PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC
ARC HAZARD ON 600 V POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. PCIC-98-36
Richard L. Doughty Dr. Thomas E. Neal
Fellow, IEEE DuPont Advanced Fiber Systems
DuPont Engineering P.O. Box 80715
P.O. Box 80840 Wilmington, DE 19880-0715
Wilmington, DE 19880-0840 USA
USA
-
Abstract A test program has been completed to measure
incident energy from 6-cycle arcs on 600 V 3-phase electric
power distribution systems. Testing was performed using an
arc electrode gap of 1.25 inches that had previously
produced maximum incident energy for a 600 V power
system with a 36.25 kA prospective fault current. The effect
on incident energy of enclosing the arcs in a cubic box was
determined. Simple algorithms were developed to allow
estimation of incident energy at a specified distance from arc
electrodes as a function of the available bolted fault current
on a 600 V electric power distribution system. A comparison
is made with previously published methods for estimating
incident energy and safe approach distances. The impact of
the estimating algorithm on the management of the electric
arc hazard is discussed.
Index Terms -- Arc Burn, Arc Energy, Arc Protective
Clothing, Incident Energy.
INTRODUCTION
The knowledge and tools for minimizing arc flash non-
contact burn injuries associated with the distribution and
utilization of electricity are still in early stages of development
as compared to those related to shock and fire hazards. This
paper is the third in a series aimed at enhancing basic
understanding of the phenomena of electric arcs and the
performance of protective clothing systems exposed to arcs,.
It documents techniques and results from tests designed to
help users predict incident energy for 3-phase, 600 volt arcs
in open air and in a 20” cubic box.
Prior to the research documented in these papers, the
understanding and management of electric arcs was largely
based on theoretical modeling first proposed by Lee in 1981
[I].Efforts to protect workers potentially exposed to the
intense radiant energy of arc flashes have led to
advancements in hardware, work practices, and protective
clothing. Switchgear manufacturers have developed more
robust and “arc resistant” designs to divert heat and
explosive forces away from workers interacting with the
switchgear. The utilization of current limiting protective
devices not only limits damage to circuit parts, but also
significantly reduces duration of personnel exposure . The
use of flame resistant (FR) clothing has gained acceptance
0-7803-4807-4/98/%10.000 1998 IEEE
- 329 -
H. Landis Floyd, II
Senior Member, IEEE
DuPont Engineering
P.O. Box 80840
Wilmington, DE 19880-0840
USA
as an effective approach to personnel protection when other
measures to prevent or limit arc exposure can not be
employed.
These efforts have typically used theoretical models to
quantify arc exposure severity. While this approach has
enabled significant progress in protecting people from
injuries, improved techniques for predicting arc energy and
protective clothing performance offer more effective
solutions. Even greater advancements could be achieved if
hazard analysis tools and aids could be easier to use by the
electricians, operators, and technicians most at risk, as well
as engineers, supervisors and managers involved in
equipment and protective clothing selection, system design,
and facilities operation.
The basic research documented in this series of papers and
other publications such as Staged Tests Increase Awareness
Of Arc-Flash Hazards in Electrical Equipment by Jones et al
[2] provide the basis for a more refined tool set for managing
arc exposure and reducing injury severity. In addition to
improved validation of energy prediction, these tools serve to
improve hazard awareness, aid in identifying and quantifying
the hazard, and simplify the task of selecting appropriate
protective cIot hing.
TESTING BACKGROUND
The authors previously completed extensive arc testing at an
independent testing laboratory in Canada as repotted in [3]
and [4]. As a result of this testing a number of important
factors related to estimating incident energy have been
quantified:
1. Incident energy reaches a maximum as electrode
spacing increases, but the maximum incident energy
typically occurs at an electrode spacing that is larger
than the spacing that produces maximum arc power.
2. Incident energy is directly proportional to the time
duration of the arc.
3. Incident energy is significantly affected by the
environment surrounding the arc. Enclosing a 3-
phase arc in a box can increase the incident energy up
98CH36234
 to 3 times, depending upon the arc parameters and
box dimensions, as compared to an open arc with the
same arc parameters.
4. The radiation transfer function, which can be
measured, is the percentage of total arc energy per
unit of area that is actually received (incident energy)
at a specified distance from the arc. The radiation
transfer function varies with the arc current, the
electrode configuration, and the environment
surrounding the arc.
The authors desired to complete additional testing to allow
better estimation of incident energy produced by 3-phase
electric arcs on 600 V systems. Coupled with the FR
protective clothing data now available from manufacturers,
users would then be able to better estimate the incident
energy available from a specific electrical system at their
work site, and then select appropriate FR clothing to protect
exposed workers.
Any incident energy estimating process will require
knowledge of the open circuit voltage and the available
bolted fault current at the arc location, the time duration of
the arc, the arc electrode configuration and spacing, the
enclosure (if any) surrounding the arc, and the distance from
the arc.
Arc test results in Fig. 8 of [4] indicated that for a 600 volt
system with an available bolted fault current of 36.25 kA, the
incident energy at 2 feet from a 3-phase arc in open air
reached a maximum at an electrode side-side spacing of
1.25 inches. This spacing is in the range normally employed
by manufacturers of 600 V class electrical equipment.
When the electrical system impedance changes, the
available bolted fault kVA, and consequently, the maximum
arc power and incident energy also change. As the bolted
fault current increases, one would expect the arc gap
producing maximum incident energy to decrease in size, and
vice-versa. Testing has not been performed to determine the
actual spacing for maximum arc incident energy as a
function of available bolted fault current. In addition, since
enclosing an arc in a box physically constrains the arc
plasma and modifies the arc impedance, it is expected that
the electrode spacing that produces maximum incident
energy in open air may not be the same as the electrode
spacing that produces mayimum incident energy with the arc
in a box, and this has not been confirmed by testing either.
The data in Fig. 8 of [4] shows that the change in incident
energy with variation of arc gap spacing around the
maximum energy point is relatively small. In that case
(bolted fault of 36.25 kA), the reduction of the arc gap from
1.25 to 1.00 inches, or the increase in arc gap from 1.25 to 2
inches produced only a 10% decrease in arc incident energy.
The decision was made to proceed with 3-phase arc tests
using an arc gap of 1.25 inches since: 1) it was a common
spacing used in electrical equipment, 2) it was verified by test
to be the arc gap which produced maximum incident energy
- 330 -
at a bolted fault current of 36.25 kA, and 3) at that spacing
(36.25 kA bolted fault) the change in incident energy with
variation of arc gap around the maximum energy producing
gap showed only a 10% decrease in incident energy.
3-PHASE ARC TEST PROGRAM
Test Setup
Hard drawn copper electrodes, 314 inch in diameter, were
used for the arc testing. Electrodes were vertically
oriented, uniformly spaced in a flat configuration with a
side-side spacing of 1.25 inches. Arcs were initiated by a
light gauge fuse wire conneckd between the ends of the
electrodes. For all tests it was necessary to install
insulating support blocks between adjacent electrodes to
prevent the electrodes from bending outward due to the
extremely high magnetic forces created by the arc currents.
Open circuit test voltages were selected at or above the
nominal system voltage of 600 V. The bolted fault current
available at the test terminals was measured by shorting
the electrodes together. The duration of all arc tests was
selected to be 6 cycles (100 milliseconds).
Incident energy was measured by copper calorimeters
mounted on stands. Copper calorimeter temperature rise
data in degrees C. was converted into incident energy in
cal/cm2 (conversion factor 0.135 calories/cm2-degree C.).
Sensor absorption measurements have determined that
absorbed energy is equal to or greater than 90% of incident
energy for copper calorimeters. Henceforth, incident and
absorbed energy will be considered as equivalent, and the
term incident energy will be used.
The data acquisition system digitally sampled and recorded
arc voltage, arc current, time, and temperature rise from
seven copper calorimeters. An estimate of arc energy was
calculated by multiplying the phase-to-phase voltageld3 by
the phase current for each phase, summing the result for
all 3 phases, and then multiplying the result by the arc
duration.
Two different test setups were used for the 3-phase arc
testing. Test Setup No. 1 was for a 3-phase arc in open air
as shown in Fig. 1. Test Setup No. 2 utilized electrodes
mounted inside and 4 inches from the back of a cubic
metal box (20” wide x 20” high x 20” deep) as shown in Fig.
2. Tests were conducted with the box ungrounded since
earlier testing [4] indicated that the ungrounded box
produced the maximum incident energy.
For each setup, an array of seven copper calorimeters was
located a specified distance from the centerline of the
electrodes. A set of three calorimeters was located in a
horizontal row at the same height as the tip of the
electrodes. A second set of three calorimeters was located
in a horizontal row 6 inches below the elevation of the
electrode tips. The middle calorimeters in each set were
aligned with the center electrode. A single calorimeter was
located 6 inches above the center electrode tip.

Fig. 1. Open Arc Test Setup
Fig. 2. Arc-ln-The-Box Test Setup
Test Sequence
A series of 3-phase arc tests was conducted during a one
week period. In order to reduce the impact of arc
variability, four tests were run for each setup and the
results averaged. Since arc duration varies slightly from
- 331 -
test to test, a time duration correction factor was applied to
the temperature rise data from the seven copper
calorimeter sensors to insure that each reported incident
energy was based on an arc duration of 6 cycles. The
mean incident energy for the seven sensors and the
maximum incident energy recorded by a single sensor were
calculated for each test.
The first series of tests used the open arc Test Setup No. 1
and measured the incident energy 24 inches from the arc
electrodes while the bolted fault current was adjusted in steps
from 16 to 50 kA. At the conclusion of these tests, the bolted
fault current was set at 40.9 kA and the sensor distance was
changed to 18 and 30 inches to determine the variation of
incident energy with distance.
The second series of tests used the arc-in-the-box Test Setup
No. 2 and measured the incident energy 24 inches from the
arc electrodes while the bolted fault current was adjusted
from 16 to 50 kA. At the conclusion of these tests, the bolted
fault current was set at 42 kA and the sensor distance was
changed to 18, 30, 36, 48, and 60 inches to determine the
variation of incident energy with distance.
Test data for both series of tests is shown in Table I. The
average arc voltage for the arc-in-the-box is significantly
lower than for the arc in open air, indicating that the box
tends to contain the arc plasma, producing a lower arc
resistance, and consequently a lower arc voltage.
Analysis Of Test Data
Readers should be aware that data provided in this technical
paper is based only upon measured incident energy under
specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more
or less severe than these laboratory simulated arc exposures.
The potentially hazardous effects of molten copper splatter,
projectiles, pressure impulses, and toxic arc byproducts have
not been considered in the analysis.
Incident energy measured two feet from the open arc
electrodes as a function of bolted fault current is shown in
Fig. 3. Both sensor average and maximum incident energy
measurements are plotted. A polynomial equation which
curve fits the maximum incident energy data is indicated on
the figure. The same information is plotted for the arc-in-the
box tests in Fig. 4. Note that the polynomial equation is valid
only for the arc parameters and test equipment setup used.
A direct comparison of the open arc and arc-in-the-box
maximum incident energy as a function of bolted fault current
is shown in Fig. 5. As the bolted fault current increases, the
spread between the open arc and the arc-in-the-box data
increases. The ratio of open arc to arc-in-the-box incident
energy is plotted in Fig. 6 and illustrates that at lower bolted
fault currents, the effect of the box is to multiply the open arc
incident energy by a factor in the range of 1.5-2.5. At higher
bolted fault currents, the effect of the box is to multiply the
open arc incident energy by a factor in the range of 2.5 to
2.8. Note that the factors are only valid for the 20 inch cubic
box used in these tests. This result is similar to the
 TABLE I
%PHASEARC TEST RESULTS
600 V SYSTEM - 1.25 INCHARC GAP

Test Sensor Open Bolted

setup 1st. From Circuit Fault
k c r i p t i i n kctrodes Joltage arrent

Open Arc
-- - lnches
24
volts
768
kA
50.39
Open Arc 24 687 45.36
Open Arc 24 614 40.92
Open Arc 24 616 35.29
Open Arc 24 623 31.16
Open Arc 24 617 27.66
Open Arc 24 614 23.41
Open Arc 24 615 19.08
Open Arc 24 616 16.30
Open Arc 18 614 40.92
Open Arc
Arc In Box
30 - 614 40.92
24 759 51.19
Arc In Box 24 680 46.05
Arc In Box 24 612 41.99
Arc In Box 24 618 36.25
Arc In Box 24 613 312 0
Arc !n Box 24 617 27.66
Arc In Box 24 611 23.65
Arc In Box 24 615 19.08
Arc In Box 24 616 16.30
Arc In Box 18 612 41.99 347.4 31.36 12571 9.35
Arc In Box 30 612 41.99 326.5 32.12 12275 4.13
Arc In Box 36 612 41.99 325.4 32.15 11871 3.15
Arc In Box 48 612 41.99 331.6 31.79 12430 1.81
Arc In Box 60 -- 612 41.99 328.2 32.16 I2245 1.05

-
3Phase 6 Cycle Arc 600 V System 3Phase 6 Cycle Arc - 600 V System
Incident Energy v s Bolted Fault kA Incident Energy vs Bolted Fault kA
2 Feet From Open Arc - 1.25” Gap 2 Feet From Arc In Box - 1 . 2 5 Gap
I I
5.0 14.00
s s 12.00
E 4.0
1 10.00 ,
- 2
3.0
I I fi
-
E
2
8.00

.-
{ 2.0 E
=
5 6.00
400
I
U
-
E 1.0 i -
g 2.00
0.0 0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 20.00 40.00 60.00
Bolted Fault kA Bolted Fault kA
0 AVER. INUD. ENERGY 0 AVER. INCID. ENERGY

MAX. INCID.ENERGY

Fig. 3. Open Arc Incident Energy Fig. 4. Arc-In-The-Box Incident Energy

- 332 -
multiplying factor of 3.0 determined for the 22” wide x 20”
high x 21” deep box tested in [4].
Max. Incid. Energy vs Bolted Fault kA
Video observation of the arcs in the box indicated that a Open Arc v s Arc In Box
significant portion of the increased incident energy was due 2 Feet From Arc Electrodes
to increased convective heat energy transfer due to hot gas
14.0 1
expansion and projection out the front of the box toward the
sensors. This effect visibly and dramatically increased at 120
higher current levels. It appeared that as the arc current
s
F 10.0
increased, the arc plasma volume increased and the plasma
projection out of the box increased. Arcs are known to
consist primarily (90%) of radiant energy, but the arc-in-the- 8 6.0
box configuration appears to enhance the convective energy 40
component.
-C 2.0
Incident energy in per unit of incident energy at 2 feet is 0.0
plotted as a function of distance from the arc electrodes in 0 20 40 60
Fig. 7 for the open arc with an available bolted fault current
of 40.9 kA. A power equation which curve fits the maximum
incident energy data is indicated on the figure. Incident
energy is shown to be inversely proportional to the distance
to the 1.96 power, very close to the theoretical distance Fig. 5. Incident Energy Comparison
squared relationship predicted by Ralph Lee [I]. The same
information is plotted in Fig. 8 for the arc-in-the-box with an
available bolted fault current of 42 kA. The power equation Ratio of Arc In Box Incident Energy To
in Fig. 8 has an exponent of -1.47 indicating that the incident Open Arc incident Energy
energy from the arc-in-the-box decreases at a slower rate as
distance increases than for the arc in open air. Both power
equations may not be valid for distances less than 18 inches
since testing was not performed in that range.

PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY

Users have a need to predict incident energy produced by

arcs on low voltage electrical systems so that appropriate
arc protective clothing may be selected. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Bolted Fault kA
Arc Test Algorithms
Maximum incident energy from a 3-phase, 6 cycle arc with
1.25 inch electrode gap in open air on a 600 V system may Fig. 6. Incident Energy Ratio
be estimated using the curve fit equations derived in Figs. 3
and 7. Multiplying the two equations, the estimated
maximum incident energy for the 6 cycle arc in air, EMA,is -
3Phase 6 Cycle Arcs 600 V System
calculated using Equation (1): Max. Incident Energy v s Distance
Arc In Air - 1.25” Gap
€MA = 527.1 D A - [~0.0016 - 0.0076F + 0.8938 ] (1)
. ~ ~F2~

where: DA = Distance From Arc Electrodes, inches ( D ~ 1 8 )

EMA= Maximum Open Arc Incident Energy, cal/cm2
F = Bolted Fault Current, kA (16-50 kA Range)

Maximum incident energy from a 3-phase, 6 cycle arc with

1.25 inch electrode gap contained in a 20 inch cubic box on
a 600 V system may be estimated using the curve fit
equations derived in Figs. 4 and 8. Multiplying the two
equations, the estimated maximum incident energy for the 6 10 30 50 70
cycle arc-in-the-box, EMB,is calculated using Equation ( 2 ) : Distance From Arc Eectrodes, Inches

EMB= 103.87 D B - ~[ 0.0093

’ ~ ~F2~- 0.3453 F + 5.9675 ] (2) Fig. 7. Open Arc Distance Variation

- 333 -

3-Phase 6 Cycle Arcs 600 V System
Max. Incident Energy vs. Distance
Arc In 20” Cubic Box 1.25” Gap
TABLE II
- MAXIMUMINCIDENT ENERGY- 6 CYCLE ARC IN BOX
AS A FUNCTION OF BOLTED FAULT CURRENT
- & DISTANCE FROMARC ELECTRODES

-E 1.60
1.40
Bolted
Fault 1
k x . Incident Energy In caUcm2
Distance FromArc Electrodes In Inches
;. &f
1.20 kA 18 1 21 1 24 1 27 I 30 1 36 1 42 I 48 1 54 1 60
-5 1.00
QI 0.80
1 16 I 4.1 I 3.3 I 2.7 1 2.3 1 2.0 I 1.5 I 1.2 1 1.0 I 0.8 1 0.7 I
18 4.1 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7
5$ 0.60
20 4.1 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7
2 Q) 0.40 22 4.2 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.5 I 1.2 I 1.0 I 0.8 1 0.7 ,
a! fi 0.20 I
I I I I I I I
24 4.5 3.6 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 I
0.00
10 30 50 70
1 I I I 1 I I
26 4.8 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 I
Distance From Arc Bectrodes,Inches
I 28 I 5.3 I 4.2 I 3.4 I 2.9 1 2.5 1 1.9 I 1.5 I 1.2 1 1.0 I 0.9 1
I I I I 1 1
30 5.8 ] 4.7 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 1 I 1
32 16.5 I 5.2 J4.3 I 3.6 I 3.1 I 2.3 I 1.9 I 1.5 I 1.3 I 1.1
Fig. 8. Arc-ln-Box Distance Variation
I 34 I 7.3 1 5.8 1 4.8 1 4.0 I 3.4 I 2.6 1 2.1 I 1.7 I 1.4 I 1.2 I
where: DB = Distance From Arc Electrodes, inches ( D ~ 2 1 8 ) I I I 1 I
36 ] 8.2 6.5 5.4 4.5 13.9 3.0 ] 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.4 1 I
EMB= Maximum 20” Cubic Box Incident Energy, 38 I 9.2 I 7.3 I 6.0 I 5.1 I 4.3 1 3.3 I 2.6 I 2.2 1 1.8 I 1.6
cal/cm2
F = Bolted Fault Current, kA (16-50 kA Range)
40 110.31 8.2 16.8 15.7 14.9 13.7 13.0 12.4 12.0 1.8 I
42 111.51 9.2 17.6 16.4 15.4 14.2 13.3 12.7 12.3 12.0
Predicted EMB values using Equation (2) for distances 44 112.9~10.3~
I I I
8.4 17.1
I
16.1
I
14.6
I
13.7
I
13.0
I
12.6
I
12.2
I

greater than 60 inches (5 feet) are believed to be 46 ~ 1 4 . 3 ~ 1 19.4

. 4 ~17.9 16.7 15.2 14.1 13.4 12.8 12.4
conservatively high. The authors hypothesize that the 48 115.9112.6110.41 8.7 17.5 15.7 14.6 13.7 13.1 12.7
distance variation of incident energy for the cubic box will 50 ~ 1 7 . 5 ~ 1 4 . 0 ~ 19.6
1 . 518.3
~ 16.315.0 14.1 13.5 13.0
tend to approach the open-air inverse distance squared
relationship as distances from the box increase above 60
inches. Comparison Of lncident Energy Estimating Methods

Estimated maximum incident energy levels for a 3-phase, 6
cycle arc with a 1.25 inch electrode gap in a 20” cubic box
calculated using Equation (2) are shown in Table II.
Estimated incident energy for arc durations other than 6
cycles can be determined by multiplying EMAor EMBby the
ratio of the arc duration in seconds, fA, divided by 0.1 as
shown in Equations 3 & 4 :
EMA= 5271 D -‘ 9593 t A [ 0.0016 F2 - 0.0076 F + 0.8938 ] (3)
-1 4738
EMB~ 1 0 3 8 . 7D tA [ 0.0093 F2 - 0.3453 F + 5.9675 J (4)
Equations (3) & (4) may be solved for the distance required
to produce a given maximum incident energy level as shown
below in Equations (5) & (6):
D A = [(tA/EMA)(8.434F2-40.06F+4711)]05104 (5)
DB= [ (fA/EMB) (9.66 F2 - 358.7 F + 6198) ] 06785 (6)
This form of the equations is useful to define incident energy
boundaries i.e. the distance for a second-degree burn or for
the protection limit of a specific FR clothing system. Note
that Equations (3) through (6) may not be valid outside the
indicated variable ranges for Equations (1) and (2).
Incident energy produced by a 6-cycle arc with a 1.25”
electrode gap on a 600 V electrical system (available bolted
fault current of 42 kA) was determined at various distances
from the arc electrodes using three different methods: 1) the
3-phase arc test algorithm, 2) a commercially available
computer program, and 3) the Duke Heat Flux Calculator.
Results are plotted for comparison in Fig. 9. Both the
commercially available program and the Duke Heat Flux
Calculator use single-phase models of the electrical arc to
predict incident energy. Three-phase test values of
maximum incident energy for the open arcs were from 2.5 to
3 times the values predicted by the single-phase models.
Three phase test values of maximum incident energy for the
arcs in the cubic box were 5.2 to 12.2 times the values
predicted by the single-phase models. In both
cases the ratios increased as distance from the arc
electrodes increased as shown in Fig. 10. The dramatic
increase in ratio with distance shown in Fig. lO(a) for the
arc-in-the-box is primarily a result of the single-phase model
assumption of incident energy variation inversely
proportional to distance squared instead of distance to the
1.5 power.
Ralph Lee Curable Burn Comparison
Equations (5) & (6) were used to calculate, for a range of

- 334 -
 Comparison Of
Arc Incident Energy
Estimating Methods
600 V System
42 kA Bolted Fault
6 Cycles - 1 . 2 5 Gap
3 ph. Arc Tests-
-c-
MX. Arc Box
-0- 3 ph. Arc Tests-
Mean Arc Box
--t 3 Fh.Arc psts-
bbx. Open Arc
-A- 3 Fh. Arc Tests-
&an Open Arc
-+-Commercial
10 30 50 70 Frogram-l Fhase
Distance From Arc Bectrodes, --t Duke Heat Flux
inches &IC.-I Fhase

Fig. 9. Comparison Of Estimating Methods

Ratio Of Max. 3 Ph. Arc-In-Box Test Ratio Of Max. 3 Ph. Open Arc Test
ResultsWith Calc. 1 Ph. Incid. Energy Results With Calc. 1 Ph. Incid. Energy
--
14 I

12
' - - __ -.-
Commercii?
.-010 Rogram
3 8 -u-- Duke Heat --o- Duke Heat
6 Flux Cab

4
0 20 40 60 80 15 20 25 30 35
Distance From Arc Bectrodes, Inches Distance From Arc Bectrodes, Inches
I
Fig. I O . (a) Arc-In-Box Incident Energy Compared To Fig. I O . (b) Open Arc Incident Energy Compared To
Calculated Results Calculated Results

bolted fault currents, the distance from a 600 V, 3-phase, 6

Human Tissue - Tolerance To cycle arc with a 1.25" electrode gap that would just result in a
Second Degree Burn second degree burn of human skin. An incident energy level
of 1.2 cal/cm2 was chosen as the minimum energy threshold
for a second-degree burn based upon the data shown in Fig.
11 that was previously published in [3].

Ralph Lee also calculated in [I] the distance from an arc to

just receive a "curable burn" as shown below in Equation ( 7 ) :

DC= [ 2.65 x MVABFXt ] O 5 (7)

- - - - r c ? v ) b o l
8 0 where: DC= Distance of skin from arc source to just receive
Exposure Time, seconds a curable burn, inches.
MVABF= Bolted fault MVA at arc point.
t = duration of arc exposure, seconds.
Fig. 11. Second Degree Burn Energy

- 335 -
 I I
Human Skin Burn Limit Comparison
- -
3-Phase 6 Cycle Arcs 1.25 Inch Gap 600 V System

1 I

I 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Bolted Fault Current, kA
50.00 60.00

I I

Fig. 12. Human Skin Burn Boundary

TABLE 111
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING GUIDELINES FOR THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD

Proposed Protective FR Clothing System Estimated Incident Energy

Clothing Classes for Onset of Second
Degree Burn
Range of Clothing Clothing Total Arc Thermal Performance
Calculated Incident Class Description Weight Exposure Value (ATPV) or
Energy++ No. Breakopen Threshold Energy (EBT)

cal/cm2 (No. of Layers) oz/yd2 caI/cm2

0-2 0 Untreated 4.5-7 nla
Cotton (1)

2-5 1 FR Shirt and 4.5-8 5-7

Pants (1)
Cotton Underwear
5-8 2A plus 9-12 8-18
FR Shirt and Pants (2)
FR Underwear
5-16 2B plus 10-14 16-22
FR Shirt and Pants (2)
Cotton Underwear plus
8-25 3 FR Shirt &Pants plus 16-20 25-50
FR Coverall (3)
Cotton Underwear plus
25-40 4 FR Shirt & Pants plus 24-30 40->60
Double Layer
Switching Coat (4)
++ Range of incident energy to minimize a second degree burn to skin covered by the clothing system.

- 336 -
 Clothing System
Protection Comparison
For Electric Arc Exposure
bkta-Aramid Royal Blue
Flame Retardant Treated Cotton
A Cotton T-shirt + Veta-Aramid Royal Blue
0 Cotton T Shirt + 2 Layer Meta-Aramid Royal Blue
A Cotton T-shirt + 2 Layer ParalMeta-Aramid
I
50
45
40
1 8
- 35
0" 30
U?' 25
0' 20
2 15
10
5
0
4.8 6.4 7.9 8.2 10.2 8.9 10.4 15
Fabric System Weight, ounceslydZ
Fig. 13. FR Clothing System Comparison
SELECTING FR CLOTHING
Once the incident energy exposure level for a particular
situation has been determined, and the exposure level is
sufficient to cause either a second degree burn or ignition of
clothing, the user should select an appropriate FR clothing
system to provide protection from the arc hazard. ASTM
PS57 data in Table I of [4] indicates that an average incident
energy level of 3.0 cal/cm2 (L95%CL) is required for a 1%
probability of ignition of a 5.2 oz/yd2 blue cotton Twill shirt
material. Minimum incident energy required to produce a
second-degree burn is 1.2 cal/cm2 as discussed above.
The authors published a table of Protective Clothing
Guidelines in [4] that was based on fabric testing utilizing the
ASTM PS58 test method [6].This information is reproduced
in Table Ill and defines proposed clothing classes based
upon the available incident energy. Clothing Class No. 2 has
been split into two sub-categories, Classes No. 2A and 28, to
reflect the use of either cotton or FR underwear. Table Ill is
based upon FR clothing produced by a number of
manufacturers and gives general guidance about how many
layers of FR fabric should be considered to use for a given
incident energy exposure. The terms ATPV and EBT,used in
Table Ill, are defined in ASTM PS58 Standard [5] and are
explained below:
ATPV is defined as the incident energy that would just
cause the onset of a second-degree burn.
Protective Equipment Compa rison
16
14
12
=E
3 IO
if
Z 8
U
6
E
i 4
2
0
17
Fig. 14. Eye, Face, Hand Protection Performance
EBTis defined as the average of the five highest incident
energy values which did not cause FR fabric break-open
and did not exceed the second degree burn criteria. EBT
is reported when ATPV cannot be measured due to FR
fabric break-open. Break-open is defined as any
e
opening in the innermost (nearest the rotected surface)
layer of FR fabric of more than 0.5 in area or a slit or
crack in the innermost FR fabric, 1 inch or greater in
length. In the event of FR fabric break-open, a
flammable fabric under-layer or human skin is directly
exposed to incident energy.
Performance data about clothing systems utilizing specific
fabrics is tabulated in [4]. A comparison of the performance
of a few selected FR fabric systems is illustrated in Fig. 13.
Note that a dotted line at 3.0 callcm' indicates incident
energy required for 1% probability of ignition for 5.2 oz/yd2
blue cotton twill shirt material.
A comparison of the relative performance of polycarbonate
safety glasses, polycarbonate visors used in face shields and
hoods, and common leather work gloves is shown in Fig. 14.
ATPV values in Fig. 14 were estimated from energy
transmission data in [2] based on a limited number of
specimen exposures.
Using boundary Equation (5)to determine the distance from
a 3-phase, 6 cycle arc in open air for a specified incident
energy level, Figure 15 was constructed showing the
- 337 -
 Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
-
600 V, 3-Phase, 6 Cyle Arcs In Open Air 1.25 Electrode Gap
58.0
--e Human Skin 2nd
Degree Burn Limit -
1.2 callcm2
48.0
-+-Untreated Cotton
ATPV - 2 callcm2
38.0
+Class 1 FR Clothing
-
AfPV 5 ca llcm2
28.0
Class 2A FR Clothing
-
ATPV 8 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. 15. Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 6-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances‘ As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA

600 V, 3-Phase, 6 Cyle Arcs In 2 0 Cubic Box - 1.25 Electrode Gap
68.0
+Human Skin 2nd
Degree Burn Limit -
1.2 callcm2

-m- Untreated Cotton

-
ATPV 2 callcm2

-t-Class 1 FR Clothing
ATPV - 5 callcm2

.- +Class 2A FR Clothing
.-E ATPV - 8 callcm2
E
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. 16. Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 6-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20” Cubic Box

* Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures.

- 338 -
 TABLE IV
EVOLUTION IN KNOWLEDGEOF ARC FLASH PHENOMENAAND DETERMINE THE AVALLABLE BOLTED FAULT
IMPLEMENTATIONOF HAZARD MANAGEMENTMETHODS
CURRENT AT THE LOCATION OF THE POTENTIAL
3-PHASE FAULT
YEAR I DEVELOPMENT
Ir
1981 I Theoretical modeling (Lee)
1981 - Present
Advanced awareness based
on theoretical modeling and
field experience
1 DETERMINE THE ARC FAULT CLEARING TIME BASED
UPON THE ELECTRICAL PROTECTION SYSTEM 1
Regulatory requirements
1990 - 1993 based on theoretical SELECT WHETHER THE INCIDENT ENERGY IS TO BE
modelina (OSHA 1910 DETERMINED FOR A 3-PHASE ARC IN OPEN AIR OR
I Subpai S 8, R)
NFPA 70E consensus
1995 standard on work practices
and PPE application based DETERMINE THE MINTMUM BODY APPROACH
on theoretical modeling DISTANCE TO THE POTENTIAL ARC
R&D in incident energy
1995 - 1998 prediction and FR clothing
protection evaluation USE EQUATION (3) OR (4) TO ESTIMATE THE
MAXIMUM‘INCIDENT ENERGY AT THE MINIMUM
APPROACH DISTANCE FOR A 3-PHASE ARC
WITH A 1.25” ELECTRODE GAP

IF THE CALCULATED INCIDENT ENERGY IS LESS

THAN 1.2 CALKM’, CLOTHING MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED TO PROTECT AGAINST ARC INCIDENT
ENERGY BURNS, BUT MAY BE REQUIRED TO
PROTECT AGAINST OTHER ARC RELATED HAZARDS

IF THE CALCULATED INCIDENT ENERGY IS 1.2

CAL/CM2OR LARGER, REVIEW TABLE IIIAND
CONSULT FR CLOTHING MANUFACTURERSTO
DETERMINE PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC FR
Significant progress has been made in the last 20 years in
CLOTHING SYSTEMS. INSURE THAT ATPV OR EBT
understanding the arc flash hazard and protecting people as
VALUES FOR THE SELECTED FR CLOTHING SYSTEM
is illustrated in Table IV. Specific contributions included in
EXCEED THE CALCULATED INCIDENT ENERGY AT
this paper are summarized below:
THE MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE
~~~~~~ ~~

Incident energy levels produced by 3-phase arcs with a 1.25’’

electrode gap on a 600 V electrical system with varying
bolted fault values have been experimentally determined in a
laboratory setting. The multiplying effect of a 20” cubic
enclosure on arc incident energy has been quantified.
Algorithms for predicting 1) incident energy as a function of
available bolted fault current and distance from the arc
electrodes, and 2) constant incident energy boundary
distances, have been developed.
Ralph Lee’s “curable burn” distances have been found to be
approximately equal to experimentally determined second-
degree burn boundary distances for open 600 V,3-phase, 6
cycle arcs with 1.25“ electrode gaps. Experimentally
determined second-degree burn boundary distances for 600
V, 3-phase, 6 cycle arcs with 1.25” electrode gaps that are
enclosed in a 20” cubic box were found to be significantly
larger than predicted by Ralph Lee.
Fig. 17. An FR Clothing Selection Process
One process for selecting FR clothing to protect personnel
against arc flash injury has been presented. Protective
characteristics for classes of FR clothing have been
summarized. Protective levels for polycarbonate safety
glasses, common leather work gloves, and polycarbonate
faceshields and hoods were estimated. This information is
based upon test data produced in a laboratory simulation,
not real-life conditions which may vary. The user is
responsible for determining appropriate FR clothing and
protective equipment to use based upon the actual conditions
of use 8, exposure.
Future testing is planned to better define the incident energy
produced by 3-phase arcs on 5 kV electrical systems.

- 339 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance

provided by Claude Maurice and Walter Dal Din of the
Ontario Hydro Technologies' High Current Laboratory.

REFERENCES

[ I ] Ralph Lee, " The Other Electrical Hazard: Electrical Arc

Blast Burns," IEEE Trans. Industrial Applications, Vol.
1A-18, No. 3, p246, MayIJune 1982.

[2] R. A. Jones et al, "Staged Tests Increase Awareness of

Arc-Flash Hazards in Electrical Equipment," IEEE Petroleum
and Chemical Industry Conference Record, September 1997,
pp. 313-322.

[3] Dr. T. Neal, A. H. Bingham and R. L. Doughty,

"Protective Clothing Guidelines For Electric Arc Exposure,"
IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference Record,
September 1996, pp. 281-298.

[4] R. L. Doughty, Dr. T. E. Neal, T. A. Dear and A. H.

Bingham, "Testing Update On Protective Clothing &
Equipment For Electric Arc Exposure," IEEE PClC
Conference Record, Sept. 1997, pp. 323-336.

[5] NFPA 70E-1995, "Standard for Electrical Safety

Requirements for Employee Workplaces," 1995 Edition.

[6] ASTM PS58, "Standard Test Method for Determining the

Arc Thermal Performance (Value) of Textile Materials for
Clothing by the Electric Arc Exposure Method Using
Instrumented Sensor Panels", April 1997.

- 340 -
 APPENDIX
SECOND DEGREE BURN BOUNDARY DISTANCES

Second Degree Bum Boundary Distances* As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA

-
600 V, 3-Phase, 3 Cyle Arcs In Open Air 1.25” Electrode Gap

-Human Skin 2nd

Degree Burn Limit -
1.2 callcm2

-m- Untreated Cotton

-
ATPV 2 callcm2

18 24 30 36 42 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A I . (a) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 3-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance$ As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA

-
600 V, 3-Phase, 3 Cyle Arcs In 20” Cubic Box 1.25” Electrode Gap
68.0
&Human Skin 2nd
E
L Degree Burn Limit -
58.0 1.2 callcm2
Q u l

4;
8 48.0
-m- Untreated Cotton
-
ATPV 2 callcm2
C Q
0’0
crro
+-Class 1 FR Clothing
-
ATPV 5 callcm2

.-S +Class 2A FR Clothing

.- -
ATPV 8 callcm2
I
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A I . (b) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 3-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20” Cubic BOX

* Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures.

- 341 -
 Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances? A s A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
600 V, 3-Phase, 9 Cyle Arcs In Open Air - 1.25 Electrode Gap

&Human Skin 2nd

Degree Burn Limit -
1.2 callcm2
&Untreated Cotton
-
ATPV 2 callcm2

+Class 1 FR Clothing
-
ATPV 5 callcm2

+Class 2A FR Clothing
ATPV - 8 ca llcm 2

18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A2. (a) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V,3-Phase, 9-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 AsA Function Of Bolted Fault kA

600 V, 3-Phase, 9 Cyle Arcs In 20" Cubic Box - 1 . 2 5 Electrode Gap
68.0

E +Human Skin 2nd

2 Degree Burn Limit -
58.0 1.2 callcm2
a m
u a
E
-c- Untreated Cotton
5 48.0 -
ATPV 2 callcm2
c4,
u u
0 0
0.9
h 38.0 +Class 1 FR Clothing
2; -
ATPV 5 callcm2
0
52
.-SE 28.0
+Class 2A FR Clothing
.-
r -
ATPV 8 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A2. (b) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 9-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20" Cubic Box

* Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures.

- 342 -
 Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances" A s A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
-
600 V, 3-Phase, 12 Cyle Arcs In Open Air 1.25' Electrode Gap
78.0
-+-Human Skin 2nd
Degree Burn Limit -
1.2 callcm2
-m- Untreated Cotton
-
ATPV 2 callcm2

+Class 1 FR Clothing
5 2 38.0
U -
ATPV 5 callcm2
.E E
5E 2O 28.0 +Class 2A FR Clothing
-
ATPV 8 ca llcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A3. (a) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 12-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

Second Degree Burn Boundary DistanceS' As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA

600 V, 3-Phase, 12 Cyle Arcs In 20" Cubic Box - 1.25" Electrode Gap
68.0
-+-Human Skin 2nd
Degree Burn Limit -
1.2 ca llcm2

-m- Untreated Cotton

-
ATPV 2 callcm2

+Class 1 FR Clothing
ATPV - 5 callcm2

+Class 2A FR Clothing
-
ATPV 8 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A3. (b) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 12-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20" Cubic Box

Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures.

- 343 -
 Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances* As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
600 V, 3-Phase, 18 Cyle Arcs In Open Air - 1.25" Electrode Gap
88.0
av) &Human Skin 2nd
2 78.0 Degree Burn Limit -
.- 1.2 callcm2
0 UT 68.0
Eo, ---c Untreated Cotton
011
58.0
ATPV - 2 callcm2
Et;
a
2d 48.0 +Class 1 FR Clothing
ATPV - 5 callcm2
5E
.E 38.0
.E 2 +Class 2A FR Clothing
g 28.0
ATPV - 8 callcm2
LL

18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Bolted Fault kA

Fig. A4. (a) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 18-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 A s A Function Of Bolted Fault kA

-
600 V, %Phase, 18 Cyle Arcs In 20" Cubic Box 1.25" Electrode Gap
68.0

E -n- Untreated Cotton

2 ATPV - 2 callcm2
58.0
av)
E 20 -A- Class 1 FR Clothing
ATPV - 5 callcm2
48.0
CQ,
" U Jt Class 2A FR Clothing
m o
O b -
ATPV 8 callcm2
a s"
k 38.0

+Class 2B FR Clothing
52
E 28.0 -
ATPV 16 ca llcm2
.-E
.-
5 --Class 3 FR Clothing
ATPV - 25 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54
+Class 4 FR Clothing
Bolted Fault kA -
ATPV 40 callcm2

Fig A4 (b) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 18-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20" Cublc Box
* Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions
Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures

- 344 -
 Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 A s A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
-
600 V, 3-Phase, 24 Cyle Arcs In Open Air 1.25 Electrode Gap
108.0
-Human Skin 2nd
98.0
E2 v,
Degree Burn Limit -
4p 88.0 1.2 callcm2
&Untreated Cotton
0'0
$ 78.0 -
ATPV 2 callcm2
m o
g& 68.0 -+-Class 1 FR Clothing
25
P O
58.0 -
ATPV 5 callcm2

e9 48.0 +Class 2A FR Clothing

-
ATPV 8 callcm2
= Ee 38.0
% U --rt Class 2B
FR Clothing
28.0
-
ATPV 16 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54 --8- Class 3 FR Clothing
Bolted Fault kA
-
ATPV 25 calicm2

Fig. A5. (a) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 24-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 A s A Function Of Bolted Fault kA

-
600 V, 3-Phase, 24 Cyle Arcs In 20" Cubic Box 1.25 Electrode Gap
68.0

E -+Class 1 FR Clothing
E!
58.0
-
ATPV 5 callcm2
av)
O Q

5:
E 48.0
- - ~Class
t 2A FR Clothing
ATPV - 8 calicm2
C Q
011
m o
0 2
2 38.0 ++Class 2B FR Clothing
2; -
ATPV 16 calicm2
5;
.-Er 28.0
4 C l a s s 3 FR Clothing
.-
I ATPV - 25 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54 +Class 4 FR Clothing
Bolted Fault kA -
ATPV 40 callcm2

Fig. A5. (b) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 24-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20" Cubic Box
* Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures.

- 345 -
 Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 As A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
-
600 V, 3-Phase, 30 Cyle Arcs In Open Air 1.26“ Electrode Gap
118.0
-+-Human Skin 2nd
p) v) 108.0
o m
3 98.0 1.2 callcm2
.--2s ---c Untreated Cotton
n cn^
Tat
88.0
-
ATPV 2 callcm2

’
0 78.0
g g +.--Class 1 FR Clothing
a o 68.0
-
ATPV 6 callcm2
2 58.0

53 48.0
+Class 2A FR Clothing
-
ATPV 8 callcm2
.E E
.E 2 38.0
-++Class 28 FR Clothing
LL 28.0
-
ATPV 16 callcm2
18.0
&Class 3 FR Clothing
18 24 30 36
Bolted Fault kA
42 48 54
-
ATPV 26 callcm2

Fig. A6. (a) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 30-Cycle Electric Arcs In Open Air

I
Second Degree Burn Boundary Distance9 A s A Function Of Bolted Fault kA
600 V, 3-Phase, 30 Cyle Arcs In 20” Cubic Box - 1.25” Electrode Gap
68.0

E -A- Class 1 FR Clothing

2 ATPV - 5 c a l k m 2
58.0
wv)
o w

52
5 48.0 ATPV - 8 callcm2
r a
o e
Q O
Il.b
Q 38.0
$a -
ATPV 16 callcm2
z:
E
I-
28.0
.-S -8- Class 3 FR Clothin
5 -
ATPV 25 callcm2
18.0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54 +Class 4 FR Clothing
Bolted Fault kA -
ATPV 40 callcm2

Fig A6 (b) Second Degree Burn Boundary Distances For 600V, 3-Phase, 30-Cycle Electric Arcs In 20” Cubic Box
* Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions
Real arc exposures may be more or less than
these simulated exposures

- 346 -