.
[22] D. Doan, “Prioritizing circuit breaker and protective relay mainte-
nance using an arc flash hazard assessment,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 799–802, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2013.2242818.

NO V E M BE R/DE CE M BE R 2021 œ IEEE Industry Applications Magazine 63