IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000 257

Predicting Incident Energy to Better Manage the

Electric Arc Hazard on 600-V Power
Distribution Systems
Richard L. Doughty, Fellow, IEEE, Thomas E. Neal, and H. Landis Floyd, II, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—A test program has been completed to measure inci- to divert heat and explosive forces away from workers inter-
dent energy from 6-cycle arcs on 600 -V three-phase electric power acting with the switchgear. The utilization of current limiting
distribution systems. Testing was performed using an arc electrode protective devices not only limits damage to circuit parts, but
gap of 1.25 in that had previously produced maximum incident en-
ergy for a 600-V power system with a 36.25-kA prospective fault also significantly reduces duration of personnel exposure . The
current. The effect on incident energy of enclosing the arcs in a use of flame-resistant (FR) clothing has gained acceptance as an
cubic box was determined. Simple algorithms were developed to effective approach to personnel protection when other measures
allow estimation of incident energy at a specified distance from arc to prevent or limit arc exposure can not be employed.
electrodes as a function of the available bolted fault current on a These efforts have typically used theoretical models to quan-
600-V electric power distribution system. A comparison is made
with previously published methods for estimating incident energy tify arc exposure severity. While this approach has enabled sig-
and safe approach distances. The impact of the estimating algo- nificant progress in protecting people from injuries, improved
rithm on the management of the electric arc hazard is discussed. techniques for predicting arc energy and protective clothing per-
Index Terms—Arc burn, arc energy, arc protective clothing, in- formance offer more effective solutions. Even greater advance-
cident energy. ments could be achieved if hazard analysis tools and aids could
be easier to use by the electricians, operators, and technicians
most at risk, as well as engineers, supervisors and managers in-
I. INTRODUCTION
volved in equipment and protective clothing selection, system

T HE KNOWLEDGE and tools for minimizing arc flash

noncontact burn injuries associated with the distribution
and utilization of electricity are still in early stages of develop-
design, and facilities operation.
The basic research documented in this series of papers and
other publications such as [2] provide the basis for a more re-
ment as compared to those related to shock and fire hazards. fined tool set for managing arc exposure and reducing injury
This paper is the third in a series aimed at enhancing basic un- severity. In addition to improved validation of energy predic-
derstanding of the phenomena of electric arcs and the perfor- tion, these tools serve to improve hazard awareness, aid in iden-
mance of protective clothing systems exposed to arcs. It docu- tifying and quantifying the hazard, and simplify the task of se-
ments techniques and results from tests designed to help users lecting appropriate protective clothing.
predict incident energy for three-phase 600-V arcs in open air
and in a 20-in cubic box. II. TESTING BACKGROUND
Prior to the research documented in these papers, the under-
The authors previously completed extensive arc testing at an
standing and management of electric arcs was largely based on
independent testing laboratory in Canada as reported in [3] and
theoretical modeling first proposed by Lee in 1981 [1]. Efforts
[4]. As a result of this testing, a number of important factors
to protect workers potentially exposed to the intense radiant
related to estimating incident energy have been quantified.
energy of arc flashes have led to advancements in hardware,
work practices, and protective clothing. Switchgear manufac- 1) Incident energy reaches a maximum as electrode spacing
turers have developed more robust and “arc-resistant” designs increases, but the maximum incident energy typically occurs
at an electrode spacing that is larger than the spacing that
produces maximum arc power.
Paper PID 99–12, presented at the 1998 IEEE Petroleum and Chemical In-
dustry Technical Conference, Indianapolis, IN, September 28–30, and approved 2) Incident energy is directly proportional to the time duration
for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the of the arc.
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications 3) Incident energy is significantly affected by the environment
Society. Manuscript submitted for review September 30, 1998 and released for
publication August 26, 1999. surrounding the arc. Enclosing a three-phase arc in a box can
R. L. Doughty, retired, was with DuPont Engineering, Wilmington, DE increase the incident energy up to three times, depending
19880-0715 USA. He is now at 31 Old Oak Road, Newark, DE 19711 USA upon the arc parameters and box dimensions, as compared
(e-mail: [email protected]).
H. L. Floyd, II, is with DuPont Engineering, Wilmington, DE 19880-0715 to an open arc with the same arc parameters.
USA (e-mail: [email protected]). 4) The radiation transfer function, which can be measured, is
T. E. Neal, retired, was with DuPont Advanced Fiber Systems, Wilmington, the percentage of total arc energy per unit of area that is
DE 19880-0840 USA. He is now at 1071 Sea Crest Drive NW, Port Charlotte,
FL 33948-3624 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). actually received (incident energy) at a specified distance
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(00)00048-7. from the arc. The radiation transfer function varies with the
0093–9994/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
258 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000

Fig. 1. Open arc test setup.

arc current, the electrode configuration, and the environment

surrounding the arc.
The authors desired to complete additional testing to allow
better estimation of incident energy produced by three-phase
electric arcs on 600-V systems. Coupled with the FR protective
clothing data now available from manufacturers, users would Fig. 2. Arc-in-the-box test setup.
then be able to better estimate the incident energy available from
a specific electrical system at their work site, and then select The decision was made to proceed with three-phase arc tests
appropriate FR clothing to protect exposed workers. using an arc gap of 1.25 in, since: 1) it was a common spacing
Any incident energy estimating process will require knowl- used in electrical equipment; 2) it was verified by test to be the
edge of the open-circuit voltage and the available bolted fault arc gap which produced maximum incident energy at a bolted
current at the arc location, the time duration of the arc, the arc fault current of 36.25 kA; and 3) at that spacing (36.25-kA
electrode configuration and spacing, the enclosure (if any) sur- bolted fault), the change in incident energy with variation of arc
rounding the arc, and the distance from the arc. gap around the maximum energy producing gap showed only a
Arc test results in [4, Fig. 8] indicated that, for a 600-V system 10% decrease in incident energy.
with an available bolted fault current of 36.25 kA, the inci-
dent energy at 2 ft from a three-phase arc in open air reached
a maximum at an electrode side–side spacing of 1.25 in. This
spacing is in the range normally employed by manufacturers of III. THREE-PHASE ARC TEST PROGRAM
600-V-class electrical equipment.
When the electrical system impedance changes, the available A. Test Setup
bolted fault kilovoltamperes and, consequently, the maximum Hard-drawn copper electrodes, 3/4 in in diameter, were
arc power and incident energy also change. As the bolted fault used for the arc testing. Electrodes were vertically oriented,
current increases, one would expect the arc gap producing max- uniformly spaced in a flat configuration with a side–side
imum incident energy to decrease in size, and vice versa. Testing spacing of 1.25 in. Arcs were initiated by a light-gauge fuse
has not been performed to determine the actual spacing for max- wire connected between the ends of the electrodes. For all tests
imum arc incident energy as a function of available bolted fault it was necessary to install insulating support blocks between
current. In addition, since enclosing an arc in a box physically adjacent electrodes to prevent the electrodes from bending
constrains the arc plasma and modifies the arc impedance, it is outward due to the extremely high magnetic forces created by
expected that the electrode spacing that produces maximum in- the arc currents.
cident energy in open air may not be the same as the electrode Open-circuit test voltages were selected at or above the nom-
spacing that produces maximum incident energy with the arc in inal system voltage of 600 V. The bolted fault current available
a box, and this has not been confirmed by testing either. at the test terminals was measured by shorting the electrodes to-
The data in [4, Fig. 8] show that the change in incident energy gether. The duration of all arc tests was selected to be 6 cycles
with variation of arc-gap spacing around the maximum energy (100 ms).
point is relatively small. In that case (bolted fault of 36.25 kA), Incident energy was measured by copper calorimeters
the reduction of the arc gap from 1.25 to 1.00 in, or the increase mounted on stands. Copper calorimeter temperature rise data in
in arc gap from 1.25 to 2 in produced only a 10% decrease in degrees Celsius were converted into incident energy in cal/cm2
arc incident energy. (conversion factor 0.135 calories/cm2- C). Sensor absorption
DOUGHTY et al.: PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD 259

TABLE I
THREE-PHASE ARC TEST RESULTS (600-V SYSTEM—1.25-IN ARC GAP)

measurements have determined that absorbed energy is equal to elevation of the electrode tips. The middle calorimeters in each
or greater than 90% of incident energy for copper calorimeters. set were aligned with the center electrode. A single calorimeter
Henceforth, incident and absorbed energy will be considered was located 6 in the above the center electrode tip.
as equivalent, and the term incident energy will be used.
The data acquisition system digitally sampled and recorded B. Test Sequence
arc voltage, arc current, time, and temperature rise from seven A series of three-phase arc tests was conducted during
copper calorimeters. An estimate of arc energy was calculated a one-week period. In order to reduce the impact of arc
by multiplying the phase-to-phase voltage/ by the phase cur- variability, four tests were run for each setup and the results
rent for each phase, summing the result for all three phases, and averaged. Since arc duration varies slightly from test to test, a
then multiplying the result by the arc duration. time-duration correction factor was applied to the temperature
Two different test setups were used for the three-phase arc rise data from the seven copper calorimeter sensors to insure
testing. Test Setup No. 1 was for a three-phase arc in open air, that each reported incident energy was based on an arc duration
as shown in Fig. 1. Test Setup No. 2 utilized electrodes mounted of 6 cycles. The mean incident energy for the seven sensors and
inside and 4 in from the back of a cubic metal box (20-in wide the maximum incident energy recorded by a single sensor were
× 20-in high × 20-in deep), as shown in Fig. 2. Tests were con- calculated for each test.
ducted with the box ungrounded, since earlier testing [4] indi- The first series of tests used the open-arc Test Setup No. 1
cated that the ungrounded box produced the maximum incident and measured the incident energy 24 in from the arc electrodes
energy. while the bolted fault current was adjusted in steps from 16 to 50
For each setup, an array of seven copper calorimeters was kA. At the conclusion of these tests, the bolted fault current was
located a specified distance from the centerline of the electrodes. set at 40.9 kA and the sensor distance was changed to 18 and 30
A set of three calorimeters was located in a horizontal row at in to determine the variation of incident energy with distance.
the same height as the tip of the electrodes. A second set of Thesecondseriesoftestsusedthearc-in-the-boxTestSetupNo.
three calorimeters was located in a horizontal row 6 in below the 2 and measured the incident energy 24 in from the arc electrodes
260 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000

Fig. 3. Open arc incident energy. Fig. 4. Arc-in-the-box incident energy.

while the bolted fault current wasadjustedfrom 16 to 50 kA. At the

conclusion of these tests, the bolted fault current was set at 42 kA
and the sensor distance was changed to 18, 30, 36, 48, and 60 in to
determine thevariation of incident energy with distance.
Test data for both series of tests are shown in Table I. The
average arc voltage for the arc-in-the-box is significantly lower
than for the arc in open air, indicating that the box tends to con-
tain the arc plasma, producing a lower arc resistance and, con-
sequently, a lower arc voltage.

C. Analysis Of Test Data

Readers should be aware that data provided in this technical
Fig. 5. Incident energy comparison.
paper are based only upon measured incident energy under spec-
ified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or less
severe than these laboratory-simulated arc exposures. The po-
tentially hazardous effects of molten copper splatter, projectiles,
pressure impulses, and toxic arc byproducts have not been con-
sidered in the analysis.
Incident energy measured 2 ft from the open-arc electrodes
as a function of bolted fault current is shown in Fig. 3. Both
sensor average and maximum incident energy measurements are
plotted. A polynomial equation which curve fits the maximum
incident energy data is indicated on the figure. The same infor-
mation is plotted for the arc-in-the box tests in Fig. 4. Note that
the polynomial equation is valid only for the arc parameters and
Fig. 6. Incident energy ratio.
test equipment setup used.
A direct comparison of the open-arc and arc-in-the-box max-
imum incident energy as a function of bolted fault current is
shown in Fig. 5. As the bolted fault current increases, the spread
between the open-arc and the arc-in-the-box data increases. The
ratio of open-arc to arc-in- the-box incident energy is plotted in
Fig. 6 and illustrates that, at lower bolted fault currents, the ef-
fect of the box is to multiply the open-arc incident energy by a
factor in the range of 1.5–2.5. At higher bolted fault currents, the
effect of the box is to multiply the open-arc incident energy by a
factor in the range of 2.5–2.8. Note that the factors are only valid
for the 20-in cubic box used in these tests. This result is similar
to the multiplying factor of 3.0 determined for the 22-in-wide × Fig. 7. Open arc distance variation.
20-in-high × 21-in-deep box tested in [4].
Video observation of the arcs in the box indicated that a sig- effect visibly and dramatically increased at higher current levels.
nificant portion of the increased incident energy was due to in- It appeared that, as the arc current increased, the arc plasma
creased convective heat energy transfer due to hot gas expansion volume increased and the plasma projection out of the box in-
and projection out the front of the box toward the sensors. This creased. Arcs are known to consist primarily (90%) of radiant
DOUGHTY et al.: PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD 261

(a)

Fig. 8. Arc-in-box distance variation.

TABLE II
MAXIMUM INCIDENT ENERGY—6-CYCLE ARC IN BOX AS A FUNCTION OF
BOLTED FAULT CURRENT AND DISTANCE FROM ARC ELECTRODES

(b)

Fig. 10. (a) Arc-in-box incident energy compared to calculated results . (b)
Open arc incident energy compared to calculated results.

Fig. 11. Second-degree burn energy.

energy, but the arc-in-the-box configuration appears to enhance

the convective energy component.
Incident energy in per unit of incident energy at 2 ft is plotted
as a function of distance from the arc electrodes in Fig. 7 for
the open arc with an available bolted fault current of 40.9 kA.
A power equation which curve fits the maximum incident en-
ergy data is indicated in the figure. Incident energy is shown
to be inversely proportional to the distance to the 1.96 power,
very close to the theoretical distance squared relationship pre-
dicted by Lee [1]. The same information is plotted in Fig. 8 for
the arc-in-the-box with an available bolted fault current of 42
kA. The power equation in Fig. 8 has an exponent of −1.47,
indicating that the incident energy from the arc-in-the-box de-
creases at a slower rate as distance increases than for the arc in
open air. Both power equations may not be valid for distances
less than 18 in, since testing was not performed in that range.

IV. PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY

Users have a need to predict incident energy produced by arcs
on low-voltage electrical systems so that appropriate arc protec-
Fig. 9. Comparison of estimating methods. tive clothing may be selected.
262 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000

Fig. 12. Human skin burn boundary.

TABLE III
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING GUIDELINES FOR THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD

A. Arc Test Algorithms mated maximum incident energy for the 6-cycle arc-in-the-box,
Maximum incident energy from a three-phase 6-cycle arc , is calculated using
with 1.25-in electrode gap in open air on a 600-V system may
be estimated using the curve-fit equations derived in Figs. 3 and (2)
7. Multiplying the two equations, the estimated maximum inci-
dent energy for the 6-cycle arc in air, , is calculated using
where
distance from arc electrodes, in ( );
(1) maximum 20-in cubic box incident energy, cal/cm2;
bolted fault current, kA (16–50-kA range)
where Predicted values using(2) for distances greater than 60
distance from arc electrodes, in ( ); in (5 ft) are believed to be conservatively high. The authors hy-
maximum open-arc incident energy, cal/cm2; pothesize that the distance variation of incident energy for the
bolted fault current, kA (16–50-kA range). cubic box will tend to approach the open-air inverse distance
Maximum incident energy from a three-phase 6-cycle arc squared relationship as distances from the box increase above
with 1.25-in electrode gap contained in a 20-in cubic box on 60 in.
a 600-V system may be estimated using the curve-fit equations Estimated maximum incident energy levels for a three-phase
derived in Figs. 4 and 8. Multiplying the two equations, the esti- 6-cycle arc with a 1.25-in electrode gap in a 20-in cubic box
DOUGHTY et al.: PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD 263

Fig. 13. FR clothing system comparison.

calculated using(2) are shown in Table II. Estimated incident

energy for arc durations other than 6 cycles can be determined Fig. 14. Eye, face, and hand protection performance.
by multiplying or by the ratio of the arc duration in
seconds, , divided by 0.1, as shown in program; and 3) the Duke Heat Flux Calculator. Results are
plotted for comparison in Fig. 9. Both the commercially avail-
able program and the Duke Heat Flux Calculator use single-
(3) phase models of the electrical arc to predict incident energy.
Three-phase test values of maximum incident energy for the
open arcs were from 2.5 to 3 times the values predicted by the
single-phase models. Three-phase test values of maximum inci-
dent energy for the arcs in the cubic box were 5.2–12.2 times the
(4) values predicted by the single-phase models. In both cases, the
ratios increased as distance from the arc electrodes increased, as
Equations (3) and(4) may be solved for the distance required to
shown in Fig. 10. The dramatic increase in ratio with distance
produce a given maximum incident energy level as shown in (5)
shown in Fig. 10(a) for the arc in the box is primarily a result of
and (6)
the single-phase model assumption of incident energy variation
inversely proportional to distance squared instead of distance to
the 1.5 power.
(5)
C. Lee Curable Burn Comparison
Equations (5) and(6) were used to calculate, for a range of
bolted fault currents, the distance from a 600-V three-phase
(6)
6-cycle arc with a 1.25-in electrode gap that would just result in
a second-degree burn of human skin. An incident energy level
of 1.2 cal/cm2 was chosen as the minimum energy threshold for
This form of the equations is useful to define incident energy a second-degree burn based upon the data shown in Fig. 11 that
boundaries, i.e., the distance for a second-degree burn or for was previously published in [3].
the protection limit of a specific FR clothing system. Note that Lee also calculated in [1] the distance from an arc to just
(3)–(6) may not be valid outside the indicated variable ranges receive a “curable burn,” as shown in
for (1) and (2).

B. Comparison of Incident Energy Estimating Methods (7)

Incident energy produced by a 6-cycle arc with a 1.25-in elec-
trode gap on a 600-V electrical system (available bolted fault
current of 42 kA) was determined at various distances from where
the arc electrodes using three different methods: 1) the three- distance of skin from arc source to just receive a
phase arc test algorithm; 2) a commercially available computer curable burn, in;
264 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000

Fig. 15. Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 6-cycle electric arcs in open air.

Fig. 16. Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 6-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box.

bolted fault MVA at arc point; Table III and defines proposed clothing classes based upon the
duration of arc exposure, s. available incident energy. Clothing Class No. 2 has been split
Equation (7) was also included in [5, Pt. II, App. B] as a into two subcategories, Classes No. 2A and 2B, to reflect the
method of calculating flash protection boundaries. use of either cotton or FR underwear. Table III is based upon
A comparison is shown in Fig. 12 of Lee’s “curable burn” dis- FR clothing produced by a number of manufacturers and gives
tances with the second-degree burn distances determined using general guidance about how many layers of FR fabric should
(5) and (6) for a 6-cycle arc. The Lee “curable burn” distances be considered to use for a given incident energy exposure. The
coincide almost exactly with the second-degree burn distances terms ATPV and , used in Table III, are defined in ASTM
for the open three-phase arc. The second-degree burn distances PS58 Standard [5] and are explained as follows.
for the arc in the cubic box, however, are significantly higher. • ATPV is defined as the incident energy that would just cause
The difference is more pronounced at higher bolted fault levels. the onset of a second-degree burn.
• is defined as the average of the five highest incident
energy values which did not cause FR fabric break-open and
V. SELECTING FR CLOTHING
did not exceed the second-degree burn criteria. is re-
Once the incident energy exposure level for a particular situ- ported when ATPV cannot be measured due to FR fabric
ation has been determined, and the exposure level is sufficient break-open. Break-open is defined as any opening in the in-
to cause either a second-degree burn or ignition of clothing, the nermost (nearest the protected surface) layer of FR fabric of
user should select an appropriate FR clothing system to provide more than 0.5 in2 area or a slit or crack in the innermost FR
protection from the arc hazard. ASTM PS57 data in [4, Table I] fabric, 1 in or greater in length. In the event of FR fabric
indicates that an average incident energy level of 3.0 cal/cm2 break-open, a flammable fabric underlayer or human skin is
(L95%CL) is required for a 1% probability of ignition of a 5.2 directly exposed to incident energy.
oz/yd2 blue cotton twill shirt material. Minimum incident en- Performance data about clothing systems utilizing specific
ergy required to produce a second-degree burn is 1.2 cal/cm2, fabrics is tabulated in [4]. A comparison of the performance of a
as discussed above. few selected FR fabric systems is illustrated in Fig. 13. Note that
The authors published a table of protective clothing guide- a dotted line at 3.0 cal/cm2 indicates incident energy required for
lines in [4] that was based on fabric testing utilizing the 1% probability of ignition for 5.2 oz/yd2 blue cotton twill shirt
ASTM PS58 test method [6]. This information is reproduced in material.
DOUGHTY et al.: PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD 265

TABLE IV
EVOLUTION IN KNOWLEDGE OF ARC FLASH PHENOMENA AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF HAZARD MANAGEMENT METHODS

illustrated in Table IV. Specific contributions included in this

paper are summarized as follows.
Incident energy levels produced by three-phase arcs with a
1.25-in electrode gap on a 600-V electrical system with varying
bolted fault values have been experimentally determined in a
laboratory setting. The multiplying effect of a 20-in cubic enclo-
sure on arc incident energy has been quantified. Algorithms for
predicting: 1) incident energy as a function of available bolted
fault current and distance from the arc electrodes and 2) constant
incident energy boundary distances have been developed.
Lee’s “curable burn” distances have been found to be ap-
proximately equal to experimentally determined second-degree
burn boundary distances for open 600-V three-phase 6-cycle
Fig. 17. An FR clothing selection process. arcs with 1.25-in electrode gaps. Experimentally determined
second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase
6-cycle arcs with 1.25-in electrode gaps that are enclosed in a
A comparison of the relative performance of polycarbonate 20-in cubic box were found to be significantly larger than pre-
safety glasses, polycarbonate visors used in face shields and dicted by Lee.
hoods, and common leather work gloves is shown in Fig. 14. One process for selecting FR clothing to protect personnel
ATPV values in Fig. 14 were estimated from energy transmis- against arc flash injury has been presented. Protective charac-
sion data in [2] based on a limited number of specimen expo- teristics for classes of FR clothing have been summarized. Pro-
sures. tective levels for polycarbonate safety glasses, common leather
Using boundary equation (5) to determine the distance from work gloves, and polycarbonate faceshields and hoods were es-
a three-phase 6-cycle arc in open air for a specified incident timated. This information is based upon test data produced in a
energy level, Fig. 15 was constructed showing the boundary laboratory simulation, not real-life conditions which may vary.
distance to just obtain a second-degree burn of bare skin or a The user is responsible for determining appropriate FR clothing
second-degree burn while wearing untreated cotton, Class 1, or and protective equipment to use based upon the actual condi-
Class 2A FR clothing systems. Fig. 16 contains similar data de- tions of use and exposure.
rived from(6) for a three-phase 6-cycle arc in a 20-in cubic box. Future testing is planned to better define the incident energy
The Appendix includes second-degree burn boundary distances produced by three-phase arcs on 5-kV electrical systems.
for 600-V three-phase arcs in open air or in a 20-in cubic box
for arc durations other than 6 cycles. APPENDIX
A flow chart defining the appropriate steps to take in selecting SECOND-DEGREE BURN BOUNDARY DISTANCES
FR clothing based upon specific 600-V electrical system param-
eters is shown in Fig. 17. See Figs. 18 –23.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
VI. CONCLUSION
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance
Significant progress has been made in the last 20 years in provided by C. Maurice and W. Dal Din of the Ontario Hydro
understanding the arc flash hazard and protecting people, as is Technologies High Current Laboratory.
266 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000

(a)

(b)

Fig. 18. (a) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 3-cycle electric arcs in open air . (b) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V
three-phase 3-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box. Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or
less than these simulated exposures.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 19. (a) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 9-cycle electric arcs in open air . (b) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V
three-phase 9-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box. Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be more or
less than these simulated exposures.
DOUGHTY et al.: PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD 267

(a)

(b)

Fig. 20. (a) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 12-cycle electric arcs in open air . (b) Second-degree burn boundary distances for
600-V three-phase 12-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box. Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be
more or less than these simulated exposures.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 21. (a) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 18-cycle electric arcs in open air . (b) Second-degree burn boundary distances for
600-V three-phase 18-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box. Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be
more or less than these simulated exposures.
268 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2000

(a)

(b)

Fig. 22. (a) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 24-cycle electric arcs in open air . (b) Second-degree burn boundary distances for
600-V three-phase 24-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box. Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be
more or less than these simulated exposures.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 23. (a) Second-degree burn boundary distances for 600-V three-phase 30-cycle electric arcs in open air . (b) Second-degree burn boundary distances for
600-V three-phase 30-cycle electric arcs in 20-in cubic box. Data based on measured incident energy under specified test conditions. Real arc exposures may be
more or less than these simulated exposures.
DOUGHTY et al.: PREDICTING INCIDENT ENERGY TO BETTER MANAGE THE ELECTRIC ARC HAZARD 269

REFERENCES Thomas E. Neal received the Ph.D. degree in analyt-

ical chemistry from the University of North Carolina,
[1] R. Lee, “The other electrical hazard: Electrical arc blast burns,” IEEE Chapel Hill.
Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 1A-18, pp. 246–251, May/June 1982. Prior to his recent retirement, he was the Tech-
[2] R. A. Jones et al., “Staged tests increase awareness of arc-flash haz- nology Manager of the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
ards in electrical equipment,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE PCIC, Sept. 1997, pp. Company Thermal Testing Laboratory, Wilmington,
313–322. DE, for the past five years. He has more than 20
[3] T. Neal, A. H. Bingham, and R. L. Doughty, “Protective clothing guide- years of experience in high-performance fibers and
lines for electric arc exposure,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE PCIC, Sept. 1996, protective clothing and represented DuPont at the
pp. 298–281. ASTM F18, ASTM F23, and the NFPA standards
[4] R. L. Doughty, T. E. Neal, T. A. Dear, and A. H. Bingham, “Testing committees on industrial flash fire protective
update on protective clothing & equipment for electric arc exposure,” in clothing and electric arc protective clothing. He is a hands-on scientist and has
Conf. Rec. IEEE PCIC, Sept. 1997, pp. 323–336. conducted thousands of electric arc tests and flash fire tests using DuPont’s
[5] Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, instrumented manikins. He particularly values the opportunity to interact
NFPA 70E-1995. with end-users in the petroleum, petrochemical, chemical, and electric utility
[6] Standard Test Method for Determining the Arc Thermal Performance industries in order to gain a better understanding of the real thermal hazards
(Value) of Textile Materials for Clothing by the Electric Arc Exposure which workers face every day in their jobs. He plans to continue his work on
Method Using Instrumented Sensor Panels, ASTM PS58, Apr. 1997. protective clothing for flash fire and electric arc hazards in his own consulting
business.

H. Landis Floyd, II (S’72–M’73–SM’91) received

the B.S.E.E. degree from Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute and State University, Blacksburg, in 1973.
In 1973, he joined E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Wilmington, DE, where he currently
serves as a Senior Consultant in Engineering
Richard L. Doughty (M’75–SM’78–F’95) received and specializes in power system reliability and
the B.E.E. and M.E.E. degrees in electrical engi- electrical safety in plant construction, operation,
neering from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, in 1965 and maintenance. He chairs the DuPont corporate
and 1966, respectively. Electrical Safety Team, which is responsible for
In 1966, he joined E. I. du Pont de Nemours and leading continuous operation practices impacting
Company, Wilmington, DE. He served as a Principal electrical safety and plant reliability.
Consultant in the Electrical Technology Consulting Mr. Floyd is a Professional Member of the American Society of Safety Engi-
Group of Engineering, and specialized in the appli- neers (ASSE). He currently chairs the IEEE Power Systems Engineering Com-
cation of electric motors and electric power system mittee and is a past Chair of the IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Safety
design, prior to his retirement in October 1999. Subcommittee, the IEEE Power Systems Engineering Maintenance, Operation
Mr. Doughty is Chairman of the IEEE Industry Ap- and Safety Subcommittee, the IEEE Standard, Guide to Maintenance, Oper-
plications Society Petroleum and Chemical Industry (PCIC) Motors Working ation and Safety of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, and the IEEE
Group (P841), Co-Chairman of the PCIC P1349 Working Group on safe appli- Electrical Safety Workshop. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the
cation of motors in Class I, Div. 2 hazardous (classified) areas, past Chariman National Electrical Safety Foundation and chairs the NESF Workplace Safety
of the PCIC Chemical Subcommittee, a past member on Panel 10 of NFPA Committee. He is a member of the IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry
70—The National Electric Code (representing Chemical Manufacturers Asso- Young Engineers Development Subcommittee and is past chair of the IEEE In-
ciation), and a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Delaware. He is dustry Applications Society Outstanding Young Member Award Committee. He
the recipient of Prize Paper Awards from the PCIC and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS is a member of Panel 1 of the National Electrical Code, and a Registered Pro-
ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. fessional Engineer in the State of Delaware.