COMPARISON OF ARC FLASH CALCULATION METHODS

By Neil Van Geem, PE

General
During recent years the electrical industry has focused attention on the
electrical hazard of arc-flash and the danger of its causing severe burns to
electrical workers who are in the vicinity of energized electrical equipment
during an arc. Over this time various methods have been developed to
estimate the effects of an electrical arcs incident energy causing
temperature rise on the human body as a result of the arc and on mitigating
techniques such as levels of fire resistant clothing and work location
relative to the arc. This paper reports on the results of a very limited
comparison of four methods available for incident energy calculation. The
methods include those developed and reported with the IEEE Standard
1584, IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, with
NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee
Workplaces 2000 Edition, with a 1981 IEEE paper, The Other Electrical
Hazard: Electrical Arc Blast Burns, by Ralph Lee, a program of heat flux
calculation from Duke Power, and with the ARCPRO program by Kinetrics,
Inc. Toronto, Ontario. All calculation methods caution that the testing and
calculations are based on selected conditions. These are methods for
predicting or estimating arc flash hazards and thus actual cases
experienced in the field can be expected to vary from these values.
Comparison of Equation Design
The IEEE Standard, Duke Heat Flux, and NFPA 70E use equations
developed empirically from tests performed with arcs, while the Lee paper
and ARCPRO use equations based on theoretical analysis and verified by
comparison with some measured results.
IEEE 1584 Calculations consider three-phase arcs in enclosures and in
air. Published input ranges are:

Voltage of 208 to 15,000 volts

Bolted fault current of 0.700 to 106 KA
Grounding variations
Equipment enclosures of commonly available sizes
Gaps between conductors of 13mm to 152 mm (0.5 to 6 inches)

The equations were developed from curve fitting of results of values

measured from extensive testing performed by the standards working
group. Some general conclusions resulting from their testing are:

System X/R ratio, system frequency, and electrode material had little
or no effect
Incident energy depends primarily on arc current. Bus gap (arc
length) is a small factor

Calculations use Lees equation for voltages above 15 KV

Calculations use bolted fault current input

NFPA 70E Calculations consider three-phase arcs in enclosures or in

air. Input ranges are similar to IEEE 1584 including use of bolted fault
current input. Tested values were limited to a distance from the arc of
greater than 18 only and for bolted fault currents for the range from 16 KA
to 50 KA and for system voltages rated 600 volts and below. The equations
were developed from curve fitting results of values measured on limited
testing (compared to IEEE 1584). Some general conclusions resulting from
the testing which developed the equations and as reported in an IEEE
paper, Predicting Incident Energy to Better Manage the Electric Arc
Hazard on 600-V Power Distribution Systems of the IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications Vol. 36, No. 1, January/February 2000 were:
Effects of arcs in an enclosure are 1.5 to 2.5 that of the same arc in open
air up to currents of 30 KA and 2.5 to 2.8 for currents of 30 to 50 KA

Only three phase arcs were considered

Tests matched Lees equation calculations for open air arcs between
16 and 35KA when calculating burn boundary distance
Poor correlation was found between equations for this testing range
and for ARCPRO or the Duke Heat Flux calculation program.

The testing performed to develop the empirical formulas used the same
test set-up as was later used for IEEE 1584. The working group for IEEE
1584 built on the results of the testing used in NFPA 70E and conducted
many more tests to develop their empirical equations.
Lees Calculation Calculations are theory based and are developed to
consider maximum arc power. It considers three-phase arcs in open air and
calculations use bolted fault current input. IEEE 1584 recommends this
calculation method for medium voltage arcs (Above 15 KV) in open air at
substations and for transmission and distribution systems. The IEEE 1584
software defaults to this formula for cases with voltages over 15 KV.
ARCPRO Considers single-phase arcs in air using theoretical equations.
The calculations use arc current rather than bolted fault current input.
Published Input Ranges

Arc current of 0.2 KA to 100 KA (verified for 3.5 KA to 21.5 KA)

Arc duration of 0.05 to no limit in cycles (verified from 4 to 30)
Arc gap of 1 to 20 inches (verified from 1 to12 inches)
Source voltage (open circuit voltage across the gap in volts) of any
that will sustain the arc
Electrode material choice of copper or stainless steel
Distance from arc of 0.4 to 400 inches (verified from 8 to 24)

In an appendix it is recommended that the results of the calculation

be multiplied by 1.5 to convert to an arc in a box. It further states that
this gives an extremely preliminary approximation.

Duke Heat Flux Calculator - This calculation is based on empirical values

developed from measurements. It is made available to the public at no
charge. It considers a single- phase arc in air, and uses arc current input.
The paper used for the NFPA 70E calculation method (See reference
above) compared the measured three phase results with the calculated
results given for single phase arcs. It reported that, Three-phase test
values of maximum incident energy for the open arcs were from 2.5 to 3
times the values predicted by the single-phase models. Three-phase test
values of maximum incident energy for the arcs in the cubic box were 5.2 to
12.2 times the values predicted by the single-phase models.
Calculation Comparison
Case 1
Consider a three phase arc at a 480 volt panel at a distance of 18 from the
worker, with clearing time of 0.04 sec (2.4 cycles) given by the
instantaneous operation of a 400 A MCCB, a 1 arc gap, and with bolted
fault current of 13,725 amperes:
Incident Energy for arc in air
*NFPA 70E

E = 0.7985 cal/cm2

Clothing Class - 0

IEEE 1584

E = 0.6 cal/cm2

Clothing Class 0

*Lee Method

E = 0.6454 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~+ARCPRO

E = 0.17 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.167 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Incident Energy for the same arc in an enclosure (box)

*NFPA 70E

E = 1.749 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

IEEE 1584

E = 1.1285 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

#*Lee Method

E = 1.1295 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

++ARCPRO

E = 0.51 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

#~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.29 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Case 2
Consider the same arc conditions as for Case 1 except a bolted fault
current of 18.775 KA.
Incident Energy for arc in air

*NFPA 70E

E = 0.9626 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

IEEE 1584

E = 0.8 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

*Lee Method

E = 0.88 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~+ARCPRO

E = 0.34 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.23 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Incident Energy for same arc in an enclosure

*NFPA 70E

E = 1.62 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

IEEE 1584

E = 1.5 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

#*Lee

E = 1.32 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

++ARCPRO

E = 1.02 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

#~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.40 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Case 3
Consider a three phase arc at a 480 volt Main Switchboard with a bolted
fault current of 30.1 KA, a 0.5 sec. (30 cycles) clearing time, a 1.25 arc
gap, and a 24 working distance.
For arc in air
*NFPA 70E

E = 11.01 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

IEEE 1584

E = 8.7 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

#*Lee

E = 9.94 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

~+ARCPRO

E = 5.27 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 3.28 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

For same arc in an enclosure

*NFPA 70E

E = 19.2 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

IEEE 1584

E = 17.2 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

#*Lee

E = 14.9 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

++ARCPRO

E = 15.81 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 3

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 5.74 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

Case 4
Consider a three phase arc at a 120/208 volt panel at the terminals of a
150 KV transformer with a bolted fault current of 9.1 KA, an 18 working
distance, a 1 arc gap, and a 0.1 sec. (6 cycle) clearing time.
For arc in air

*NFPA 70E

E = 1.75 cal/ cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

IEEE 1584

E = 0.69 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

*Lee

E = 0.464 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~+ARCPRO

E = 0.34 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.272 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

*NFPA 70E

E = 5.3 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

IEEE 1584

E = 1.26 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

#*Lee

E = 0.81 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

++ARCPRO

E =1.02 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

#~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.476 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

For same arc in enclosure

Case 5
Consider a medium voltage arc in air near a substation at 24.94 KV, a 60
inch (1524 mm) work distance, an arc duration time of 6 cycles (0.1 sec.),
an arc gap of 6, and abolted fault current of 10,000 amperes.
NFPA 70E

Not confirmed for voltage above 600 volts

IEEE 1584

E = 5.5 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

*Lee

E = 5.497 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

(This verifies that LeesEquation is used in IEEE 1584 for medium

voltages)
+ARCPRO

E = 0.34 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.112 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Case 6 Consider a medium voltage three phase arc remote from a

substation and having the same conditions as Case 5Except a fault current
of 3.55 KA
NFPA 70E

Not confirmed for voltage above 600 volts

IEEE 1584

E = 2.0 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

*Lee

E = 1.95 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

+ARCPRO

E = 0.0 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.112 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Case 7
Consider a medium voltage, three phase arc with same conditions as Case
6 except with working distance of 48
NFPA 70E

Not confirmed for voltage above 600 volts

IEEE 1584

E = 3.0 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

*Lee

E = 3.05 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

+ARCPRO

E = 0.17 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.175 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Case 8
Consider a medium voltage, three phase arc with same conditions as Case
6 except with work distance of 36
NFPA 70E

Not confirmed for voltage above 600 volts

IEEE 1584

E = 5.4 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

*Lee

E = 5.4 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 2

+ARCPRO

E = 0.17 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

Clothing Class - 0

Clothing Class - 0

Case 9
Consider a medium voltage, three phase arc with same conditions as Case
5 except with voltage of 12.5 KV
NFPA 70E

Not confirmed for voltage above 600 volts

IEEE 1584

E = 0.2 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

*Lee

E = 2.75 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1

(IEEE 1584 does not use Lee equation for voltage under 15 KV)
+ARCPRO

E = 0.34 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

E = 0.32 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

Case 10
Consider a medium voltage, three phase arc in air for an ungrounded 2.4
KV system, with a bolted fault current of 3.28 KA, 24 working distance, 6
arc gap, and clearing time of 0.1333 sec. (8 cycles).
NFPA 70E

Not confirmed for voltage above 600 volts

IEEE 1584

E = 0.5 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

(IEEE 1584 does not use Lee equation for voltage under 15 KV)
*Lee

E = 1.44 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 1`

+ARCPRO

E = 0.68 cal/cm 2

Clothing Class - 0

~Duke Heat Flux

Clothing Class - 0

Clothing Class - 0

Notes:
* Values were hand calculated using authors published formulas.

+ The program computed values were converted to three phase conditions

using the mid range of the authors recommended adjustment factors (1.7).
Further, arc current was assumed to be 0.5 of bolted fault current.
++ ARCPRO computed values were converted to three phase in a box
using the mid range of the authors recommended adjustment factors (5.1).
Further, arc current was assumed to be 0.5 of bolted fault current.
# The calculated incident energy for an arc in air was multiplied by 1.75 to
estimate the value for an arc in a box.
~ Arc current was assumed to be 0.5 of bolted fault current, and the
calculated value of incident energy was multiplied by 1.7 to estimate the
value for a three phase arc.
Clothing Class is determined from hazard risk category table in NFPA 70E.

Calculations for Varying Voltage

Because of varying values for incident energy in the above cases, separate
comparisons were made with all arc conditions remaining the same while
varying the voltage supply. The set conditions were for a three phase arc in
air with a bolted fault current of 16 KA, a working distance of 36 inches
(914 mm), an arc gap of 2 inches (50.8 mm), and a clearing time of 12
cycles (0.2 seconds).
For varying voltage the incident energy, E, was calculated for the two
methods which calculate three phase arcs, IEEE, and Lee methods. It
should be noted that the NFPA method was not confirmed for voltage
above 600 volts or fault currents below 16,000 amps and thus its results
are included in the following cases only for the two cases of voltage of 600
or less even though the method calculates for three phase arcs. The
results, in calories per square centimeters, are as follows:
35 KV
IEEE
Lee

68.6
68.6

Clothing Class - X
Clothing Class - X

24.94 KV
IEEE
Lee

48.9
48.9

Clothing Class - X
Clothing Class - X

13.8 KV
IEEE
Lee

1.6
27.7

Clothing Class - 1
Clothing Class - 4

12.5 KV
IEEE
Lee

1.6
27.7

Clothing Class - 1
Clothing Class - 3

4.16 KV
IEEE
Lee

1.4
8.16

Clothing Class - 1
Clothing Class - 3

2.4 KV
IEEE
Lee

1.4
4.64

Clothing Class - 1
Clothing Class - 1

1.0 KV
IEEE
Lee

1.1
1.92

Clothing Class - 0
Clothing Class - 1

0.6 KV
IEEE
Lee
NFPA

0.9
0.96
0.556

Clothing Class - 0
Clothing Class - 0
Clothing Class - 0

Conclusions
Based on all the comparison cases tabulated above and their varying
computed values for incident energy, it is easily seen why selecting an
appropriate method of estimating incident energy is confusing and difficult.
Even though using a comparison of Clothing Class narrows the gap
between predictions somewhat, there is still disparity between the predicted
arc incident energy. The favored choice may be to select the IEEE
Standards method primarily because it is based on empirical equations
developed through multiple tests of varying fault cases. It calculates for
three phase faults (which are the most prevalent form of faults for voltages
1 KV and under) in both open air and in an enclosure.

The NFPA method uses empirical equations developed in much the same
manner as the IEEE but based on fewer test cases, and is limited in both
voltage and fault current ranges.
ARCPRO and the Duke Heat Flux programs are limited to single phase
arcs in air with recommended adjustment factors to estimate three phase
arcs and arcs in enclosures.
The Lee method, though accepted by IEEE for supply voltages above 15

KV, makes assumptions about the arc current magnitude and may be
overly conservative.
It would be more reassuring to see better correlation of answers between
the calculation methods studied, but it should be remembered that all these
methods were developed to give the electric industry an estimate or
prediction of incident energy for a worker exposed to an electric arc. We,
who are concerned about electric safety, are left to making the best choice
from among different methods of calculation giving different answers.
Copyright Associated
Training Corporation. Any
unauthorized duplication or
distribution prohibited.