Page 1 of6
"DEAD" CIRCUITS ARE NOT ALWAYS DEAD
Giuseppe Parise (Fellow IEEE)
Electrical Engineering Dept.
"Sapienza" University
parise@ieee.org
Abstract. Some work activities in electrical
installations are sensitive to unexpected sources,
especially when working on conductors to be broken
or joined or on overhead lines. Generally there is
uncertainty about existence, gravity level, risk or
seriousness of exposure to the unexpected sources.
The possibility of unexpected electrical energy, the
need for additional protective measures and its
resolution frequently are decisions made under
pressure in the field, entrusted to the person
performing the work.
The authors submit that methods to detect
unexpected energy sources, together with guidelines
for addressing such situations, can and should be
developed for incorporation into safety procedures.
The authors also indicate approaches to system
design that can reduce exposure to unexpected power
sources.
Index terms - Safety procedures, Employee
Workplaces, Maintenance & Operation, Risk
assessment, Overhead Lines Safety
INTRODUCTION
Circuits may be energized from many sources in
addition to the obvious one of a metallic connection
through a switch or breaker. Examples of less
obvious energy sources include capacitors, transfer
switches, UPS, batteries, mechanical sources
(rotating motors), electrostatic coupling, magnetic
coupling, and others. Creating an electrically safe
condition at the work location is mandatory for the
duration of the work itself, including safety from
unexpected power sources.
European Standard EN 50110-1, Operation on
electrical installations [1], divides the work into three
different procedures: 1- dead working (the European
definition of de-energized work); 2- live working;
and 3- working in the vicinity of live parts, very
similar to NFPA 70E [2]. These procedures are
founded on the use of protective measures against
978-1-4244-9500-9/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
Erling Hesla (L. S. M. IEEE)
Hesla & Associates
Camano Island, Washington USA
e.hesla@ieee.org
electric shock and/or the effects of short circuits and
arcing. Dead working is obviously the preferred basic
procedure. Making certain that a circuit is 'dead' can
involve more than simply opening a switch. In dead
working, de-energizing is only one part of creating an
electrically safe work condition.
What, exactly, is the meaning of 'de-energized'?
The term 'de-energized' can be found in several IEC
and IEEE Standards and documents where it is
defined as "free from any electrical connection to a
source of potential difference and from electric
charge; not having a potential different from that of
the earth." [3]. Determining whether or not there may
be an additional energy sources and if so, the nature
of the source and the best approach to removing it,
can be a difficult and uncertain process involving
extensive analysis of the system.
A practical approach is to find out the presence
and magnitude of currents on the working circuits,
such as grounding conductors and overhead lines, by
detection tests or measurements in the field that
verify the effectiveness of the protective measures. In
case the measures should prove to be insufficient, the
tests will identify:
- the need to disconnect all additional interfering
sources of energy to comply fully with the basic first
requirement of dead work
- or alternatively, the need to adopt live working
procedures such as working with insulating glove or
with bare hands, as suggested by EN 50110-1 and the
equivalent by NFPA 70E.
For the sake of brevity, this paper focuses on
situations where the source of unexpected energy is
an adjacent power line. The reader will have little
difficulty in applying the same line of reasoning to
other sources of unexpected energy.
ACTIVITIES SENSITIVE To UNEXPECTED SOURCES
Some activities are sensitive to unexpected
sources and in these cases, depending on the
electrical energy available, these sources can cause
injury or death. EN 50110-1 highlights, as sensitive

to unexpected sources, work where the actIvIty
requires conductors to be broken or joined. These
operations request a direct contact of workers with
bare conductors and not by insulated devices.
Under these circumstances there is a risk that
potential differences will appear on the installation,
in which case suitable measures such as bonding
and/or grounding must be taken at the work location
before the conductors are broken or joined as line
conductors or grounding conductors in HV/MV/LV
systems.
These conductors are grounded or short circuited by
proper or mobile equipment that avoid the risk of
electric shock for direct contact when potential
differences will surge.
Unexpected power sources can appear on dead or de­
energized lines. Depending on the electrical energy
available, these voltages can cause injury or death.
These unexpected sources are generally: [1], [2], [4]:
- induced voltages and capacitive recharging
- ground-leakage currents and ground fault
currents
- accidental contact with other circuits and
penetrating an "unknown" space.
Unexpected power sources can appear particularly
when working on component disconnections and on
overhead lines ( Figure I).
Figure 1 Unexpected sources can happen in dead
working on overhead lines
Induced voltages.
EN 50110-1, [1] sub clause 6.1.1 warns: conductors
or conductive parts in the proximity of live
conductors may be electrically influenced; that is, the
live conductor may induce a voltage in the adjacent
conductor. In addition to the requirements for dead
working or working in the vicinity of live parts,
specific precautions must be taken when working on
electrical systems influenced by induction
(particularly for work on overhead lines) either by
grounding at adequate intervals in order to reduce the
978-1-4244-9500-9/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
Page 2 of6
potential between conductors and ground to a safe
level; or by equipotential bonding at the work
location in order to avoid the possibility of workers
inserting themselves as conductors in an induction
loop.
For the problem related to induction, NFPA 70E
[2], sub clause 2-1.1.3 (f) recommends: where the
possibility of induced voltages (Figure I) or where
stored electrical energy exists, ground the phase
conductors or circuit parts before touching them.
A hazard is presumed to exist if the induced
voltage is 50 volts (rms) or more that is sufficient to
cause the threshold current of perception (1 rnA)
through the body resistance of a person (0.5 kQ) not
protected from injury due to involuntary reactions
from electric shock [5].
Ground-leakage currents and ground fault
currents.
A risk of potential differences could appear on
grounding conductors that are to be broken or joined.
A special case can be considered the grounding
conductors in a data center, because of the grounded­
leakage currents that are as higher than multiple
servers are connected to the same power source.
For this paper we assume that for bare overhead
lines and bare conductors, grounding and short­
circuiting will be carried out on all sides of the work
location on all conductors entering this location. Note
that this grounding creates closed loops that make
possible circulating currents in the working circuits,
derived by ground faults or by induction. Ground
fault currents generally have a short duration since a
protective device clears the circuit. The steady
induced currents could be dangerous because they
may introduce overvoltages in conductors being
disconnected.
Accidental contact with other circuits and
penetrating an "unknown" space.
Where it is reasonable to anticipate that the
conductors or circuit parts being de-energized could
contact other exposed energized conductors or circuit
parts, apply ground connecting devices rated for the
available fault duty.
In order to control the electrical hazards in the
vicinity of live parts protection may be provided by
either screens, barriers, enclosure or insulating
covering [I] (Figure 2)..
This covering is a rigid or flexible cover made of
insulating material used to cover live parts and/or
adjacent parts in order to prevent accidental contact .
Page 30f6
Figure 2 The insulating covering is a rigid or flexible
cover made of insulating material used to cover
adjacent parts in order to prevent accidental contact.
"A task that is encountered often, not only by
electrical personnel, but by many employees in
different crafts, is to penetrate a wall, drill into a
floor, or excavate the earth, or otherwise penetrate
into a space containing unknown things. Many
shocks, injuries and quite a few deaths have resulted
from doing such tasks without doing a thorough job
of investigating what might possibly be in that space.
These unknown areas might contain other circuits or
electric lines." (see 10.5.5 Penetrating Into
"Unknown" Space [4]). Usually these situations are
recognized.
Generally, however, there is uncertainty about the
existence and gravity level of exposure to unexpected
sources.
Design configuration (discussed later in this
paper) is outside the realm of the operator; hence the
operator is obliged to work with the circuit as it
exists. Mathematical models for predicting voltages
and currents are very arduous considering the
numerous parameters that are difficult to define,
particularly for transient phenomena, and in any case
such models are not appropriate for use in the field
by an operator.
Nevertheless, when one suspects that non­
negligible energy will appear or be imposed,
additional measures are desirable to provide an extra
margin of safety assurance, such as safety grounds or
equipotential grounding, to minimize the possibility
of accidental energization from unexpected sources.
Operators in the field require adequate and efficient
suggested field tests to verify the presence or absence
of unexpected sources in each specific case, for
without such information it is difficult to set firm
criteria for additional measures.
978-1-4244-9500-9/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
IMPACT OF ARCHITECTURE ON INTEGRITY OF
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS
Statistics show that many electrical accidents and
fatalities involve work near overhead electric lines
(see 10.5.1 [4]). Many times, due to the need to
maintain service continuity, lines are kept energized
while work is being performed near them. Frequently
situations are such that de-energizing all sources of
induction is not possible because of the impact on
other electrical services. Commonly the working
zone sources are de-energized, while adjacent lines or
other exposed energized conductors or circuit parts
live remain energized to guarantee service continuity.
Given the growing demand for greater safety and
service continuity, situations that require de­
energizing essential critical components (such as
transmission lines) must become rare.
High availability and integrity requirements for all
loads or for parts of loads have to be satisfied by
means of a system architecture that overcomes fault
conditions by adopting more independent power
sources and by introducing adequate components and
modeling suitable for the configuration of the
distribution system.
The level of complexity of an electrical system
will increase for overcoming contingency conditions,
such as the loss of a generator, a transmission line, or
a transformer. This complex configuration allows
preventive and curative maintenance to be carried out
on all of the electrical distribution system upstream
without interrupting globally the power supply.
Design of HVIMVILV supply substations could
incorporate configurations of independent sub­
systems that avoid interferences or inductive
coupling with other systems, thereby meeting
Figure 3 A very compact HV component.

requirements for worker safety and service
continuity.
The new generation of very compact HVIMV/LV
components doesn't have to cause an higher
induction among adjacent equipment and systems in
stations (Figure 3) and transmission lines.
The compact execution of components has to
contribute to reduce the electrical interferences and to
increase the ergonomic safe distances than to reduce
the total space size of the sub stations.
This paragraph touches on significant design
considerations that apply prior to installation, but are
not usually suitable for existing installations.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAXIMAL CAUTION
A key element in the success of any safety
program is employee awareness that no violation of
the program is acceptable, implying that the program
addresses all situations that can be foreseen within
reason. Generally, the program highlights minimum
safety measures that are realistic for several
situations. To be effective, a program for safe
working practices should be written in specific,
rather than general, terms. Ultimately the degree of
caution or safety that is required will be a decision
made in the field, entrusted to the wisdom and
scrupulousness of the person performing the work
who will base decisions on safety instructions and on
perceptions of conditions in the field.
Without clearly defined safety procedures for
such situations, resorting to additional requirements
based on intuition or "guesses" can obviate the
validity of the program. It is not reasonable for the
person performing the work to be saddled with
decisions involving additional protection that are
based on judgments that have subjective and variable
threshold values. Additional requirements determined
in the course of the work may be irrelevant or
inappropriate, unwittingly imposing exaggerated
requirements of maximal caution or worse still,
jeopardizing the entire safety procedure. Operators
are not incompetent; nevertheless it is well known
that very many workers involved in accidents were
skilled, experienced, and mature.
Without question, carefully defined safety
requirements for unexpected sources of energy must
become a mandatory part of safety procedures.
Additional requirements for maximum caution
usually are established for aerial power line work on
power systems over 1kV because of the increased
978-1-4244-9500-9/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
Page 4 of6
exposure these systems often have due to their length
and location.
Many industrial facilities and utilities require
temporary personal protective grounding as measures
essential for all aerial power line works and not
simply as additional protection in relation to the risk
assessment of each specific work (see 10.4.3
Temporary personal protective grounding [4]).
Additional requirements can be applied
effectively not only to the personal protective
equipment and to passive protection (like additional
temporary grounding and equipotential bonding at
the work location) but also to active protection
against energy from unexpected sources by de­
energizing all sources of induction, disconnecting by
isolated devices the paths for current circulation, or
by adopting live working procedures. Frequently in
practice, however, situations are such that de­
energizing all sources of induction is not possible
because of the impact on other electrical services.
Standard IEEE C2-NESC [6], part 4 Sec.422
Overhead line operating procedures, sub clause C 5
Installing and removing wires or cables, recommends
"Employees working on or in the vicinity of
equipment or lines exposed to voltages higher than
those guarded against by the safety appliances
provided shall take steps to be assured that the
equipment or lines on which the employees are
working are free from dangerous leakage or
induction or have been effectively grounded". Before
starting work, the canonical requirements (''the five
safety rules" of EN 50110-1 or the equivalent "six
safety rules" of the NFPA70E) ensure that the
electrical installation at the work location is
meticulously de-energized and secure for the
duration of the work ([1],[2],[5],[6]). In other words,
after the work zone has been identified it is not
sufficient to disconnect completely and to secure
against re-connection; the rules require verification
that the installation is actually de-energized.
Absence of objective tests to verify the levels of
unexpected sources of energy and the adequacy of
related additional protection measures expose the
worker to risk of electrocution [8]. Specific
instructions on how to determine and cope with
unexpected sources should be part of the safety
instructions given to the worker.
The shortcoming today is that standard procedures
don't recommend conventional tests to assess the
exposure and to improve decision-making regarding
additional measures for the safety program.
Page 5 of6
RECOMMENDATION
The authors strongly recommend that industrial
users, utilities, standards organizations, and all
involved in electric works collaborate to set concrete
guiding criteria at the standard level for tests to detect
unexpected sources, initially for the steady ones and
subsequently for transient sources. The following
outline is offered as a starting point.
Conventional detecting tests of appropriate
simplicity are needed to discover the presence and
magnitude of currents on the working circuits, like
conductor junctions, overhead lines, grounding
conductors.
An easy method of checking current draw with
any electrical set-up is to adopt an amp clamp. The
jaws of the clamp are spring loaded so that they can
be clamped around a cable. It is non-invasive because
it is not necessary to plug anything in to the line
(Figure 4). It will be safe in any case because it has to
be operated at the end of the execution of the
canonical procedure that ensure the electrical
installation at the work location is de-energized.
Figure 4 Detecting test of the presence and
magnitude of currents on the working component
Additional actions could be:
- to apply the equipotential bonding at the work
location by insulated devices in order to avoid
induction loops,
- and/or to disconnect temporarily and opportunely
some grounding and short circuiting device or
equipment, in order to open the current loop.
Repeating the detection tests it must to be verified
the absence of current on the working circuit that is
the effectiveness of the protective measures of the
bonding and of the grounding disconnection
respectively.
978-1-4244-9500-9/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
In case the measures should prove to be
insufficient, it would stress the need to disconnect
also all the sources of induction, complying fully
with the basic first requirement of dead work.
In other way, it would stress the need to adopt live
working procedures, like insulating glove working or
bare hand working, methods suggested by EN 50110-
1 or equivalent by NFPA 70E.
A motto says it is safer to work live and to know
it than work dead but believe it.
CONCLUSIONS
Standard criteria and tests for unexpected energy
sources will help and support the person performing
the work by defining detection steps of appropriate
simplicity together with additional safety measures.
This integrative rule could be added to the canonical
requirements of dead work as the final one in order
of execution.
Documented and certified records in the cases of
sensitive works will enforce conscious decision­
making regarding choice of additional protective
measures.
REFERENCES
[1] European Standard EN 50110 (-1,-2): 1996-12
"Operation of electrical installations" CENELEC.
[2] NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety
Requirements for Employee Workplaces, 2004
Edition
[3] 100-1996 IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
and Electronics Terms.
[4] 902-1998 IEEE Guide for Maintenance,
Operation and Safety of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems (IEEE Yellow
Book).
[5] OSHA 1910.269 Instruction CPL 2-1.38,
Enforcement of the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission and Distribution Standard
[6] ANSI/IEEE C2-National Electrical Safety Code
(NESC)
[7] G. Parise, W. Moylan, P. E. Sutherland:
Electrical safety for employee workplaces in
Europe and in USA IEEE Transactions on Vol.
41 n. 4 , July-August 2005 Pages:l091-1098
[8] G. Parise, E. Hesla "Dead work is vulnerable to
unexpected power sources", 2010 IEEE/I&CPS
Tech.Conf., Tallhassee, Florida, USA, May 9-13
[9] G. Parise, R.E. Nabours, B. McClung "Relevance
of competence in risk reduction for electrical
 Page 6 of6

safety" Transactions IEEE/IAS Vol. 44 n.6 globalization. He is professional engineer in several

November December 2008 Page(s): 1892 - 1895 States and has served as an expert witness.

Giuseppe Parise (M'82-SM'03-

Fellow '10)) received his
Master's degree in Electrical
Engineering from the University
of Rome in 1972. He has been at
Department of Electrical
Engineering of the University of
Rome "La Sapienza" ever since
1973 and is currently a Full Professor of Electrical
Power Systems. He has authored about 200 papers
and two patents. Since 1983, he has been a member
of Superior Council of Ministry of Public Works. He
is active in IEEE/IAS (past Member at Large of
Executive Board), Chair of Electrical Power Systems
Sapienza University researchers, chair of Italy
Section Chapter IA34, member of subcommittees, in
CEI (Italian Electrical Commission), in AEIT
(Electrical Italian Association), he is past President
of AEIT Rome's Section and President of Rome's
Electrical Professional Engineering Voluntary
Committee. Since 1975 he has been a Registered
Professional Engineer; he has been designer of Power
Electrical Systems in Buildings Complexes like in
Roma Sapienza University City and Engineering
Faculty, Polyclinic Umberto I, Italian Parliament,
Campus Biomedical Research Center.

Erling Hesla (S'46; M'48; SM'62;

LSM'86) was born and educated in
Canada, graduating from the
University of British Columbia
('47) with the degree of Bachelor of
Applied Science (EE). He was
employed by Canadian General
Electric Company, Cobast Brazil,
and Scott Paper Company before moving into
consulting practice. He also founded a panel
manufacturing firm and a robotics control firm. He
holds three patents relating to hearing aid devices. He
has been active in AlEE and IEEE, for example:
Chair of the "Yellow Book" (902-1998), earlier as
Chair of a chapter of the "Red Book" (141-1983),
past Member-at-Large of the lAS Executive Board,
and past Chair of lAS Chapters
Technical&Professional Outreach Committee. He
received the RAB Larry K. Wilson Transnational
Award ('98) for innovative promotion of IEEE

978-1-4244-9500-9/11/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE