0600DB1303

White Paper 06/2013

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements

Retain for future use.

Abstract Present industry standards require higher system performance and

protection against arc flash hazards for individuals exposed to dangerous
levels of incidental energy. However, in most cases, high system
performance achieved through selective coordination, required in changes
to the National Electric Code® (NEC®), results in increased arc flash
energy. This conflict between selective coordination and arc flash is
explained in this paper through real world examples. The resolution to this
conflict is provided through both existing and future solutions which achieve
a balance between total selectivity and arc flash hazard levels. This paper
also discusses the two levels of selective coordination commonly employed:
0.1 seconds and total selectivity; and the affects each has on calculated arc
flash hazards.

Introduction

Selective Coordination Selective coordination refers to the selection and setting of overcurrent
protective devices (OCPDs) in an electric power system in such a manner so
as to cause the smallest possible portion of the system to be de-energized
due to an overload condition:
Per the 2011 NEC Article 100 – “Localization of an overcurrent condition to
restrict outages to the circuit or equipment affected, accomplished by the
choice of overcurrent protective devices and their ratings or settings.”
This ensures any overcurrent event is cleared by the smallest circuit breaker
in the system before allowing a larger line-side circuit breaker to operate on
the fault. This limits the service interruption to only the circuit experiencing
the problem and does not shut down a larger portion of the facility.
Specific selective coordination requirements were first introduced in NEC
1996, Article 620.62 for elevators, dumbwaiters, escalators, moving walks,
wheelchair lifts and stairway chair lifts. Subsequent articles were added to
the NEC:
1. Emergency and legally-required standby power systems, NEC 2011
Articles 700.27 and 701.27, respectively.
2. Health-care facilities, NEC Article 517.26, which says that the essential
electrical system should meet the requirements of Article 700.
3. Critical operations power systems (COPS), NEC Article 708.54.
While the rationale for selective coordination is self-evident – clearing and
isolating faults as quickly as possible without disturbing the unaffected
portions of the system – the methods for judging OCPD to OCPD selectivity
are not as clear. No industry standards exist which define device-to-device
selectivity over their full operating ranges; no consensus has been
developed among protection engineers or inspecting authorities regarding
device-to-device selectivity thresholds. Discussions continue over the
“practicable” selectivity criteria – overlaying time-current characteristics of
OCPDs to determine selectivity are complicated by examining the current-
limiting interactions of OCPDs at maximum available fault currents. As a

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
White Paper
Arc Flash
Selective Coordination versus Arc
Flash Example
Selective Coordination Through
Comparison of Time-Current Curves
2 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved
0600DB1303
06/2013
result, essentially two interpretations or definitions of selective coordination
have evolved:
A. 0.1 seconds and longer –This means that the time-current curves
(TCCs) of OCPDs in series should not overlap above 0.1s. Selective
coordination at 0.1s and longer includes the vast majority of fault
currents, overloads and arcing faults, but not the highest levels seen in
the instantaneous region.
B. Total selectivity – In addition to TCC coordination described for the 0.1s
definition, total selectivity takes into account the current-limiting
behaviors and interactions of OCPDs operating on the highest available
fault currents. There are variations on how total selectivity is described
(e.g. 0.01 seconds), but the intent is selectivity for the OCPDs entire
operating range up to the maximum fault current.
The consideration of arc flash hazards is a relatively new concern for power
system design. However, it is a concern that is rapidly gaining momentum
due to increasingly strict worker safety standards. A flash hazard is a
dangerous condition associated with the release of energy caused by an
electric arc. The energy impressed on a surface, a certain distance from the
source, generated during an electrical arc event is termed as incident
energy.
Key factors which affect the arc flash incident energy are:
A. available fault current at the equipment
B. the time taken by the upstream protective device to clear the fault
C. distance from the arcing source
In most cases achieving selective coordination comes at the cost of
increasing circuit breaker frame size and/or changing circuit breaker type
from a molded case to an electronic trip type with higher short
time/instantaneous settings. Both solutions could result in an increase in
total clearing time of protective devices during an arcing fault, thereby
causing an increase in arc flash incident energy. An example in the next
section further explains the effect of selective coordination – 0.1 second and
total – on arc flash.
In this section a five bus circuit has been used to explain the affect of total
selectivity on arc flash. Three cases have been considered as follows:
• Case 1 – Load based coordination where devices are selected based on
typical thermal-magnetic trips for circuit breakers other than service
mains and prior to implementing NEC Article 100 requirement of
selective coordination.
• Case 2 - Selective coordination to 0.1 seconds and longer
• Case 3 - Total selective coordination
Table 3 on Page 17 compares arc flash category and incident energy for
each case. The results of this typical example show how selective
coordination is achieved at the cost of increased arc flash incident energy.
Figure 1 shows that the system is fed from two sources:
A. normal source fed by a 1000 kVA utility transformer and
B. emergency source fed by a 500 kW generator.
0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

The protective devices shown are prior to selective coordination and are
based on load requirement only.

Figure 1: Single Line Drawing of Example System

UTILITY
SC Contribution 3P 99999 MVA
X/R 3P 8.0

UTI XFM
1000 kVA
Prl 12470 V
GEN Sec 480 V
500 kW
Z = 5.75%
625 kVA
PF 0.80 Lag
50 ft.
GM1 4–#500
PB
800AF / AS / AT SM1
PG
1200AF / AS / AT
001 GEN 005 SWBD
480 V 480 V
7.508 kA 22.507 kA
AFE AFN
LA LA
400AT 400AT

100 ft. 100 ft.

MTR LD
1–#500 1–#500
500 hp
500 kVA
X”d 0.25 PU

E N

400A ATS

002L ATS
480 V
16.753 kA

50 ft.
1–#500

003 PNL1
480 V
PB2 14.815 kA
HG
125AT

50 ft.
1–#2

004 PNL2
480 V
PB4 11.857 kA
EG
40AT

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 3

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

The cable length and sizes are noted on the one line drawing shown in
Figure 1. The cables are sized per NEC 2011 Edition table 310.15(B) (16).
In order to have a worst case fault analysis, the main switchboard was
loaded with (20) 25 hp motors adding up to 500 kVA, half of the rated kVA of
the utility transformer.
The circuit breaker TCCs are plotted based on worst case three phase fault
current from an infinite source. For this example it has been assumed that
the entire system consisting of both normal and emergency sides should be
selectively coordinated for each case:
a. Case 2: 0.1 second and longer and
b. Case 3: total selectivity.
The TCC graphs shown in Figures 2 and 3 show coordination for Case 1:
without more stringent selective coordination requirements. Without
selectivity requirements the coordination achieved in Case 1 is borderline
practicable; for fault level currents load-side of PB4, mis-coordination exists
with line-side circuit breaker PB2, and mis-coordination exists for the
highest levels of fault current for all of the circuit breakers plotted. However,
when Case 2 and Case 3 are considered there are several issues, notably
for Case 3. Selectivity will be achieved by adjusting the circuit breaker TCCs
shown in Figures 2 and 3 and if required by replacing the circuit breakers
with ones ensuring better coordination. Each case includes circuit breakers
at equipment designations –PNL1 and PNL2 fed from normal and
emergency source.

4 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

Figure 2: Case 1 - TCC Graph for PNL2 Circuit Based on Normal Source Fault Current

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 5

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

Figure 3: Case 1 - TCC Graph for PNL2 Circuit Based on Emergency Source Fault Current

In terms of selective coordination, Case 2 is considered first: selective

coordination 0.1 seconds and longer. If Figures 2 and 3 are compared, both
have a common OCPD mis-coordination issue which exists between circuit
breakers PB2 and PB4. By replacing circuit breaker PB2 with a
PowerPact™ circuit breaker HD 125AT trip 5.2A, we can improve selectivity
to 0.1 seconds and longer. The circuit breakers AFN, AFE, SM1 and GM1
require setting adjustments in order to maintain selective coordination of 0.1
seconds and longer. The new TCC graphs are shown in Figures 4 and 5, for
normal and emergency side, respectively. In order to achieve selective

6 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

coordination for Case 2 there were few system design changes comprising
of one circuit breaker upgrade and settings adjustment of existing circuit
breakers.

Figure 4: Case 2 - TCC Graph for PNL2 Circuit Based on Normal Source Fault Current

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 7

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

Figure 5: Case 2 - TCC Graph for PNL2 Circuit Based on Emergency Source Fault Current

For Case 3, the selectivity table and the online selectivity tool are used in
order to improve coordination by removing the overlap in the instantaneous
region between the circuit breaker curves as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The
analysis starts at the smallest downstream circuit breaker in PNL2 and
subsequently moves up the system to the main switchboard SWBD. There
is an overlap in the instantaneous region of device PB4 with devices PB2,
AFN and SM1.

8 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

Per Schneider Electric data bulletin 0100DB0501 [1] the circuit breakers HG
125AT [PB2] and EGB 40AT [PB4] are totally selective up to 1300 A. The
available fault current at PNL2 is 11.857kA which is greater than 1300 A.
Hence in case of a fault PB2 may trip along with PB4 resulting in lack of total
selectivity for faults above 1300 A. In order to achieve total selectivity
between circuit breakers PB2 and PB4 the following design options exist:
A. Change the thermal magnetic circuit breaker PB2 to an electronic trip type
of same size with an adjustable short time and instantaneous setting.
B. Increase the trip and frame size of circuit breaker PB2, thereby having a
higher instantaneous trip region. Note that the higher trip size would
require an increase in cable size. Increased cable size will have lower
impedance which in turn will increase the fault current at the panel PNL2.
C. Introduce an isolation transformer between ATS load side and PNL1.
The isolation transformer will reduce the fault current.
D. Redesign the cable lengths to insure lower fault currents by increasing
the cable length and impedance. This is a worst case option when total
selectivity is required and there are no circuit breaker pairs available.
Drawbacks of “D” are that the building may not be conducive to the
longer cable runs required to reduce the fault current, or there may be
voltage drop issues created by the long runs. Typically options a), b),
and c) are considered first, in that order, before opting for d).
For our example option A) is chosen which has the least amount of system
design changes. In order to select circuit breakers to achieve selective
coordination the design engineer can refer to manufacturer published
tables. The instantaneous region of the device bands tend to show an
overlap on a TCC (plotted by most commercially available analysis software
programs) for many circuit breakers because the curves have been based
on the standalone characteristic curves for the maximum three-phase bus
fault values. If dynamic impedance is considered for this region, then the
fault current observed at the upstream circuit breaker may not be high
enough to trip before the downstream circuit breaker reaches its maximum
trip time for the manufacturer’s tolerances for instantaneous faults.
Different combinations of circuit breakers can be tested to show coordination
at or below certain fault values even though the software-generated TCC
device bands overlap each other in the instantaneous region. Schneider
Electric has published data bulletin 0100DB0501 - “Short Circuit Selective
Coordination for Low Voltage Circuit Breakers” to present short circuit
selective coordination data for various combinations of Schneider Electric low
voltage circuit breakers. They were determined by comparing the current let-
through of the downstream circuit breaker with the minimum instantaneous
trip characteristic of the upstream circuit breaker, taking into account
manufacturing tolerances. Thus the maximum level of selective coordination
was determined for various pairings of upstream and downstream circuit
breakers. Table 1 shows a table in 0100DB0501 for L-frame selectivity with
QO™ and E-frame circuit breakers shows the option for upstream circuit
breaker (PB2).

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 9

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

Table 1: Schneider Electric Selective Coordination Table for L-Frame Low-Voltage Circuit Breakers

Circuit Breaker Voltage

Current One-Line Diagram
Main Branch
QO(B0 10–60 A 18
QO(B)-H
L-W, 250 A 240 V
QO(B)-VH
70–125 A 10
QH
QO(B0
L-W, 400 A QO(B)-H
15–150 A 240 V 30
L-W, 600 A QO(B)-VH
QH
L-W, 250 A 240 V 30 kA
L-W, 400 A E-Frame 115-125 A
L-2, 600 A 480Y/277 30 kA

Based on the choices provided in Table 1, the new PowerPact L-W

400AF/125AT mission critical circuit breaker is selected. The circuit breaker
LG-W selectively coordinates with circuit breaker EGB up to 30 kA at 480 V,
which is higher than our available fault current of 11.857 kA. The LG-W
mission critical circuit breaker has the same circuit breaker curve as LG trip
5.3A shown in our example in Figures 8 and 9, on Pages 14 and 15,
respectively. The difference between L-Frame and L-Frame mission critical
lies in their tripping mechanism; the L-frame mission-critical circuit breaker
has an inherent 5 ms delay and, for high fault currents, operates on load-
side energy rather than peak current. This effectively allows the J- and
L-frame mission-critical circuit breakers to distinguish between load-side
faults and let-through currents of load-side circuit breakers operating on
faults. This energy-based tripping improves selectivity and has an arc flash
advantage in that clearing time is not different than other molded case
circuit breakers.
There is an additional data bulletin for transformer protection 0100DB0902 -
“Guide to Low Voltage Transformer Protection and Selective Coordination”
[2]. For a quick check Schneider Electric has an online selective
coordination tool: click here. It does up to three levels of total selectivity
look-up with user-input fault values or it can do simple fault calculations.
The next coordination issue exists between circuit breakers PB4 and PB2
with AFN. The online selective coordination tool is used for selecting circuit
breaker AFN as shown in the screenshots in Figures 6 and 7:

10 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

Figure 6: Screenshot of Schneider Electric Online Selective Tool

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 11

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

Figure 7: Result of Online Selectivity Tool for 3 Tier System

For this example the fault currents are manually filled in at three zones
starting with Zone 1 – 22.507 kA at SWBD, Zone 2 – 14.816 kA at PNL1 and
Zone 3 –11.857 kA at PNL2, as shown in Figure 6. Based on the available
fault current and circuit breaker types - EGB340 (PB4), LGUW3400-125AT
(PB2), there are two options for circuit breaker AFN – a) PG3400 and b)
PK3400, as shown in Figure 7. Both options selectively coordinate with
downstream circuit breakers up to 21.6 kA which is higher than our available
fault current at Zones 1 and 2. However, option a) is selected based on lower
short circuit withstand rating. The short circuit withstand rating of PG circuit
breaker at 35 kA is adequate for the available fault current of 22.507 kA at
Zone 1.

12 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

Table 2: Schneider Electric Selective Coordination Table for 400 A / 480 Vac Downstream Circuit Breaker

Downstream Circuit Breaker - Type/kAIR

Upstream Circuit Breaker
Maximum Level of Selective Coordination Shown in kA

Maximum LA- LH-

LA LH DG DJ LD LG LJ LL LC LE LX LI LXI PG PJ PL
Continuous MC MC
kAIR Type
Current
Rating 30 30 35 35 35 65 18 35 65 100 65 65 65 200 200 35 65 100
PG 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 35.0 35.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 21.6 21.6 21.3
35
RG 30.0 30.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
NT-NH 1200 A 30.0 30.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 50.0 18.0 35.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
50
PK 21.6 30.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 50.0 18.0 35.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 21.6 21.6 21.6
NT-L1 1200 A 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
1200 A
NW-N 2000 A 30.0 30.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 65.0 18.0 35.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
65 PJ 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
RJ 30.0 30.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 65.0 18.0 35.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 35.0 40.8 40.8
RK 30.0 30.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 65.0 18.0 35.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 35.0 65.0 51.3
NT-L 1200 A 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

The only circuit breaker which is lacking selectivity on the normal side is the
main circuit breaker SM1 in switchboard SWBD. Table 2 shows the table in
0100DB0501 for UL 480 Vac 400 A Selective Coordination. Based on
Table 2, PowerPact RG 1200AT is selected as the main circuit breaker SM1.
The RG circuit breaker has total selectivity with circuit breaker AFN-PG
400AT. With the help of Schneider Electric data bulletin 0100DB0501 and the
online selectivity tool, total selectivity is achieved for the normal side of the
system as shown in Figure 8.

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 13

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

Figure 8: Case 3 - TCC Graph for PNL2 Circuit Based on Normal Source Fault Current

After ensuring total selectivity for the normal side the emergency side of the
system is evaluated. When fed from an emergency source, the panel PNL2
has an available fault current of 6 kA which is lower than 11.857 kA from
normal source. Hence the devices selected for total selectivity for normal
source will continue to have total selectivity when fed from the generator.
Even though circuit breakers PB2 and PB4 have total selectivity amongst

14 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

themselves there is still cause for concern as circuit breaker AFE

(LA 400AT) still lacks coordination with PB2 and PB4 as shown in Figure 3
on Page 6. The selection process for AFE is simplified by using the same
circuit breaker as AFN. Both AFE and AFN are feeding the same load and
as stated above the emergency source has lower fault current, so that what
works for the normal side will continue to work for the emergency side.

Figure 9: Case 3 - TCC Graph for PNL2 Circuit Based on Emergency Source Fault Current

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 15

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

The final coordination issues for the generator fed system are between
circuit breaker GM1 and downstream devices. In Figure 3 on Page 6, the
GM1 (PG 800AT) circuit breaker does not overlap with the downstream
circuit breakers. The same does not hold true after the upgrade of
downstream circuit breakers. We have to increase the short time and
instantaneous settings of GM1 in order to avoid mis-coordination at the
short time and instantaneous region. Figure 9 shows the new time current
coordination graph for the emergency side of the system having total
selectivity between the protective devices.

Arc Flash Analysis Arc flash analysis can be performed only after the protective devices have been
adjusted for best possible coordination. With the help of a computer analysis
through SKM Power Tools we are able to calculate the arc flash incident energy
and categories at each piece of equipment. This is the most efficient way to
calculate the incident energies and flash protection boundaries where multiple
sources exist which must be taken into account (such as generators and
motors). The SKM tool uses the National FIre Protection Association (NFPA)
70E 2012 Annex D.7 [3] and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers®
(IEEE®) 1584 [4] standards to determine the incident energy and arc flash
boundaries.
An arc flash analysis was performed for both normal and emergency side of
the system with protective device settings as per
• Case 1 – Load-based coordination where devices are selected based on
typical thermal-magnetic trips for circuit breakers other than service
mains and prior to implementing NEC Article 100 requirement of
selective coordination.
• Case 2 – Selective coordination to 0.1 seconds and longer
• Case 3 – Total selective coordination
Based on the IEEE 1584 requirement for arc flash analysis both minimum
and maximum three phase fault current have been considered. Arcing
current is significantly lower than bolted current and based on typical
calculations it can be as low as 52% of bolted fault current at 480 V [5].
Hence, to expect that total selectivity achieved at maximum three phase
bolted current will yield optimized arc flash results at arcing current of
minimum three phase bolted current is not reasonable, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 shows a comparison between the arc flash results for Case 1,
Case 2, and Case 3. From the table it is clear that, for a totally selectively
coordinated system, the incident energy levels are significantly higher for
the transfer switch 002L ATS, panels - 003 PNL1 and 004 PNL2. However,
the arc flash incident energy remained the same for most equipment in
Case 2 except for an increase in panel PNL1. The new instantaneous
settings in both the cases resulted in higher trip time for the protective
devices and thereby higher arc flash energy. This difference in incident
energy and risk category in Case 2 and 3, is one of the reasons for
preferring selective coordination to 0.1 seconds and longer, over, total
selectivity. The increase in arc flash energy may pose a greater threat to
personnel and could increase the amount of equipment damage in an arc
flash event.

16 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

Table 3: Arc Flash Comparison Table

Required Required Required

Arc Flash Incident Protective Arc Arc Flash Incident Protective Arc Arc Flash Incident Protective Arc
Bus Name Energy in cal/cm2 Rated Clothing Energy in cal/cm2 Rated Clothing Energy in cal/cm2 Rated Clothing
(Case 1) Characteristics (Case 2) Characteristics (Case 3) Characteristics
(Case 1) (Case 2) (Case 3)
001 GEN 12.44 Category 3 12.44 Category 3 12.44 Category 3
002L ATS 0.51 Category 0 0.51 Category 0 11.91 Category 3
003 PNL1 0.46 Category 0 9.80 Category 3 11.68 Category 3
004 PNL2 0.38 Category 0 0.62 Category 0 2.37 Category 1
005 SWBD 80.00 Dangerous 80.00 Dangerous 80.00 Dangerous

The arc flash incident energies of generator panel 001 GEN and main
switchboard 005 SWBD do not change. This is because the results for both
were based on maximum trip time of 2 seconds for all three cases. For the
rest of the equipment (ATS, PNL1 and PNL2), there is considerable
increase in incident energy as we go from load based coordination to
selective coordination at 0.1 seconds and above and finally to total selective
coordination. Hence, solely from an arc flash perspective, it is best to opt for
selective coordination to 0.1 seconds and longer.

Conclusion In order to ensure reliability as well as safe working conditions, optimized

selective coordination and arc flash mitigation have to work in tandem. The
NFPA has already taken a step in that direction through NFPA 99-2012 [6]
for health care facilities. NFPA 99-2012 requires that the essential electrical
system be coordinated to 0.1 seconds for all types of fault current generated
by the alternate source. In emergency, legally required, and critical
operation power systems, NFPA 110-2010 [7] requires that the OCPDs
feeding the automatic transfer switch(s) be selectively coordinated to the
extent practicable. The IEEE color books – Brown [8], Buff [9] and Orange
[10], recognize the difficulty in achieving these opposing goals, and
recommend selective coordination as far as practicable. The draft
International Electrotechnical Commission® (IEC®) technical report [11]
states that, “Selectivity over the whole range of fault current up to the
prospective fault current at the point of installation is not always possible or
necessary. A more economic solution may be found in many cases by
accepting a limited selectivity, particularly taking into account the low
probability of a high short-circuit fault current”.
Schneider Electric recognizes the importance of worker safety by reduced
incident energy and uninterrupted supply by improved selectivity, hence
extensive research has been done to ensure both, and improve OCPD
performance. One technique developed by Schneider Electric in each case
a) in practice and b) in process of finalization, is as follows:
A. Zone selective interlocking (ZSI) allows electronic trip devices to
communicate with each other so that a short-time trip or ground fault will
be isolated and cleared by the nearest upstream circuit breaker with no
intentional time delay. Devices in all other areas of the system (including
upstream) remain closed to maintain service to unaffected loads. Without
ZSI, a coordinated system results in the circuit breaker closest to the fault
clearing the fault, but usually with an intentional delay. With ZSI, the
device closest to the fault will ignore its preset short-time and/or ground
fault delays and clear the fault with no intentional delay. Zone-selective
interlocking eliminates intentional delay, without sacrificing coordination,
resulting in faster tripping times. This limits fault stress by reducing the
amount of let-through energy the system is subjected to during an
overcurrent. At low voltage (600 V and below), Schneider Electric

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 17

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

MasterPact™ low-voltage power circuit breakers, offer increased arc-flash

protection due to faster clearing times, especially at higher current levels.
In addition to superior arc-flash protection inherent in their design,
MasterPact and PowerPact circuit breakers can be configured in a variety
of Zone Selective Interlocking schemes to further enhance protection with
no impact on selectivity. At higher voltages, SepamTM overcurrent relays
can also be applied in ZSI solutions. (AF protections using ZSI is achieved
only with the ST-ZSI option.)

Often ZSI is specified only within the main distribution board, though a
more likely location for a fault occurrence is on a feeder circuit leaving
the switchboard, or even lower in the system. To maximize the
protection offered by using ZSI, as many levels of the system as
possible need to be interlocked. This way, devices at the lower levels of
the system will trip without any intentional delay, when necessary,
without sacrificing coordination. This provides true selective coordination
and maximum protection against fault stress. Additionally in certain
areas of the system it is necessary to self-restrain a circuit breaker to
maintain the delay before tripping during a fault condition. This results in
the circuit breaker always introducing a time delay before tripping on a
short circuit or a ground fault (the time delay is always activated). Cases
where self-restraint should be applied are:
— The interlocked device is feeding a non-interlocked device
downstream (or a number of non-interlocked devices in a panel).
— A time delay is desired for short-circuit and/or ground-fault
occurrences (usually to avoid false tripping during transients and
inrushes).
— Minimal tripping time would compromise coordination.
For more information on ZSI and self-restraint refer to data bulletin
06000DB0001 [12].
B. Energy based discrimination – The new mission critical PowerPact J-
and L–frame circuit breakers developed by Schneider Electric have
energy based discrimination. The energy based method with its
consistency allows the line-side circuit breaker to effectively distinguish
between load-side faults and let-throughs of load-side circuit breakers
operating on faults further downstream. This method for achieving
selectivity uses supplemental trip systems in conjunction with specially
designed primary trip systems. The primary trip system will not trip
during the first half-cycle of a fault regardless of the fault current. The
intentional delay that allows the reflex tripping to see load-side energy
does not reduce overall clearing time, resulting in higher levels of
selective coordination without necessarily unleashing higher levels of
fault energy, including arc flash incident energy.
For more information on energy based tripping refer to papers [13] and
[14].

18 © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved

0600DB1303 Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements
06/2013 White Paper

References [1] Short Circuit Selective Coordination for Low Voltage Circuit Breakers,
“0100DB0501R01/12-03/12”.
[2] Guide to Low Voltage Transformer Protection and Selective
Coordination, “0100DB0902R04/11-04/2011”.
[3] NFPA 70E-2012, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace.
[4] IEEE Std. 1584-2002, IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard
Calculations.
[5] Arc Flash Hazard Calculations: Myths, Facts, and Solutions, H. Wallace
Tinsley III, Michael Hodder, and Aidan M. Graham, IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007, originally presented at the 2006
IEEE/IAS Pulp and Paper Industry Conference, pp. 59, 60.

[6] NFPA 99-2012, Health Care Facilities Code.

[7] NFPA 110-2010, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems.
[8] IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, IEEE Std 242-2001 (Buff Book),
pp. 3-5, 607.
[9] IEEE Recommended Practice for Power Systems Analysis, IEEE Std
399-1990 (Brown Book), pp. 367.
[10] IEEE Recommended Practice for Emergency and Standby Power
Systems for Industrial and Commercial Applications, ANSI/IEEE Std 446-
1987 (Orange Book), pp. 175.
[11] Draft IEC/TR 61912-2 Ed.1.0: Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear
– Overcurrent protective devices – Selectivity under overcurrent conditions,
International Electrotechnical Commission, March 23, 2007, committee draft
updated after Copenhagen, pp. 11.
[12] Reducing Fault Stress with Zone-Selective Interlocking,
“0600DB0001R11/11-04/12”.
[13] Energy-based discrimination for low-voltage protective devices, Marc
Serpinet and Robert Morel, Cahier Technique n° 167, March 1998.
[14] Energy Based Tripping and Its Effect on Selective Coordination, John
Carlin & Josh Allen, Schneider Electric, May 2013.

© 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved 19

Selective Coordination vs Arc Flash Requirements 0600DB1303
White Paper 06/2013

Electrical equipment should be installed, operated, serviced, and maintained only by

qualified personnel. No responsibility is assumed by Schneider Electric for any
Schneider Electric USA, Inc. consequences arising out of the use of this material.
1415 S. Roselle Road © 2013 Schneider Electric All Rights Reserved
Palatine, IL 60067 USA Schneider Electric, Square D, PowerPact are trademarks owned by Schneider
1-888-778-2733 Electric Industries SAS or its affiliated companies. All other trademarks are the
www.schneider-electric.us property of their respective owners.

20