IEEE/NFPA Collaboration

on Arc Flash Phenomena

Research Project

A
nnually more than 2000 workers are admitted to hospital burn cen-
ters for extensive injuries caused by arc flash accidents. Arc flash
incidents occur when unintended electric current flows through air,
superheating the air, and causes an explosion. Arcing faults can be unin-
tentionally initiated when workers drop a tool or wire, which provides a
temporary path between two energized phases or phase and ground. Arcing
faults are sometimes initiated when cheap meters, lacking adequate insula-
tion for the available energy levels, explode during troubleshooting. Arc-
ing faults can occur during switching events, and sometimes without any
user intervention when insulation or isolation between electrical conductors
is not sufficient to withstand the applied voltage. Environmental contami-
nants such as metallic dusts, vermin, and forgotten articles or
tools can lead to the development of arcing faults. Arcing faults
are known to develop in aging equipment, especially when not
properly maintained and inspected. Recognizing the significant
threat posed by arc flash hazards, IEEE and NFPA have joined
forces on an initiative to support research and additional testing
to increase the understanding of the arc flash phenomena.
Several areas of the arc flash phenomena need further re-
search and testing validation to provide relevant information
that can be used for developing safety strategies to protect
workers. The identified areas include but are not limited to: (a)
Heat and Thermal Effects, (b) Blast Pressure, (c) Sound and (d)
Light Hazards. The test results of this project will provide in-
formation to help more accurately predict the hazards associ-
ated with high energy arcing faults, thereby improving electrical
safety standards and providing practical safeguards for employ-
ees in the work place. The proposed research and testing plan
will focus on, but will not be limited to (a) The Development
of Physics and Engineering-Based Modeling and (b) Testing to
Validate Theory related to Heat Transfer and Thermal Effects,
Arc Blast Pressure, Sound and Light Hazards. This effort will
include both arcs in open air and the impact of arcs in enclo-
sures commonly found in electrical systems, such as switchgear,
motor control centers and power panels. This report highlights
the activities of this collaborative research project.

Introduction
Shortly after Thomas Edison’s Pearl Street Station started generating electricity, people quickly
learned that, in addition to the benefits of electrical power, direct contact with electricity caused

116
116 April
April 2012
2012 Show
Show Issue
Issue www.ieeet-d.org
Shortly after Thomas Edison’s Pearl Street Station started generating electric- Authors:
ity, people quickly learned that, in addition to the benefits of electrical power, Wei-Jen Lee1
direct contact with electricity caused personal shock injury and improperly
installed or malfunctioning electrical systems initiated fires.
Tammy Gammon2
Zhenyuan Zhang1
Ben Johnson3
personal shock injury and improperly installed or malfunctioning electrical Sue Vogel4
systems initiated fires. By the 1950s, it was widely understood that serious
injury and death could result from an electric shock; however, there was little
research and data to define exactly what threshold of energy damages human 1.Energy Systems Research
Center, University of Texas at
tissue. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Alice Stoll and Maria Chianta stud-
Arlington, Arlington, TX
ied the effect of heat related to burn injury. Their research determined the
2. John Matthews and Associates,
level of heat energy that would produce the onset of a second-degree burn, Cookeville, TN
where skin blisters as the outer layer (epidermis) separates from the inner 3.Thermon-Senior Consultant,
layer (dermis). Their research led to the development of the “Stoll Curve,” San Marcos, TX
which is used to predict burn injury. The Stoll Curve is also the benchmark 4. Director, Technical Commit-
for determining the ATPV (arc thermal performance value) of flame-resistant tee Programs, IEEE Standards,
and flame-retardant materials used in clothing designed to protect against Piscataway, NJ
the thermal effects of an arc flash.
In 1976 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) formed a new
electrical standards development committee at the request of the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop an electrical
safety standard. Three years later, NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety
Requirements for Employee Workplaces, was first published; it serves as

www.ieeet-d.org April
April 2012
2012 Show
Show Issue
Issue 117
117
 the foundation for electri-
cal safety practices in the
United States today. In 1982
Ralph Lee presented “The
Other Electrical Hazard:
Electrical Arc Blast Burns,”
the first paper to quantify
the potential burn hazards
from arc flash incidents [1].
Lee’s work made the engi-
neering community aware
of the occurrence of arc flash
incidents in the workplace
and their associated thermal
and pressure hazards [2]. Al-
though thermal burns usu- (a) Horizontal Electrodes (b) Vertical Electrodes
Figure 1. Projection Trajectory of Arc Plasma
ally inflict the greatest harm,
arcs can also injure or kill from blast-pressure related inju- ing performed over a wide range of test conditions: supply
ries. voltages from 208 V to 13.8 kV, bolted-fault currents from
Much of the earlier arcing-fault testing was performed 700 A to 106 kA, and gap widths from 7 mm (0.28 in) to
single phase. Research focused on quantifying electrical 152 mm (6 in). In addition, tests were run with grounded,
parameters, assessing system damage or protecting the ungrounded or high-resistance grounded setups. Low- and
electrical system from damage. Due to the growing aware- medium- voltage tests were conducted in open air and in
ness in the 1990s that electrical arc flashes account for a metal enclosures. The enclosure sizes were: 12”x14”x7.5”
significant number of electrical injuries, the arc testing fo- (LV, shallow), 20”x20”x20” (LV, cubic) and 45”x30”x30”
cus expanded to quantifying incident (heat) energy, fabric (MV). The scheduled test duration and the calorimeter
testing, and determining the personal protective equipment distance to the arc also varied. The 1584 arc current and
(PPE) needed to protect workers from arc-flash hazards. incident energy equations were formulated from statistical
Testing was done to quantify the reduction in incident en- analysis. The calculation factor was introduced to reach
ergy associated with current-limiting, overcurrent protec- a 95% confidence factor for predicting a PPE category to
tive devices. The recognition of the arc flash hazard in the meet or exceed the incident energy thresholds of 1.2, 8, 25,
1995 edition of NFPA 70E was the beginning of standards 40, and 100 cal/cm2. These thresholds combined the NFPA
formally addressing this additional electrical hazard. The defined categories of 1 (1.2 – 4 cal/cm2) and 2 (>4 – 8 cal/
2000 edition of NFPA 70E introduced the Hazard Risk cm2); combining them is a common industry practice.
Category classification system. Tables were developed for Although the 1584 model was shown to fit the data
FR fabric and PPE selection to protect against the thermal well, concern has arisen on how well the 1584 Standard can
effects of arc flash. predict the arc current and the incident energy associated
In 2000 Richard L. Doughty, Thomas E. Neal and H. with “real-world” arcing faults. A statistical analysis is not
Landis Floyd II published “Predicting Incident Energy to based on physical observation; it may indicate bogus rela-
Better Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600V Power tionships which do not really exist or obscure fundamen-
Distribution Systems” [3]. This paper included the results tal relationships. The 1584 equations have been shown to
of 25 three-phase arc tests conducted at 600V and pre- counter known arc behavior when the variables or variable
sented separate open-air and enclosure incident energy relationships are outside the normal test range. Anomalies
equations based on bolted-fault current, arc duration and and discontinuities have also been shown to exist in the
distance to the arc. These equations have been included in IEEE 1584 equations [4, 5].
NFPA 70E as an acceptable method for calculating inci- After the publication of the 1584 Standard, Stokes and
dent energy in an arc-flash hazard analysis. The test data Sweeting reported that most of the arc power is stored in
from this paper became part of the IEEE 1584 data set. the plasma cloud as high temperature enthalpy, and that the
The distance exponents formulated for the open-air and convective heating due to the plasma cloud is three times
cubic enclosure tests are almost identical to the distance higher than the heating due to radiation alone [6]. When
exponents presented in the IEEE Standard 1584. the calorimeters are placed directly in front of horizontal
First published in 2002, IEEE 1584, IEEE Guide for electrodes in open air as shown in Figure 1(a), the arc plas-
Performing Arc Flash Calculations, has become the pre- ma is driven toward the calorimeters, which results in sig-
dominant method in the industry for performing arc flash nificantly higher calorimeter measurements than 1584-type
calculation studies. This guide presented detailed incident setups with vertical electrodes shown in Figure 1 (b). The
energy and arc current calculation methods and included open-air vertical electrodes drive the plasma cloud toward
an extensive data set consisting of more than 300 entries. the ground, not directly toward the calorimeters placed in
The 1584 data was recorded during three-phase arc test- front of (and 90 degrees off-axis) the electrodes.
118 April 2012 Show Issue www.ieeet-d.org
 Several areas of the arc flash phenomena need further and drawing specifications were shared with each lab and
research and testing validation to develop safety strate- discussed to ensure that all testing was performed using
gies for protecting workers. The identified areas include similar test setups. The Project Management team verified
but are not limited to: (a) Heat and Thermal Effects, (b) the test setup and witnessed the calibration procedure and
Blast Pressure, (c) Sound and (d) Light Hazards. The test the actual arc tests. The test parameters were:
results of this project will provide information that is ex- l System Voltage: 480 V, three- and single-phase, 60-Hz,
pected to help more accurately predict the hazards associ- bonded and unbonded enclosures
ated with high energy arcing, thereby improving electrical l RMS Bolted-Fault Current: 5 kA and 20 kA
safety standards and providing practical safeguards for l Electrode: 19 mm (3/4 in) cylindrical hard drawn
employees in the work place. The proposed research and copper
testing plan will focus on, but will not be limited to (a) The l Electrode Orientation: Vertical and horizontal
Development of Physics and Engineering-Based Modeling l Electrode Gap Width: 10 mm and 25 mm (0.4 in and 1 in)
and (b) Testing to Validate Theory related to Heat Transfer l Arc Duration: 100 ms and 200 ms (6 and 12, 60-Hz
and Thermal Effects, Arc Blast Pressure, Sound, and Light cycles)
Hazards. This effort will include arcs initiated in both l Configuration: Open air, cubic box (20”x20”x20”),
open-air and in enclosures. Enclosures tend to contain and Faraday cage and electrodes terminated in barrier in
direct the arc cloud and to deliver higher heat levels to side cubic box. (All configurations were three-phase
unfortunate persons standing in front of enclosure open- except for the single-phase Faraday cage configuration.)
ings. Arc flash incidents are known to occur while working
on switchgear, motor control centers and power panels. Phase II Test Program
This report highlights the activities of this collaborative re- The project is currently in Phase II of the test program.
search project. Approximately 109 tests have been conducted for 208-V
three-phase and 240-V single-phase, three-wire systems.
Phase I Test Program Approximately 372 tests have been conducted at the medi-
Phase I Testing involved “scouting” tests designed to check um-voltage level, ranging from 2.7 kV to 4.7 kV. Series of
the instrumentation’s functionality, sensitivity and overall arc tests have been scheduled for both 600 V and 13.8 kV.
measurement accuracy, as well as the repeatability of iden- Plans for testing at other voltage levels and DC arc test-
tical experiments. The consistency of test results from four ing are under development. The medium-voltage enclosure
independent laboratories was also evaluated for identical sizes, electrode gap widths and spacing dimensions are
test parameters where different instrumentation was used based on current engineering practices. The low-voltage
and environmental conditions differed. The Phase I Test test enclosures and dimensions were selected to conform to
thermal energy measurements have been verified for accu- UL 1558, UL 67 and NEMA MCC Standards.
racy and conformity and compared with various existing The original test plan for the 4.16 kV tests, consist-
models. ing of 270 tests is listed in Table 1. The original number
of tests was expanded by adding tests conducted at 2.7
Scope of the Phase I Testing kV; reducing the test voltage from 4.16 kV to 2.7 kV was
There were approximately 251 arc tests conducted with a found to have minimal impact on the test results.
total of 64 unique combinations of test conditions which
encompassed two supply voltages, two bolted-fault cur- Sample Testing Results: Voltage, Current and Power
rent levels, two electrode-gap widths, two electrode ori- Voltage and current were measured near the electrodes
entations, two scheduled test durations and four configu- with the sampling rate of 10 or 20 k samples per second.
rations. Before each scheduled testing, the test conditions Arc power and energy were calculated from the sampled

Table 1. 4.16-kV Test Protocol*

Fault Duration Gap Distance to Measure VCB VCB- HCB Measure VOA HOA
urrent
C (cycles) (inch) Back Panel Distance Barr Distance
(kA) (inch) (inch)a (inch)b

20/40/63 6 1.5/3/4.5 4 24 1 1 1 18 1 1
20/40/63 12 1.5/3/4.5 4 24 1 1 1 18 1 1
20/40/63 6 1.5/3/4.5 4 33 1 1 1 27 1 1
20/40/63 12 1.5/3/4.5 4 33 1 1 1 27 1 1
20/40/63 6 1.5/3/4.5 4 42 1 1 1 36 1 1
20/40/63 12 1.5/3/4.5 4 42 1 1 1 36 1 1

*VCB or HCB: Vertical or horizontal electrodes in cubic box (26”x26”x26” metal enclosure)
VCB-Barr: Vertical electrodes, terminated in barrier, inside cubic box, “Barrier test”
VOA and HOA: Vertical or horizontal electrodes in open air
a and b: Distance from calorimeters to electrodes a) located inside box or b) open air

www.ieeet-d.org April 2012 Show Issue 119

 Figure 2. Example of a Three-Phase Arc Current Figure 3. Arrangement of Slug Calorimeters

voltage and current signals. A sample, 480-V three-phase 480-V Test Series, Avg. Calorimeter Msmts., 12-Cycle Tests
arc current is displayed in Figure 2 for a bolted-fault cur-

Incident Energy, cal/cm2

rent of 5 kA; the vertical electrodes were spaced 10 mm
apart in a cubic box enclosure. The phase arc currents de-
crease after the first cycle in Figure 2, and then increase as
the arc stabilizes; such waveforms are common for lower
bolted-fault current levels. The arc’s ability to stabilize and
to sustain is primarily an issue for lower voltages (480 V
and less) and depends on several factors including: the VCBu- VCBu- VCBu- VCBu- HCBu- HCBu- VOA- VOA- HOA-
bolted-fault current, electrode gap width and configura- 5-10 5-25 20-10 20-25 20-10 20-25 20-10 20-25 20-10
tion (presence of an enclosure, as well as dimensions and
interior spacings). Table 2 summarizes the ranges of arc Figure 4. Sample Results for Average Incident Energy (cal/cm2)
power associated with the 480-V testing. Measurements

Incident Energy Comparison twelve-cycle, 480-V tests. The x-axis labels designate the
Copper slug calorimeters, painted black, are used to mea- electrode orientation (V-vertical or H-horizontal), configu-
sure incident energies at several distances from the elec-ration (CBu-unbonded cubic box or OA-open air), bolted-
trodes. The spatial arrangement of seven slug calorimetersfault current (5 or 20 kA) and the gap width (10 or 25
is shown in Figure 3. The middle row, center calorimeter mm). The results presented in Figure 4 suggest that the
bolted-fault current, electrode orientation and presence of
is placed in-line with the tip of the center electrode. Dur-
ing an arc test, each calorimeter experiences a tempera- an enclosure strongly impact incident energy.
ture rise, which is converted to incident energy. Although Based on the Phase I and Phase II test results, the fol-
equation development for incident energy will be based on lowing factors have been found to impact the level of inci-
the maximum incident energy associated with the high- dent energy (IE):
est temperature rise experienced by any single calorimeterl Bolted-fault current level
during an arc test, the overall and row average incident l Duration of the arc
energies provide much insight into understanding the heat l Electrode Orientation/Presence of an Enclosure
l Calorimeter arrangement, height and measurement
flow and the heat levels experienced. Figure 4 displays the
row-average incident energy measurements for a series of distance
l Voltage level
l Gap width between electrodes
Table 2. Arc Power (MW) for 480-V Testing l Distance between elec-
trode and back panel
Ibf (kA) VCB HCB/HOA VOA VFC* l Dimensions of the metal
Lab 1 5.9 – 6.3 1.7 – 2.0 0.4 – 0.6 enclosure
Lab 2 5.2 1.3 – 1.5 1.8 – 1.9 Non-Thermal Hazards
Lab 3 5.0 – 5.1 2.0 1.8 – 1.9 0.4 – 0.5 Blast pressure, toxic gases
Lab 1 17.2 – 17.6 4.0 – 4.8 4.4 – 5.4 5.1 – 5.6 1.8 and shrapnel can seriously
Lab 2 19.8 – 20.1 5.2 – 6.4 6.9 injure or kill anyone in the
vicinity of an arcing fault.
Lab 3 20.6 – 21.7 3.6 – 6.9 4.8 – 7.3 4.9 – 6.7 2.6 Blast pressures may cause
permanent hearing loss
* Vertical electrodes inside Faraday cage, single-phase 480 V and intense light may cause
120 April 2012 Show Issue www.ieeet-d.org
Table 3. Non-Burn Injuries listed in OSHA Records [7, 8] degree of focusing due to
a confined area or walls
Injury Type Wallis’ 2005 Analysis Subsequent Records [10].” Blast pressures
are greater when the ex-
Number of records considered 424 95 plosion occurs indoors,
Smoke inhalation and asphyxia 13 (3.1%) 3 (3.2%) – 2 smoke inhalation particularly in small en-
closed rooms, and the
Thrown, knocked down, fall, 13 (3.1%) 6 (6.3%) – 2 falls pressure wave reflects
loss of consciousness, – 4 thrown from the walls [11].
and fracture Individuals may be
Eye injury 4 (0.94%) 4 (4.2%) injured or killed by blast
pressures through three
Laceration 1 (0.24%) 1 (1.1%) shrapnel mechanisms. Injuries
Hearing loss 1 (0.24%) 0 which directly result
from the pressure wave
Total 31 (7.3%) 14 (14.7%) striking the body are
known as primary blast
injuries. Air- and fluid-
blindness. Published information on non-thermal arc in- filled organs, such as the lungs, gastrointestinal tract and
juries is not abundant. Attachment 5 of the 2005 NFPA/ middle ear, are susceptible to primary injuries. Primary
IEEE Research and Testing Planning Committee (RTPC) blast injuries can cause concussions or mild traumatic
Report provides one of the best assessments of non-ther- brain injury without a direct blow to the head [9]. Sec-
mal arc injuries [7]. ondary injuries result from flying debris propelled by the
In the 2005 RTPC report, David Wallis analyzed 454 blast wind. Shrapnel wounds can occur anywhere, includ-
public OSHA records on investigations involving electric ing the eye and head. Tertiary injuries result from the in-
arcs; thirty records which involved arc welders, arc fur- dividual being thrown by the blast wind [12]. Individuals
naces and electric shock were eliminated. Non-thermal may be injured by a fall or being propelled into a wall or
injuries were reported in 7.3% of the remaining 424 re- equipment. More than one blast injury may be sustained,
cords involving electrical faults. He noted, “The risk of and damage to one organ often affects other organs [9].
burn injuries from this hazard can be very severe. How- Arc blast pressures have been measured or estimated
ever, an electric arc poses a substantial risk of non-burn using pressure sensors, a pendulum, and high-speed video.
injuries…less well known…frequently less severe than the Recording accurate measurements using traditional direct
potentially threatening burn injuries.” David Wallis pro- pressure sensors is challenging due to the high magnet-
vided the Project Team with an additional 100 relevant ic flux and high temperature plasma gas during the arc
public OSHA records created after the RTPC report was event. Based on the two consecutive high-speed video
written [8]. Five of the 100 records were removed because frames (1000 frames per second) showing the movement
they involved arc welders, an arc furnace or electric shock. of the arc cloud and air in Figure 5 during a 2.7-kV, VCB,
Of the 95 remaining records, 14 or 14.7% documented 30-kA, 6-cycle, 3”-gap arc flash test, the estimated pres-
non-burn injuries. Table 3 provides a summary of the non- sure reached 1.7 psi (245 lb/ft2) at the opening of the en-
burn injuries recorded in the additional OSHA records. closure. Actual pressure is affected by air temperature and
The four records of eye injuries are: two flash burns to the composition. Furthermore, the calorimeters block some
eyes (with no face injury specified), momentary blindness, air flow and influence measurement. The most accurate
and required eye flushing from a fault causing a battery to techniques for arc blast pressure measurement continue to
blow up in a person’s face. An additional record, not in- be researched and tested.
cluded in the table, included both face burn and eye injury. Lab testing has also provided evidence that secondary
It is quite possible that many of the OSHA records did not injuries in the form of shrapnel wounds can occur from
document additional non-thermal burn injuries.

Pressure Measurement
When an arcing fault is initiated, the gases expand
rapidly in the vicinity of the arc. A high-pressure
front is created as the expanding gases compress
the surrounding air. “A phenomenon called ‘blast
overpressure’ forms from the compression of air in
front of a blast wave which heats and accelerates
the movement of air molecules [9].” The severity of
the blast pressure depends on the initial peak pres-
sure, the duration of the overpressure, the distance
of individuals from the incident location, and “the Figure 5. Estimating Blast Pressure from Air Movement
www.ieeet-d.org April 2012 Show Issue 121
 flying debris. As illustrated in Figure 6, molten copper de-
posited and re-solidified on the surface of the camera filter
lens ten feet away from the electrodes during one arc test.

Figure 7. Summary of Peak Sound Pressures for Medium-Voltage

Testing Series

of the ultraviolet region, and is predominately in the range

of 200 to 600 nm [13]. A number of research projects were
conducted by the U.S. armed forces on flash blindness in
the 1960s. The research was fueled by the need to know
how well service personnel, especially pilots, could perform
Figure 6. Resolidifed Molten Copper, Propelled on Camera Lens
after a nuclear blast. The recovery time from flash blind-
from Blast Force
ness depends on the light flash (size, intensity, direction,
duration and spectrum), as well as the individual (pupil
Sound Level Measurement size, age and individual variations). Flash blindness is the
Blast pressure frequently injures the ear. The initial positive temporary loss of vision when the retina receives an excess
air pressure may cause lesions on the eardrum and internal of thermal energy, but less energy than required to cause a
ear; it may also dislocate or interrupt the chain of auditory burn. A reduction in visual acuity can last a few minutes
ossicles or rupture fenestrae (membranes). According to or a few days. Contributing factors are glare, afterimage
one study on the effects of blast lesions on the eardrum, and the bleaching of the photochemical substances within
conduction hearing loss occurred most of the time [11]. the rods and cones of the retina. Glare is an excess of light
In the Code of Federal Regulations 1910.95(b)(2), it which hinders vision; even after the light source is no lon-
is stated, “Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should ger present, scotomatic glare from intense light causes a
not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level.” When the reduction in the sensitivity of the retina [14].
potential peak sound pressure is 140 dB or greater, indi- The Project Team has used both a spectrometer and a
viduals should wear personal hearing protection devices light sensor to measure illumination levels in lux (lumen/
(PHPDs) to reduce the exposure level within OSHA lim- m2). Neutral density filters were used to attenuate the light
its. Using a protective hood may also attenuate the sound to levels falling within the measurable ranges of the device
pressure level. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) cat- ratings. The frequency response of the neutral density fil-
egories are based on incident energy, a summation of heat ters were characterized in the laboratory. The light mea-
flux over time. Since peak sound pressure is linked to the sured through the neutral density filters were calibrated
initial formation of the arc, the PPE catego-
ries are not an effective method for assessing
the sound hazard. Figure 7 shows the peak
sound pressures from 16 representative, me-
dium-voltage arc tests. The peak sound pres-
sures, measured at a distance of three meters
from the electrodes, were in the range of 150
to 170 dB. The x-axis label in Figure 7 speci-
fies the configuration, bolted-fault current
(kA), test duration (12, 60-Hz cycles) and
gap width (in), respectively. The C-weighting
scale, indicated by LCpeak is used to mea-
sure sound pressure levels above 85 dB.

Light Measurement
The wavelengths of visible light lie between
400 and 700 nm. It has been reported that
the light radiated by an arc flash covers part Figure 8. Sample Illumination Levels

122 April 2012 Show Issue www.ieeet-d.org

to their actual values. Sample illumination measurements, [6] A. D. Stokes, and D. K. Sweeting, “Electric arcing
taken during six recent medium-voltage arc tests, at dis- burn hazards,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica-
tances of 3, 4.5 and 6 meters from the electrodes are dis- tions, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 134-141, Jan./Feb. 2006.
played in Figure 8. The x-axis labels specify the HOA
(horizontal electrodes, open air) configuration, the bolted- [7] NFPA / IEEE Research and Testing Planning Com-
fault currents (10, 20 or 30-precisely 32-kA) and the gap mittee, Final Report, July 28, 2005.
width (3 or 4.5 in). The results in Figure 8 show that the
light intensity increases at closer measurement distances [8] OSHA records with “electric arc” keyterm, released
and for larger bolted-fault currents. Additionally, for the between March 2005 and September 2008.
test configuration in Figure 8, the larger electrode-gap
width also significantly increases the illumination levels. It [9] G. L. Wallace, “Blast injury basics: A guide for
is worth mentioning that a bright summer day will have a the medical speech-language pathologist,” The ASHA
midday ground level illumination on the order of 100,000 Leader, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 26-28.
lux. Since some light may be blocked by the calorimeters,
the Project Team will obtain more accurate measurements [10] “Blast injury,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia,
when the calorimeters are removed to perform special arc modified on Oct. 3, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
blast pressure measurements. Blast_injury.

Conclusion [11] N. Sperm, S. Branica, K. Dawidowky, “Tympano-

On average, approximately five to ten arc flash explo- plasty after War Blast Lesions of the Eardrum: Retro-
sions occur daily in the United States. Personal protective spective Study,” Croatian Medical Journal, vol. 42, no.
equipment can prevent or reduce casualties during these 6, pp. 642-645, 2001.
accidents. The IEEE and the NFPA have joined forces on
an initiative to fund and support research and testing to [12] “Explosions and blast injuries: A primer for clini-
improve the understanding of the arc flash phenomena cians,” Center for Disease Control, May 9, 2003.
and to better quantify arc current, incident energy and sev-
eral non-thermal hazards. The results of this collaborative [13] R. A. Wilson, R. Harju, J. Keisala, S. Ganesan,
project will be used to improve electrical safety standards, “Tripping with the speed of light: arc flash protection,”
predict the hazards associated with arcing faults, and pro- Proceedings of the 60th Annual Conference for Protec-
vide practical safeguards for employees in the workplace. tive Relay Engineers, pp. 226-238, College Station,
Please visit the following website for additional informa- Texas, Mar. 27-29, 2007.
tion on this IEEE/NFPA Collaborative Research Project:
http://standards.ieee.org/esrc/arcflash/index.html. [14] J. D. Teresi, “A review of research on flash blind-
ness,” USNRDL-TR-68-76, Radiological Defense Labo-
ratory, San Francisco, California, July 1, 1968.
References
[1] R. H. Lee, “The other electrical hazard: electrical arc
blast burns,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica-
tions, vol. IA-18, no. 3, pp. 246-251, May/June 1982.

[2] R. H. Lee, “Pressures developed by arcs,” IEEE

Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. IA-23, no. 4,
pp. 760-764, July/Aug. 1987.

[3] R. L. Doughty, T. E. Neal, and H. L. Floyd, II,

“Predicting incident energy to better manage the electric
arc hazard on 600 v power distribution systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 36, no. 1, pp.
257-269, Jan./Feb. 2000.

[4] R.Wilkins, M. Allison, and M. Lang, “Calculating

Hazards,” IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, vol.
11, no. 3, pp. 40-48, May/June 2005.

[5] C. St. Pierre, “Putting arc-flash calculations in per-

spective,” Online, http://www.epc-website.com.

www.ieeet-d.org April 2012 Show Issue 123