By Daleep Mohla, Wei-Jen Lee, Jim Phillips, and Albert Marroquin
©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/IKONSTUDIO
Introduction to
IEEE Standard 1584
GUIDE FOR PERFORMING ARC-FLASH HAZARD CALCULATIONS, 2018 EDITION
SINCE IT WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2002, IEEE STANDARD
1584 has been the premier standard for arc-flash hazard
arcing current, incident energy, and arc-flash boundary
(AFB) calculations for an arc-flash incident. After extensive
testing and model development and a validation period,
the long-awaited revision of IEEE 1584 has been published.
The purpose of this article is to introduce IEEE Standard
1584-2018, IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard
Calculations, to the industry. The model range and the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2020.2982574
Date of current version: 26 June 2020
rationale used for parameter selection is discussed for
quantities such as voltage, bolted root-mean-square (rms)
short circuit current, the gap between conductors, enclosure dimensions, fault duration, working distance, and system frequency. The rationale is provided for the selection
of electrode configurations and various enclosure (box)
sizes and arrangements. This model is based on more than
six times the tests performed for the model used in the
2002 standard. It provides additional modeling of electrode configurations which were not included in the 2002
version. Some guidance on identifying electrode configurations is provided.
64
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SE
PT EMDownloaded
BE R/ OC TO BE Ron2020
1077-2618/20©2020IEEE
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya.
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions
apply.
Overview
This section provides a summary of the scope and purpose of IEEE 1584-2018 [1], and it also provides an overview of the model range of parameters. It also highlights
important information on the assumptions and limitations
of the model input parameter range.
Scope
The guide described in this article provides models and an
analytical process to enable calculations of the predicted
incident thermal energy (E) and the AFB. The process covers a collection of applicable field data, the consideration
of power system operating scenarios, and the calculation
parameters. Applications include the electrical equipment
and conductors for three-phase ac voltages from 208 V to
15 kV. The calculations for single-phase ac and dc systems
are not a part of this guide, but some guidance and references are provided for those applications. Recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) to mitigate
arc-flash hazards are not included in this guide.
Purpose
The IEEE Standard 1584-2002 model considered only
one vertical orientation and two configurations, one in
VOA and the second in VCB.
Lab Tests and Model Development
An arc flash occurs when the insulation or isolation is not
sufficient to withstand the applied voltage, and electric
current jumps through an air gap from an energized conductor to another conductor to ground. Once an electric
arc is established, the ionization of air and conductive
materials, such as copper and aluminum, generates a hightemperature plasma and molecular cloud. Furthermore,
during the arcing event, the current creates successive
and r­epulsive magnetic forces that dramatically expand
the plasma cloud. The direction of the plasma cloud is
dictated by the right-hand rule. This magnetic expansion,
combined with rapid heating, is often explosive. With
Table 1. The range of input parameters for IEEE Standard
1584-2018
The purpose of the guide is to enable a qualified person(s)
to analyze power systems for the purpose of calculating the incident energy (E) to which employees could
be exposed during operations and maintenance work.
Contractors and facility owners can use this information
to provide appropriate protection for employees in accordance with the requirements of the applicable electrical
workplace safety standards.
Input Parameter
Range
Voltage (Voc)*
208–15,000-V three-phase
(line to line)
Bolted fault current (I bf)
208–600-V LV
500–106,000 A (rms symmetrical)
Bolted fault current (I bf)
601–15,000-V MV
200 to 65,000 A (rms symmetrical)
Gap (G) 208–600 V
6.35–76.2 mm (0.25–3 in)
Range of the Model
Gap (G) 601–15,000 V
19.05–254 mm (0.75–10 in)
Working distance (D)
≥305 mm (12 in) (see [1, G.7.6])
The new arc-flash model is based on testing organized by
the IEEE/National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) ArcFault-clearing time (T)
No limit (see [1, G.7.8])
Flash Phenomena Collaborative Research Project. More
Maximum height
1,244.6 mm (49 in)
than 1,800 new tests were performed at five different testMaximum width
1,244.6 mm (49 in)
ing facilities over a six-year period to ensure consistency
Minimum width
Four times the gap (4 × G)
and ­repeatability.
Opening
area
The range of the IEEE 1584-2018 [1] model is provided
1.549 m2 (2, 401 in 2)
in Table 1 [1, Sec. 4.2]. The IEEE 1584-2002 model had
Frequency
50 or 60 Hz
one conductor/electrode orientation (vertical), and two
* Voc refers to an actual prefault open-circuit line-to-line voltage. LV: low
configurations in open air (VOA) and in a box (VCB).
voltage; MV: medium voltage.
The IEEE 1584-2018 model has been developed from
extensive testing performed with the
purpose of obtaining data to include
Table 2. The conductor/electrode orientation and configurations
additional conductor orientations and
configurations. Three new electrode
Electrode
Conductor
configurations were added. These are
Configuration Standard Orientation Configuration Termination
identified as vertical conductors in a
VOA
2002-2018
Vertical
Open air
Open air
box terminating in an insulating barVCB
2002-2018
Vertical
In
a
box*
Open air
rier (VCBB), horizontal conductors in a
VCBB
2018
Vertical
In a box
Insulating barrier
box (HCB), and horizontal conductors
in open air (HOA) for a total of five
HOA
2018
Horizontal
Open air
Open air
electrode configurations as shown in
HCB
2018
Horizontal
In a box
Open air
Table 2. For definitions, see [1, Sec. 3]
*In a box = metal enclosure.
and [1, Annex G].
S E Pat
T E17:04:39
M BE R/O CT
O BEfrom
R 2020
IEEE Industry
Applications
Authorized licensed use limited to: Juan Chavarria Araya. Downloaded on September 13,2023
UTC
IEEEœXplore.
Restrictions
apply. Magazine
65
Worker
Position
FIGURE 1. A 480-V, three-phase arc-flash incident in an enclosure.
Worker
Position
FIGURE 3. The plasma trajectory for vertical electrodes [1, Fig. G.7].
depict the trajectory of the plasma on vertical and horizontal electrodes. In 2004, with support from industry,
the IEEE and the NFPA formed the Arc-Flash Phenomena
Collaborative Research Project to support research and
additional testing to increase the understanding of issues
related to arc-flash phenomena. The test results provide
information to help more accurately predict the hazards
associated with high-energy arcing, thereby improving electrical safety standards and providing practical
safeguards for employees in the workplace. The newly
published IEEE 1584-2018 guide refines previous calculation methods to estimate the arcing current and incident
energy for VCB and VOA electrode configurations and
provides new equations for VCBB, HCB, and HOA (see
the “Overview” section).
FIGURE 2. The plasma trajectory for horizontal electrodes. [1, Fig. G.8].
s­ ustained arc formation, electrical energy is continuously converted into intense heat, light, and pressure. Droplets of molten metal and toxic gases are also significant
hazards. Although the arc-flash event itself may only
last a few cycles, it can have a lasting impact on personnel, including burns, debilitating injury, and even death.
Figure 1 shows a 480-V, three-phase arc-flash incident
in an enclosure.
In 2002, IEEE Standard 1584, IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Calculations, was published. It has become
the predominant method in industry for performing arcflash calculation studies. Immediately after the release
of IEEE 1584-2002, the community pointed out some
deficiencies of the model and several areas of arc-flash
phenomena, where further research, testing, and validation were needed. For example, the orientation of the
electrodes plays an important role in determining the
plasma trajectory. Figures 2 and 3 [1, Figs. G.8 and G.7]
Lab Testing
To maintain consistency, the laboratory test facilities were
verified. The calibration procedure and the actual tests
were witnessed by representatives of the project team.
The laboratories were required to have an adjustable
power source to supply stable, short circuit current at the
desired voltage for the test duration. The following sections of IEEE 1584-2018 provide information on the lab
parameter characteristics and the data measurement and
recording used.
1) Lab Parameters Used in Testing: This section describes
the lab test parameters and their arrangement.
••Slug calorimeters comply with the specifications of
ASTM-1959. The weight of each slug calorimeter
was measured and recorded to ensure that it was
approximately 18 g.
••The arrangement of the calorimeters is displayed
in Figure 4. When performing VCB, HCB, VOA,
and HOA tests, the center row of the calorimeters
66
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SEPTEMBER/OCT
O BE Ron2020
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya. Downloaded
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
was placed 5 ft above the ground level and was
aligned with the center electrode. The height of the
electrode tips was selected to simulate the incident
energy exposure an electrical worker could receive
to his or her face and chest area.
••For the VCBB test, the tips of the electrodes extended to the bottom of the metal enclosure. They were
terminated using an insulating material barrier.
The center of the bottom row of calorimeters was
aligned with the center electrode. The lower edge
of the bottom row of calorimeters was aligned with
the lower edge of the metal enclosure.
••Hard-drawn copper electrodes with a diameter of
19.05 mm (3/4 in) were utilized.
••AWG 20 (~0.032 in) copper wire was used as the
starter wire. It was tied at 51 mm (2 in) from the
tip of the electrode. An AWG 10 wire may have to
be used (as stated on page 22 of IEEE 1584-2018) if
the AWG 20 wire does not trigger a sustainable arc.
The electrodes were cleaned after every test, and
the starter wire was checked to ensure that it had
firm contact with the electrode to reduce contact
resistance before the next test.
••The dimensions of the metal enclosure were selected or specified based upon the test voltage class.
••A test was performed for each setup. A second test
was performed for each setup if a sustainable arc
was not established during the first.
2) Data Measurement and Recording: The measurement
process of the tests performed was another highly
important step.
••Simultaneous voltage and current measurements
and recording at 20,000 samples/s were conducted.
••A temperature-rise measurement and recording
were performed using seven slug calorimeters and
K-type thermocouples. The sampling rate used was
at least 100 samples/s for each channel.
6 in
6 in
6 in
6 in
5 ft Above
Ground
6 in
6 in
FIGURE 4. The arrangement of the slug calorimeters (ASTM-1959
slug calorimeters; K-type thermocouples).
scenario, the dc offset and harmonic components of the
current waveform are filtered when performing the arcing current estimation. Figure 6 shows the comparison
between filtered and unfiltered rms values of the arcing current. A sliding window cosine filter was used to
derive the filtered rms signal from the sampled data.
The process of converting a rising and falling sinusoidal waveform by means of a sliding window filter introduces a delay in the rms filtered signal. This delay has no
influence in the model other than to obtain an equivalent
rms value.
Bonded/Grounded or Unbonded/Ungrounded Systems
IEEE 1584-2002 uses a coefficient called K 2 in the incident
energy equation to differentiate grounded from ungrounded/high-impedance grounded systems when calculating the
incident energy. As a result, an u
­ ngrounded/high-impedance grounded system ends up with higher incident energy for similar arcing incidents. After further ­analysis and
Data Processing
60,000
Arcing Current for a 13.8 kV VCB Test
IA
IB
IC
40,000
20,000
0
1
179
357
535
713
891
1,069
1,247
1,425
1,603
1,781
1,959
2,137
2,315
2,493
2,671
2,849
3,027
3,205
3,383
3,561
3,739
3,917
4,095
4,273
4,451
(A)
The arcing current estimation is necessary to determine the operating time
of the protective devices. Depending on the fault-inception angle and
X/R ratio of the system, the arcing
current may contain a dc component. As displayed in Figure 5, the
decaying of the dc offset can be
seen in a 13.8-kV, 20-kA arc-flash
test. Although the response of the
fuse operation follows the I2t, the
operation on most protective relays
is based on symmetrical ac current.
Because we do not know when the
fault will happen and normally do
not know the X/R ratio of the system, based on the conservative case
–20,000
–40,000
–60,000
Samples
FIGURE 5. The recorded arcing current from a 13.8-kV arc-flash test. IA, IB, and IC: phase A, B,
and C arc currents.
S E Pat
T E17:04:39
M BE R/O CT
O BEfrom
R 2020
IEEE Industry
Applications
Authorized licensed use limited to: Juan Chavarria Araya. Downloaded on September 13,2023
UTC
IEEEœXplore.
Restrictions
apply. Magazine
67
30,000
25,000
20,000
(A)
performed by a group of industry
experts with various backgrounds
comprising researchers, academia,
manufacturers, end users, and mathOriginal Signal
Filtered Signal
ematical model-validation and verification experts. The model-validation
process was completed in the following four main phases:
1)Reviewing raw data processing:
During this stage, samples of the
raw data measurements were
evaluated to determine how the
data were converted from actual
instantaneous signal measurements to final rms average values
of voltage and current, which
could then be used in the data
regression analysis process utilized for the model’s creation.
2) Prototyping model-validation tools: This phase included
the creation of mathematical models in different computing languages and also the use of statistical analysis
algorithms for the purpose of graphical analysis of the
model’s output results. The tools created included
MATLAB models, spreadsheets, and C language-based
analytical tools.
3) Establishing model performance metrics: The metrics or
benchmarks used to validate the output of the new
model included a direct comparison to the processed test data measurements and observing the fidelity of the model’s output. The metrics also included
partial comparisons to IEEE 1584-2002. Also, comparisons were made against several published IEEE re­­
search papers with an emphasis on those that included
information for the new electrode configurations.
4) Determining the final range of the model: During
this stage, the effect of each input parameter was analyzed against parameter sweep plots to assess the
behavior of the model’s output across the range of
parameters used in the laboratory tests. This stage also
included an evaluation of the typical data inputs provided in [1, Sec. 6, Tables 8 and 10].
RMS Values of the Arcing Current
15,000
10,000
5,000
1
133
265
397
529
661
793
925
1,057
1,189
1,321
1,453
1,585
1,717
1,849
1,981
2,113
2,245
2,377
2,509
2,641
2,773
2,905
3,037
0
Samples
FIGURE 6. The filtered and unfiltered rms arcing current comparison.
1,233
1,121
1,009
897
785
673
561
449
337
225
1
Neutral Current
113
Current (A)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
–2,000
–4,000
–6,000
–8,000
–10,000
–12,000
Samples (0.1 ms/sample)
VCB-6-17.2-10-G
VCB-6-17.2-10-UG
FIGURE 7. The neutral current for bonded and unbonded enclosure
tests (VOC = 480 V, six-cycle, Ibf = 17.2 kA, and gap = 10 mm).
testing, it was found that some current flows through the
neutral conductor in the first few cycles due to an unbalanced arcing fault. The current disappeared when the
arcing fault evolved into a three-phase balanced fault.
The observation of smaller neutral arc currents during
the first few cycles is, understandably, what led IEEE
1584-2002 to adjust the energy of ungrounded/highresistance grounded systems. Figure 7 shows the neutral current for a grounded and an ungrounded system
during an arc-flash incident at 480 V. The duration of
the neutral arc currents is reduced significantly as the
system voltage is increased. Testing at 2,700 V showed
no difference on grounded or ungrounded systems.
The results are presented in Table 3. The differentiation
between grounded and ungrounded systems is no longer
considered to have a significant effect on the new incident energy model.
Arc-Flash Model Validation
The model-validation stage was critical to ensure the consistency of the results of the new arc-flash model presented in [1, Sec. 4.4–4.10]. The model-validation process was
Arc-Flash New Model Performance Improvements
The model-validation process evaluated the fidelity of
the IEEE 1584-2018 arc-flash model output results and
produced evidence of its improved performance when
compared to the 2002 model. The following performance
improvements were evaluated during the model validation process.
1) Low-voltage (LV) arc current model: The arc current
model has improved physical behavior across every
voltage level based in the range. The IEEE 1584-2002
model produced inaccurate arc current predictions at
some input voltages. Figure 8 shows clear evidence of the
improved performance, in particular between 690 and
68
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SEPTEMBER/OCT
O BE Ron2020
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya. Downloaded
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Arcing Current (kA)
Arcing Current (kA)
1,000 V, where the arc curTable 3. A comparison of E for bonded, unbonded, and resistance ground arc-flash
rent was predicted to be
higher than the bolted
testing (Voc = 2.7 kV, 12-cycle, Ibf = 10 kA, gap = 1.5 in, and D = 24 in)
short circuit current. Arc
VCB-12-10-1.5-24
current modeling improvement is certainly one of
Ground Resistance
the most important aspects
Unbonded/Ungrounded
Bonded/Grounded
(100-A SLG)
evaluated during the model
E (cal/cm2)
E (cal/cm2)
E (cal/cm2)
validation stage. Accurate
currents lead to accurate
Maximum
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
Average
fault duration determination.
4.63
3.73
4.87
3.63
4.12
3.47
2) Effect of gaps on the arc cur4.67
3.73
4.27
3.38
4.28
3.43
rent: The arc current is sen4.85
3.68
4.21
3.32
4.35
3.45
sitive to gaps for mediumvoltage (MV) systems. All
4.24
3.55
5.18
3.6
—
—
of the physical models
4.32
3.33
4.64
3.4
—
—
show that, in MV systems,
SLG: single line to ground.
short circuit current and
gaps are the most important factors that de­­
termine arc current. The 2002
model was not sensitive to gap variation, which introVCB Arcing Current at
lbf = 20 kA, Gap = 19.05 mm
duced errors in the determination of the operating
30
time of overcurrent protective devices. Figure 9 demonstrates that the IEEE 1584-2002 model arc current
25
was only a function of bolted fault current and was
20
insensitive to both voltage and gaps. Figure 9 also
shows that IEEE 1584-2002 did not consider arc cur15
rent variation for MV systems (because 100% of I arc
10
and minimum curves overlap).
3) LV incident energy model: Overly conservative incident
5
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
energy correction factors (CFs) were removed from the
Voltage (V)
LV portion of the model. This improvement is particularly important for equipment with short circuit current
VCB1584-2002
VCBnew (Average)
and voltage parameters, which approach the LV arc
VCB1584-2002 (min)
VCBnew (min)
sustainability threshold. In [1, Sec. 4.3], it states, “Sustainable arcs are possible but less likely in three-phase
FIGURE 8. The improved LV Iarc performance [1, Fig. G.32].
systems operating at 240 V nominal or less with an
available short circuit current less than 2000 A.” Test
observations showed that the arc can be sustained at
VCB Arcing Current at
2,500 A and above. It was the decision of the working
lbf = 20 kA, Gap = 76.2 mm
group that arc is less likely at 2,000 A (80% of 2,500 A).
20
Figure 10 shows the significant reduction in energy
19
output of the new model.
18
4) Reduced AFB: The AFB calculation is more accurate, in
particular, for MV VCB configurations. Physical AFBs
17
are significantly reduced as a result of the additional
16
testing and research. AFB reduction is certainly one of
the most important improvements evaluated during the
15
model-validation stage.
14
5) Effect of enclosure dimension on incident energy: The
0
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
effect of the enclosure dimensions is now considered.
Voltage (V)
The only test-enclosure size considered for MV equipVCB1584-2002
VCBnew (Average)
ment in IEEE 1584-2002 was on the larger dimension
VCB1584-2002 (min)
VCBnew (min)
end of all enclosures in the new model (the 2002 model
did not consider the effect of varying enclosure dimensions and only produced results for three standard
FIGURE 9. The improved MV Iarc performance [1, Fig. G.33].
S E Pat
T E17:04:39
M BE R/O CT
O BEfrom
R 2020
IEEE Industry
Applications
Authorized licensed use limited to: Juan Chavarria Araya. Downloaded on September 13,2023
UTC
IEEEœXplore.
Restrictions
apply. Magazine
69
p.u. Correction
Incident Energy (cal/cm2)
p.u. Correction
Incident Energy (cal/cm2)
Incident Energy (cal/cm2)
enclosure sizes). With the increased proliferation of
reduced footprint equipment, it became essential to conLV Incident Energy Comparison (1584-2018 Versus 1584-2002)
sider the effect of smaller enclosures (in particular, for
V = 208 V, EC = VCB, Gap = 25 mm,
MV equipment). The new model predicts that enclosures
Box (14 in × 12 in × 8 in), Working Distance = 18 in
with smaller opening areas reflect higher energy. For
20
18
MV, the largest enclosure has a height and width of
16
1,245 mm each (49 in × 49 in). Larger enclosures can be
14
modeled but are analyzed with the largest enclosure-size
12
10
CF (to the right of region 2 in Figure 11) because the
8
plasma does not fill the enclosure volume, and the
6
changes to the enclosure opening area have a minimum
4
2
impact on the incident energy estimation. Figure 11
0
shows the CF produced by the MV incident energy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
model for an enclosure opening area range between 400
Ibf (kA)
and 2,704 in2. For HCB, the incident energy reduction
2
Incident Energy IEEE 1584-2002 (cal/cm )
effect is nearly 15% [an 0.85-per unit (p.u.) reduction].
Incident Energy IEEE 1584-2018 (cal/cm2)
The depth of the enclosure is only considered in
the LV part of the model when the depth is lower than
FIGURE 10. The reduced incident energy for LV.
203 mm (8 in). Figure 12 depicts the depth effect for
shallow enclosures (to the left of
region 1). For shallow enclosures,
the opening area input parameter is
Voc = 13.8 kV, lbf = 18.241, Gap = 152 mm,
meant to show the effect of depth
Working Distance = 36 in, Fault Clearing Time = 193 ms
instead of the opening area. In this
1
10.4
HCB
HOA
Region 1
Region 2
example, the 150-in2 opening area
0.95
9.9
point represents an enclosure where
9.4
0.9
the electrodes are near the enclosure
8.9
0.85
8.4
opening plane and where the depth
0.8
7.9
is smaller than 8 in. To account for
0.75
7.4
depth variation, the opening area
0.7
6.9
can be increased toward 400 in 2
0.65
6.4
(20 in × 20 in), which would rep5.9
0.6
200
700
1,200
1,700
2,200
2,700
resent that the depth is nearly
Opening Area (in2)
8 in. As expected, once the depth is
greater than 8 in, the effect of the
opening area reduces the incident
FIGURE 11. The MV enclosure-size CF.
energy as the opening area increases. The enclosure-size CF is 1 when
the depth is greater than 203 mm
Enclosure-Size CF for a Shallow Enclosure: VCBB Voc = 208 V, lbf = 3.34,
(8 in) and the actual enclosure openGap = 25 mm, Working Distance = 18 in, Fault Clearing Time = 25 ms
ing area is smaller than or equal to
1.25
400 in2 (20 in × 20 in). The encloIf Depth> 8 in
1.2
1
sures of these dimensions were not
1.15
included in the tests; however, such
dimensions are considered less com1.1
0.95
mon in actual equipment. To sum1.05
marize, the model-validation process
1
0.9
ensured the accuracy of the new arc0.98
flash model results and produced
Incident Energy—Shallow Enclosure
0.9
0.85
enhanced range and performance of
Region 1 End
0.85
the model.
p.u. Enclosure-Size CF
0.8
150
250
350
450
550
650
Opening Area (in2)
FIGURE 12. The LV enclosure-size CF.
750
850
0.8
Arc-Flash Hazard Study
An arc-flash hazard study should be
performed by qualified persons who
are knowledgeable about power
70
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SEPTEMBER/OCT
O BE Ron2020
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya. Downloaded
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
system studies, power distribution equipment, installation
practices, and different modes of operation. This standard provides equations for the calculation of the thermal
incident energy exposure to a worker at the working
distance. As previously mentioned, recommendations for
PPE are not included in this guide. PPE selection is based
on the arc rating performance of the materials to an electrical arc discharge and heat transfer based on the Stoll
curve. Readers are advised to consult standards such as
NFPA 70E and applicable ASTM standards for the proper
selection of PPE.
An arc-flash study requires collection of the data listed in
Table 1. However, a significant amount of additional data is
typically needed to develop the system’s simulation models.
Just like with the 2002 edition of IEEE 1584, most of the
data collection is for conducting short circuit and protective
device coordination studies, which are integral parts of the
arc-flash study. An arc-flash study requires information on
the available short circuit currents, protective device data,
modes of operation, and so forth. The following sections
expand upon on each data-collection requirement.
Single Line (One-Line Diagram)
One of the first places to begin the study is with existing
single-line diagram(s) if available. The diagrams should
be up to date with any changes that may have occurred
in the system. If a single-line diagram is not available, one
needs to be created.
Modes of Operation
The different modes of operation can affect the short circuit current and protective device operation. The modes
of operation include normal operation and may also
include configurations with different utility feeders in service, tie devices open or closed, and other sources, such
as generators. Each of the configurations may affect the
arc-flash study results.
Source Short Circuit Data
If an up-to-date short circuit study is available, this information can be used as part of the arc-flash study. However, if the short circuit study is not up to date or does not
exist, one will need to be conducted based on applicable
standards such as IEEE Standard 551 (IEEE Violet Book),
IEC 60909-0 Short Circuit Currents in Three-Phase a.c.
Systems—Part 0: Calculation of Currents, and IEEE Standard 242 (IEEE Buff Book).
If the short circuit study is being updated or performed for the first time, information regarding the
available bolted rms symmetrical short circuit current, X/R ratio, voltage, and location of the short
circuit current should be obtained. However, other
formats may also be used, such as equivalent impedance data or short circuit MVA. The short circuit data
should include conditions that yield maximum, normal, and minimum short circuit currents. The mini-
mum short circuit currents can cause significantly
slower protective device opening time. Temporary or
alternate sources of short-circuit should be considered when selecting the operating conditions for the
arc-flash study.
Impedance Data
Impedance data for components such as transformers and
conductors are a necessary part of short circuit calculations. Tolerances in the impedance of these elements can
change the short circuit current and should be considered
accordingly. Positive tolerances can be assumed when
determining the minimum short circuit current.
Source Protective Device Data
In addition, data regarding the upstream overcurrent
protective device(s) of the source that serves the f­acility
under study are required. This may include fuse data,
overcurrent relay, circuit breaker and instrument transformer data, or circuit breaker data for low-voltage systems. The time-current characteristics are necessary to
define the arc duration at the service equipment or starting point. IEEE 242 provides guidance for conducting protective device coordination studies.
Enclosure Size
The 2018 model includes more enclosure sizes as well
as a CF to compensate for the reflectivity effect of the
enclosure size on incident energy and AFB. In general,
the smaller the enclosure opening, the more focused
the incident energy will be (except for shallow LV enclosures where the depth has an increased effect on the
spreading of the plasma). [Refer to 5) in the “Arc-Flash
New Model Performance Improvements” section.] Larger
enclosures with wider opening areas tend to produce
less incident energy. The incident energy equations were
normalized to a 508-mm (20-in) × 508-mm (20-in) opening area (which produces the highest incident energy).
For enclosures larger than the range of the model,
adjusting the calculations to the largest enclosure size
is an alternative. In [1, Table 8], information on how
test-enclosure dimensions are associated with different equipment classes is provided. It is preferred to use
actual dimensions where possible and not overestimate
the incident energy by using the dimension that produces the highest incident energy. A conservative approach
was taken to account for the effect of each parameter in
the new model; thus, data collection (including dimensions) should aim for accuracy.
Protective Devices
The arcing current duration is normally defined by
how long it takes an upstream protective device to
clear the fault. Engineering judgment must be used
to determine which upstream device is to be considered. Typically, devices in a separate compartment or
S E Pat
T E17:04:39
M BE R/O CT
O BEfrom
R 2020
IEEE Industry
Applications
Authorized licensed use limited to: Juan Chavarria Araya. Downloaded on September 13,2023
UTC
IEEEœXplore.
Restrictions
apply. Magazine
71
­ nclosure that is judged to not be affected by a downe
stream arc flash are used.
The total clearing time, which is the total time until the
circuit is completely interrupted and the arcing current
is extinguished, should be used. This may include time
functions such as device sensing and opening times, safety
margins, and auxiliary devices such as lockout relays and
total melting time (in the case of fuses); in other words,
the total time until the arc is fully extinguished.
Gap Distance
The typical gap distance between conductors is provided
in IEEE 1584 based on the class of each piece of equipment that is a part of the study. This distance is necessary
for the calculations. It may be prudent to ascertain the
gaps in conjunction with the determination of the electrode configuration because gaps can change significantly
from horizontal to vertical orientations.
Working Distance
The working distance is defined as the distance between
the potential arc source and the face and chest of the
worker performing the task. This distance has a significant effect on the available incident energy. The closer a
worker is to the arc source, the higher the incident energy
exposure. The list of equipment classes and working distance has increased with the 2018 edition, but the overall
basic concept is the same as that of the 2002 edition.
The default working distances listed in IEEE 1584 are
18 and 24 in for LV equipment (such as switchgear) and
36 in for MV equipment. This distance is based on the
sum of the distance between the worker and the front
R
500/5
CB_M
CBF1
R1
MV Switchgear
13.8 kV
500/5
T1
1.5 MVA
5.5 %z
LVCB_M
Utility Source
436 MVAsc
18.2 kA
1.52567+j22.885%
13.8 kV
R
R2
T2
65 kVA Feeder Cable
2.6 %z 3-1/C 1/0
LVCBF1
CU 150 ft
LV Switchgear
0.48 kV
MCCB_M
Panelboard
0.208 kV
FIGURE 13. The one-line diagram used for calculation examples.
opening of the equipment and the distance from the
front opening to the prospective arc source inside the
enclosure. For shallow enclosures, the working distance
may be shorter than the default distance in the standard.
However, consideration must be given to the actual task,
and if known, the actual working distance should be
used. For example, accessing energized switchgear from
the rear may place the worker in shorter-than-default
working distances. In these cases, the actual working
distance should be used. Similarly, utilizing remote racking and operation devices may increase the working distances substantially.
Electrode Configurations
The IEEE 1584-2002 model was based on arc-flash tests
using three electrodes in a vertical configuration in a VCB
and in VOA. As previously mentioned in Table 2, the new
IEEE 1584-2018 model includes three additional electrode
configurations, which are VCBB, HCB, and HOA.
As part of the data collection for the arc-flash calculations, the conductor configuration or arrangement that most
closely resembles the actual electrode configurations needs
to be identified. Each type of equipment, such as switchgear,
panelboards, motor control centers, and so forth, may contain
conductors arranged in more than one electrode configuration. Examples of how the electrode configurations used for
laboratory tests correlate to actual equipment are provided in
[1, Table 9]. Calculations illustrating the impact on the results
as a function of the electrode configurations are illustrated in
the “Calculation Examples” section of this article.
Calculation Examples
The purpose of this section is to present calculation
examples that include the use of the parameters described
in the “Arc-Flash Hazard Study” section and to provide
additional calculation examples besides those provided in
[1, Sec. D]. The selected examples illustrate the ­application
of the arc current variation and the e
­nclosure-size CF.
Consider a radial distribution system consisting of a utility
service, 13.8-kV feeder, 1,500-kVA transformer, and 480-V
feeder to a 2,000-A switchgear. The switchgear feeds
a 208-V 200-amp panelboard. The one-line diagram is
shown in Figure 13.
The short circuit current and arc-flash input parameters are listed in Tables 4–6. The relevant impedance and
other electrical characteristics of the system are provided
as legends in the diagram.
13.8-kV Switchgear
Table 4 lists the input parameters for the arc-flash incident energy calculation at the 13.8-kV switchgear. This
example highlights the HCB configuration applied to
an enclosure with opening dimensions, which exceed
the maximum model range. The HCB configuration was
selected to represent the condition when the circuit breaker is not inside the enclosure.
72
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SEPTEMBER/OCT
O BE Ron2020
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya. Downloaded
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Using [1, Sec. 4, eqs. (1) and (17)], the total arc current
based on the maximum bolted fault current of 18.241 kA is
I arc = I arc- 2 = 16.507 kA.
The total combined arc duration is obtained from
relay “R1” as a combination of the relay trip time, circuit
breaker “CB_M” opening time, and any additional operational delay is determined from Figure 14. The arc duration time is
T = 193 ms.
The enclosure dimensions can be used to calculate
the enclosure-size CF. In [1, Sec. 4, eq. (11)], this equation
can be solved using a width equal to 1,244.6 mm, and
the solution for [1, Sec. 4, eq. (12)] is height1 = 49. Both
dimensions exceed the maximum value of 1,244.6 mm
(49 in). The CF is obtained from [1, Sec. 4, eqs. (13) and
(14)]. In [1, Sec. 4, eq. (13)], this equation is the equivalent
enclosure size and [1, Sec. 4, eq. (14)] is the CF for a “typical” enclosure:
Width 1 =
8660.4 + ^ Width - 660.4 h $ `
25.4
Voc + 10
jB
22
= 36.956
Height 1 = 49
Height 1 + Width 1
EES =
= 42.978
2
2
CF = - 0.0001923 $ EES + 0.01935 $ EES + 0.6899
= 1.1764.
The incident energy is calculated using [1, Sec. 4, eqs.
(3)–(5) and (20)]:
E = E 2 = 37.656 J/cm 2 ^8.98 cal/cm 2 h .
The AFB is determined using [1, Sec. 4, eqs. (7)–(9)
and (23)]:
AFB = AFB 2 = 3.080 # 10 3 mm ^121.26 in h .
The reduced arc current is achieved from [1, Sec.
4, eq. (2)]; however, it has no impact on the calculation because both the original and reduced arc current
cause the relay to operate in its instantaneous region:
13.736 kA, the enclosure-size CF is the same at 1.176, the
arc duration was also concluded at 193 ms because the
relay still responded in its instantaneous region. The incident energy is 30.794 J/cm2 (7.36 cal/cm2), and the AFB
is 2,731 mm (107.5 in). The arc current CF is the same as
0.988, and the minimum arc current is 13.58 kA.
Table 4. The input parameters for a 13.8-kV HCB example
Input Parameter
Value
(Imp. Units)
Value
(SI)
Voltage
13.8 kV
13.8 kV
Gap
6 in
152 mm
Working distance
36 in
914 mm
Height
52 in
1,321 mm
Width
50 in
1,270 mm
Depth
45 in
1,143 mm
Maximum l bf
18.241 kA
Minimum l bf
15.2 kA
Imp.: imperial; SI: International System of Units.
Table 5. The input parameters for a 480-V VCBB example
Input Parameter
Value
(Imp. Units)
Value
(SI)
Voltage
480 V
480 V
Gap
1.25 in
32 mm
Working distance
24 in
609 mm
Height
26 in
660 mm
Width
26 in
660 mm
Depth
20 in
508 mm
Maximum l bf
25.44 kA
Minimum l bf
24.02 kA
Table 6. The input parameters for a 208-V VCBB example
Input Parameter
Value
(Imp. Units)
Value
(SI)
Voltage
208 V
208 V
VarC f = k1 $ V 6oc + k2 $ V 5oc + k3 $ V 4oc
+ k4 $ V 3oc + k5 $ V 2oc + k6 $ Voc
+ k7 = 0.024
1 - 0.5 $ VarC f = 0.988
Gap
1 in
25 mm
Working distance
18 in
457 mm
Height
19 in
482 mm
Width
14 in
355 mm
I arc_min = I arc_2 = 16.310 kA.
Depth
8 in
203 mm
Maximum l bf
3.34 kA
Minimum l bf
3.23 kA
The same process is identical for the minimum available short circuit current of 15.2 kA. The arc current is
S E Pat
T E17:04:39
M BE R/O CT
O BEfrom
R 2020
IEEE Industry
Applications
Authorized licensed use limited to: Juan Chavarria Araya. Downloaded on September 13,2023
UTC
IEEEœXplore.
Restrictions
apply. Magazine
73
480-V LV Switchgear
Table 5 shows the input parameters selected for this
example. This example highlights the application of the
new arc-flash model to a VCBB configuration with typical
enclosure dimensions. The example also highlights the
effect of the arc current variation and its relationship to
the minimum available bolted fault current.
Using the maximum bolted fault current and [1, Sec. 4,
eqs. (1) and (25)]:
I arc =
1
0.6 2 $
1 - 0.6 2 - Voc2
c
mE
c
m ;
Voc
I arc_6002
0.6 2 $ I bf2
Height 1 + Width 1
= 25.948
2
CF = -0.0002976 $ EES 2 + 0.0320 $ EES + 0.4790
= 1.1089.
EES =
The incident energy is achieved from [1, Sec. 4, eq. (6)]
using the coefficients of [1, Table 3] for VCBB:
E = E # 600
= 10.531 J/cm 2 ^2.517 cal/cm 2 h .
The AFB is verified with [1, Sec. 4, eq. (10)] using the
coefficients of [1, Sec. 4, Table 3] for VCBB:
AFB = AFB # 600 = 916.18 mm ^36.07 inh .
I arc = 20.39 kA.
The LV power circuit breaker opening time is 70 ms
based on the characteristic time-current curve (TCC)
displayed in Figure 15. The TCC curve includes both
the trip and breaker opening time:
The arc current variation can be ascertained using
[1, Sec. 4, eq. (2)].
The arc current reduction value is 0.882:
I arc_min = I arc_2 = 17.97 kA.
T = 70 ms.
00
5, 0
00
10 0
,0
00
3,
00
0
1,
0
30
0
10
30
50
10
5
3
1
0.
5
(s)
By inspecting Figure 15, the expected arc duration is
only a few milliseconds longer, and thus, this reduced
The enclosure-size CF is ascertained using the folarc current solution does not produce a higher incident
lowing equations from [1, Table 6] of IEEE 1584-2018
energy. The same equations and steps can be used for
because both the width and height are between 508
the minimum available bolted fault current value of
and 660.4 mm and the equivalent height (Height1) and
24.02 kA, so the intermediate steps can be omitted.
equivalent width (Width1) are
The arc current is 19.303 kA, and the enclosure-size CF
is the same at 1.1089. The arc duration was concluded
Width 1 = 0.03937 $ Width = 25.9842
to be approximately 71.6 ms because the arc current
is still in the instantaneous band region. The incident
Height 1 = 0.03937 $ Height = 25.9842.
energy is 10.083 J/cm2 (2.41 cal/cm2), and the AFB is
The CF is derived from [1, Sec. 4, eqs. (13) and (14)]:
899.41 mm (35.41 in).
However, the reduced arc current
obtained using the minimum available bolted short circuit current is
10
now a potential problem. The arc current CF is the same as 0.882, and the
5
minimum arc current is 17.025 kA.
3
The expected arc duration for this
Utility Source
arc fault current can be as high as
436 MVASC
240 ms because the reduced cur1
R1-P-51
R
OC1
rent is between the instantaneous
R1
0.5
CB_M
and short-time regions of the TCC, as
0.3
R1-P-50
shown in Figure 15. The estimated
MV
Switchgear
OC1
incident energy using this arc duration is 29.120 J/cm2 (6.96 cal/cm2), and
0.1
Iarc Minimum
the corresponding AFB is 1,610.6 mm
13.58 kA at 13.8 kV
0.05
(63.41 in). This incident energy and
Iarc Maximum
0.03
AFB can be considered worst-case
16.507 kA at 13.8 kV
results for this location.
This example illustrated the appli0.01
cation of VCBB enclosure-size CFs,
arc current variation, and the need to
Amps × 100-MV Switchgear (Nominal kV = 13.8, Plot Reference kV = 13.8)
consider both the maximum and minimum bolted fault current in the calculations, as described in [1, Sec. 6.3].
FIGURE 14. The relay trip-time determination.
74
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SEPTEMBER/OCT
O BE Ron2020
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya. Downloaded
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
10
10
5
3
5
0.3
0.1
Table 6 shows the input parameters
selected for this example. This example illustrates the calculations for a
208-V panelboard fed by a 65-kVA
transformer. This example also
illustrates how to use the box CF
when the depth of the enclosure is
203.2 mm (8 in) or lower.
Using [1, Sec. 4, eqs. (1) and (25)],
the arc current can be determined
for the maximum bolted fault current
of 3.344 kA:
0.05
LVCB M
larc: 100% (lbf Maximum)
0.1
20.388 kA at 0.48 kV
3,
00
5, 0
00
10 0
,0
00
0
0
30
1,
00
0
50
10
30
10
5
0.01
3
0.01
1
0.05
0.03
0.
5
0.03
Amps × 100-LV Switchgear (Nominal kV = 0.48, Plot Reference kV = 0.48)
FIGURE 15. The LV power CB opening-time determination.
larc: 85.6% (lbf Minimum)
1.3 kA at 0.208 kV
1
I arc = 1.569 kA.
MCCB_M
0.5
1
0.5
larc: 85.6% (lbf Maximum)
0.3
1.34 kA at 0.208 kV
0.3
Panelboard
3,
00
1,
0
30
0
10
50
30
10
5
3
1
5
0.
00
5, 0
00
10 0
,0
00
0.01
0
0.01
(s)
0.05
0.03
larc: 100% (lbf Minimum)
1.515 kA at 0.208 kV
0.1
larc: 100% (lbf Maximum)
0.05
1.569 kA at 0.208 kV
0.03
MCCB_M
0.1
T = 25 ms.
The enclosure-size CF is determined using the following equations
from [1, Table 6] of IEEE 1584-2018
because both the width and height
are fewer than 508 mm:
3
larc: 88.2% (lbf Maximum) 1
17.97 kA at 0.48 kV
0.5
larc: 100% (lbf Minimum) 0.3
19.303 kA at 0.48 kV
LV Switchgear
0.5
208-V LV Panelboard
The arc duration is obtained
based on the LV molded case circuit breaker. The opening time is
estimated based on the time-current
characteristic curve displayed in Figure 16. Once again, the TCC curve
includes the trip and breaker opening times:
Iarc: 88.2% (Ibf Minimum)
17.02 kA at 0.48 kV
LVCB_M
1
(s)
This example shows how the model
can be used to predict and select
instantaneous protective device settings. The results of this example
lead to the conclusion that improvements in the protective device
instantaneous pickup are needed
to ensure that the instantaneous
pickup is below all of the possible
arc currents.
Amps × 100-LV Panelboard (Nominal kV = 0.208, Plot Reference kV = 0.208)
FIGURE 16. The molded-case CB opening-time determination.
Width 1 = 0.03937 $ Width = 18.976
Height 1 = 0.03937 $ Height = 13.976.
The CF is derived from [1, Sec. 4, eqs. (13) and (15)]:
Height 1 + Width 1
= 16.476
2
1
CF =
- 0.0002778 $ EES 2 + 0.1194 $ EES - 0.2778
= 1.06914.
EES =
The incident energy is concluded from [1, Sec. 4, eq.
(6)] using the coefficients of [1, Table 3] for VCBB:
E = E # 600 = 0.326 J/cm 2 ^0.078 cal/cm 2 h .
The AFB is determined with [1, Sec. 4, eq. (10)] using
the coefficients of [1, Table 3] for VCBB:
AFB = AFB # 600 = 100.6 mm ^3.96 in h .
The arc current variation can be obtained using [1, Sec. 4,
eq. (2)]. The arc current reduction value is 0.856. The arc
current variation factor is the highest on the lower end of
the voltage range. The reduced arc current is
I arc_min = I arc_2 = 1.34 kA.
The reduced arc current does not produce a significant change to the expected operating time of
the molded case circuit breaker, as depicted in Figure 16. The incident energy based on the reduced
S E Pat
T E17:04:39
M BE R/O CT
O BEfrom
R 2020
IEEE Industry
Applications
Authorized licensed use limited to: Juan Chavarria Araya. Downloaded on September 13,2023
UTC
IEEEœXplore.
Restrictions
apply. Magazine
75
arc current at 25 ms is 0.268 J/cm 2 (0.064 cal/cm 2)
and the AFB is 90.68 mm (3.57 in). For the sake of
brevity, the calculation example for the minimum
bolted fault current is omitted, but it is not expected
to produce a significant difference in the arc duration. Figure 16 shows that the expected arc current
for the minimum bolted fault current case is not
expected to exceed 25 ms.
This example illustrated the application of the enclosure-size CF for a “shallow” enclosure with a VCBB configuration. The selected voltage and bolted fault current
are still above the 2,000-A bolted fault current sustainability value presented in [1, Sec. 4.2].
Conclusions
The quantification of arc-flash hazard energy has been
an active topic of discussion between safety professionals
since it was first identified as one of the causes of burn
injuries to electrical workers more than 25 years ago. The
first effort to quantify incident energy was IEEE 15842002, which was the first IEEE standard featuring a model
based on only 300 tests. This article is intended to be a
primer on the substantial advancements made in IEEE
1584-2018, which is based on more than 1,800 tests. This
article covered the scope, test procedures, model development, input parameters required, and actual calculation
examples based on IEEE 1584-2018. It also addressed how
to determine the different electrode orientations and configurations necessary for the proper application of IEEE
1584-2018. Arc-flash hazard energy quantification is an
evolutionary work, and standards will need to be updated
as we learn more and perform further testing. It can be
concluded that IEEE 1584-2018 is a significant improvement in this evolutionary process.
Author Information
Daleep Mohla (d.c.mohla@ieee.org) is with DCM Electrical Consulting Services, Inc., Missouri City, Texas.
Wei-Jen Lee is with the University of Texas at Arlington.
Jim Phillips is with Brainfiller, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Albert Marroquin is with ETAP, Irvine, California.
Mohla is a Life Fellow of the IEEE. Lee is a Fellow of
the IEEE. Phillips and Marroquin are Senior Members
of the IEEE. This article first appeared as “Introduction
to IEEE Standard. 1584 IEEE Guide for Performing ArcFlash Hazard Calculations—2018 Edition” at the 2019
IEEE IAS Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference.
It was reviewed by the IAS Petroleum & Chemical
Industry Committee.
References
[1] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE Standard 1584-2018, Aug. 2019.
[2] National Electric Code, NFPA 70, 2017.
[3] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E-2018.
[4] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE Standard 1584‑2002, 2002.
[5] R. H. Lee, “The other electrical hazard: Electrical arc blast burns,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. IA-18, no. 3, pp. 246–251, May 1982. doi: 10.1109/
TIA.1982.4504068.
[6] R. L. Doughty, T. E. Neal, and H. L. Floyd, “Predicting incident energy
to better manage the electric arc hazard on 600-V power distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 257–269, Jan./Feb. 2000.
doi: 10.1109/28.821823.
[7] T. Gammon, W. Lee, Z. Zhang, and B. C. Johnson, “Arc flash hazards,
incident energy, PPE ratings, and thermal burn injury: A deeper look,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 4275–4283, Jan. 2015. doi:
10.1109/TIA.2015.2431644.
[8] W. Lee, Z. Zhang, S. Rau, T. Gammon, B. C. Johnson, and J. Beyreis,
“Arc flash light intensity measurement system design,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 4267–4274, May 2015. doi: 10.1109/
TIA.2015.2431638.
[9] T. E. Neal and R. F. Parry, “Shrapnel, pressure, and noise,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 49–53, Apr. 2005. doi: 10.1109/
MIA.2005.1423902.
[10] M. J. Lang, K. S. Jones, and T. E. Neal, “Impact of arc flash events
with outward convective flows on worker protection strategies,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1597–1604, May 2011. doi: 10.1109/
TIA.2011.2155613.
[11] K. J. Lippert, D. M. Colaberardino, and C. W. Kimblin, “Understanding IEEE 1584 arc flash calculations,” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 10,
pp. 116–123, Apr. 2012. doi: 10.1109/MIA.2005.1423905.
[12] W. Lee, T. Gammon, Z. Zhang, B. Johnson, and S. Vogel, “IEEE/NFPA
collaboration on arc flash phenomena research project,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 11, pp. 69–75, Mar./Apr. 2012. doi: 10.1109/MPE.2014.2322302.
[13] D. Sweeting, “Protecting your staff from arcing hazards,” in Proc.
IEEE IAS Elect. Safety Workshop, Apr. 2013, pp. 169–175. doi: 10.1109/
ESW.2013.6509018.
[14] D. Sweeting, “Applying IEC 60909, fault current calculations,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 575–580, Mar./Apr. 2012. doi:
10.1109/TIA.2011.2180011.
[15] A. D. Stokes and D. K. Sweeting, “Closure to discussions of “Electric
arcing burn hazards,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 146–147,
Jan./Feb. 2006. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2005.861908.
[16] D. Sweeting, “Arcing faults in electrical equipment,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 387–397, Jan./Feb. 2011. doi: 10.1109/
TIA.2010.2091476.
[17] R. B. Campbell and D. A. Dini, “Occupational injuries from electrical shock and arc flash events,” Fire Protection Research Foundation,
NFPA, Quincy, MA, Mar. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.nfpa.org/
News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Electrical/Occupational
-Injuries-from-Electrical-Shock-and-Arc-Flash-Events
[18] R. Wilkins and M. Allison, “Calculating hazards,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag.,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 40–48, May/June 2005. doi: 10.1109/MIA.2005.1423901.
[19] J. Das, Arc Flash Hazard Analysis and Mitigation. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 2012, pp. 306–314.
[20] R. Wilkins, “Simple improved equations for arc flash hazard analysis,”
in Proc. IEEE Electrical Safety Forum, Aug. 2004, pp. 1–12.
[21] J. Y. Ayoub and M. Valdes, “The effect of using minimum and maximum utility fault contributions on arc flash study results: A case study,”
in Proc. IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Workshop, Mar. 2015, pp. 1–5. doi:
10.1109/ESW.2015.7094869.
[22] Z. Wu, G. Wu, M. Dapino, L. Pan, and K. Ni, “Model for variablelength electrical arc plasmas under AC conditions,” IEEE Trans.
Plasma Sci., vol. 43, pp. 2730–2737, Aug. 2015. doi: 10.1109/
TPS.2015.2450214.
[23] T. Papallo, M. Valdes, and G. Roscoe, “Predicting let-through arcflash energy for current-limiting circuit breakers,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1820–1826, Sept./Oct. 2010. doi: 10.1109/TIA.
2010.2058084.
[24] R. Wilkins, M. Lang, and M. Allison, “Effect of insulating barriers in
arc flash testing,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1354–1359,
Sept./Oct. 2008. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2008.2002176.
[25] M. Lang and K. Jones, “Investigation of factors affecting the sustainability of arcs below 250V,” in Proc. 2011 IEEE Industry Applications Society
Annu. Meeting, Mar. 2011, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1109/IAS.2011.6074423.
[26] IEEE Guide for the Specification of Scope and Deliverable Requirements for an Arc-Flash Hazard Calculation Study in Accordance with
IEEE Std 1584, IEEE Standard 1584.1-2013.
76
IEEE
Industry
Magazine
œ SEPTEMBER/OCT
O BE Ron2020
Authorized
licensed
useApplications
limited to: Juan
Chavarria
Araya. Downloaded
September 13,2023 at 17:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.