METHODS FOR LIMITING ARC FLASH HAZARDS WHILE

MAINTAINING SYSTEM SELECTIVITY

By:
Gary H. Fox, PE, Senior Specification Engineer, General Electric

ABSTRACT

Coordination studies utilize time current curves to determine the extent to which upstream overcurrent
protective device pick-up and time delays must be increased to provide selectivity with downstream
devices. These increases in device time delays result in increased let through energy and greater arc
flash hazards. Advanced breaker trip unit technologies, including zone selective interlock, maintenance
mode, and enhanced time current curve adjustment options, limit let through energy and reduce arc flash
hazards without compromising system selectivity. This paper will detail how these new technologies can
be utilized within cement facilities to enhance system reliability and protect personnel.

INTRODUCTION

System protection and coordination of protective devices has always involved competing goals. On the
one hand, there is a desire is to remove power from a shorted conductor as quickly as possible. On the
other is the desire for the electrical system to continue to deliver power to the loads and make power
available without interruption. Increasing the sensitivity of protective devices and reducing the time
delays prior to clearing faulted circuits tends to favor the former at the expense of the latter, while making
protection less sensitive and increasing time delays has the opposite effect. But the art of selecting
protective device current ratings and properly nesting time delays has allowed engineers to optimize
protective device coordination and provide reasonable protection to the power system. Properly designed
systems can continue to support the majority of the load while isolating the minimum amount of the
system necessary to clear a fault.

Complicating these goals is the desire to provide a safe work environment and to permit personnel to
work in and around electrical distribution equipment safely. While electric shock had been the primary
threat over the last century that electrical equipment has been applied, arc flash, characterized by the
heat and blast energy released by an uncontrolled electric arc, has become a significant concern as the
rate of injury and death from arc flash has gained considerable attention.

ARC FLASH REVIEW

Growing concern about arc flash in the cement industry has lead to increased interest in ways to mitigate
the effects of arc flash. Work in determining the possible arcing current and the heat released by this
arcing current has resulted in equations for determining these quantities [1]. The two predominant factors
used in arc flash energy equations that are somewhat controllable by system designers are the maximum
three-phase bolted fault current and the total clearing time of the overcurrent device that is expected to
clear an arcing fault. Once system topology, and present and future load assignments are determined,
the maximum three-phase bolted fault current becomes essentially constant, at least until major changes
are made to the system. This leaves the total clearing time of overcurrent devices as the single most
significant factor for determining arc flash on both proposed new equipment and making adjustments to
existing equipment. As indicated by equation (1), the incident arc flash energy is directly proportional to
the clearing time of the overcurrent device.
E = 4.184 Cf En (t / 0.2) (610x / Dx) (1)

Where:
E incident energy (J/cm2)
En incident energy (J/cm2) normalized for 0.2 sec arcing time and 610mm working distance
Cf 1.0 for voltage above 1 kV and 1.5 for voltage at or below 1 kV
t arcing duration in seconds
D working distance (mm)
x distance exponent:
x Equipment Type
1.473 LV Switchgear
1.641 LV Panel
0.973 MV Switchgear
2.000 Cable, Open Air

Reducing the arc flash energy may allow operators to use personal protective equipment (PPE) that has
lower thermal withstand capabilities (note that other factors other than the estimated arc flash energy
should be considered when determining the proper PPE to be used for a specific task). Table 1
summarizes the categories of PPE that must be used depending on the heat release of the arc. The Arc
Thermal Performance Value (ATPV) is the incident energy on a material that has 50% probability of
transferring sufficient heat through the material to cause a second degree burn.

ATPV Hazard Risk Description of Clothing Weight

cal/cm2 Category oz/yd2
02 Class 0 Untreated Cotton 4.5 - 7.0
>2 5 Class 1 Fire Resistant Shirt & Fire Resistant Pants or Fire 4.5 - 8.0
Resistant Coverall
>5 8 Class 2 Fire Resistant Underwear + Fire Resistant Shirt & Fire 9 12
Resistant Pants
>8 25 Class 3 Cotton Underwear + Fire Resistant Shirt & Fire Resistant 16 20
Pants + Fire Resistant Coverall
>25 40 Class 4 Cotton Underwear + Fire Resistant Shirt & Fire Resistant 24 30
Pants + Multi-layer Flash Suit
> 40 No PPE class Extreme Danger Significant Blast Effects
applies
Table 1, Arc Thermal Protective Values and associated PPE

Clearly, energy levels greater than Class 4 must be avoided, as there is no PPE available to protect
against the arc flash effects, especially since PPE cannot protect against the blast effects of the pressure
wave associated with these energies. It is also recognized that the PPE associated with the higher
categories have several negative attributes:

1. They may be uncomfortably hot to work in, especially in hot ambient environments. This can
limit the amount of time that a worker can perform his task safely without interrupting the work
to take a break and cool down.

2. Hand protection can make handling tools and parts cumbersome, which extends the amount
of time to perform a task, or might even increase the chances that a tool or part could be
mishandled and dropped into energized parts.
 3. Reduced or distorted visibility due to multiple layers of safety glasses and face shields.

With these negative attributes in mind, many facility owners or supervisors prefer to limit the arc flash
incident energy to Class 2 or less wherever possible.

ADVANCES IN CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIP TECHNOLOGY

The hardware involved with circuit breakers has not changed significantly, other than the the development
of circuit breakers that have current limiting characteristics. The hardware technology involved in the
tripping logic has remained unchanged for decades. That is, the circuit is supervised by a microprocessor
based trip device containing algorithms that act based on the results of digital sampling of the current
waveform. However, the algorithms are becoming more sophisticated and they may provide more setting
selections than previous generations of breaker trips. These improvements generally available of large
frame circuit breakers furnished with stored-energy closing mechanisms. These circuit breakers may be
either low voltage power circuit breakers compliant with ANSI C37.13 and listed to UL1066, or they may
also be insulated case circuit breakers that are listed to UL489.

This paper will focus on three significant improvements now available in breaker trip technology. The first
of these involves a greater range of delay bands that are available as well as the quantity of discrete
settings available within the maximum and minimum delay limits. Previous generation trips typically had
three to four delay bands for long-time settings and three delay bands for short-time and ground-fault
settings. When first introduced, the short-time delays were designed to provide selective operation and
arc flash mitigation was not as yet a concern. The nominal delay times were between 0.1 seconds and
0.5 seconds. The 0.1-second delay would coordinate with the instantaneous trip of a similar large-frame
circuit breaker. The 0.5-second upper limit was necessary due to the short-time rating of the circuit
breaker. Three delay bands usually provided selective operation in the majority of substation topologies,
which if not applied as a radial system, would otherwise be commonly applied in a secondary selective
arrangement. The three delay bands lent themselves well to the three levels of a secondary selective
arrangement, that is, main tie feeder. In the current generation of breaker trips, while the upper limit
of short-time delays must remain at 0.5 seconds, the opposite end of the range has been reduced to
lower delay times, recognizing that the distribution panel or branch panel breakers that might be
coordinated to will have much faster clearing times. Many of them now will clear a fault instantaneously
in about 0.025 sec. The ability to coordinate a substation feeder breaker more closely to the downstream
breakers will reduce the feeder breaker short-time clearing time and may allow the coordinated settings of
the main or tie, if applicable, to be reduced as well. Any reduction in the clearing time of an arcing fault
will reduce the energy release of that arc.

The second significant development in trip algorithms is the filtered instantaneous trip which enhances
the ability of two instantaneous trip circuit breakers to be fully selective. In short, the filtering applied in
the algorithm allows downstream current limiting devices to isolate the current before an unlatch signal is
sent to trip the breaker. To operate properly, the pickup setting of the instantaneous trip must be greater
than the current limiting threshold of the downstream breaker or fuse. Not only does this allow the
instantaneous trips of the two circuit breakers to be selective, but it also allows time current curve
techniques to indicate that the two devices are selective [2] and avoid the problems identified with
conventional instantaneous trips and current limiting devices identified in [3].

Developments in Zone Selective Interlocking (ZSI) techniques have been made as well. ZSI has been
valuable is cases where the number of tiers of circuit breakers exceeded the number of selective short-
time or ground-fault delay bands available to the engineer. ZSI involves the use of low level signals from
one breaker tier to another. The signal is used to allow a lower level tier breaker to signal to an upstream
breaker that it is sensing the fault and to force the upstream breaker into a higher delay time setting to
allow the lower level tier breaker to clear the fault first. In previous generation trips, a circuit breaker that
did not receive a signal would assume its minimum delay band for short-time or ground fault tripping.
Since the short-time and ground fault delays have been expanded to lower delay times, allowing the
breaker to trip at minimum time delay could result in miscoordination since the clearing time of the
downstream device might be higher than the minimum time at which the trip will commit the breaker to
trip. As a result, the ZSI settings will include both a unrestrained setting to replace the automatic
minimum time delay operation as well as a restrained setting which is in effect when the circuit breaker
receives a signal from a lower tier breaker that also senses the fault. This can allow a main device
unrestrained setting to be set to a lower delay band than the feeder. A second major development in ZSI,
available on low voltage power circuit breakers, is the ability to zone selective interlock the instantaneous
trips. In these schemes, a signal from the lower tier breaker causes the instantaneous trip on the
upstream breaker to adopt a fixed back-up setting just slightly greater in delay than the expected tripping
time of the downstream breaker instantaneous trip. Both of these developments aid in reducing total
clearing time while maintaining selective operation of the system overcurrent protection.

The last development is the availability of a Reduced Energy Let-Through Mode or Maintenance
Switch. This function is a second instantaneous trip setting typically adjusted to a lower setting than the
other instantaneous setting that is adjusted for optimum selectivity. This second setting is intended to be
enabled temporarily while work on or around energized equipment is performed downstream of the
breaker. The lower setting should be selected to ensure that the anticipated arcing faults will be tripped
instantaneously. The setting is typically enabled either via a remote switch or via a network command,
depending on the capabilities of the trip device, and the preferences of the system designer.

The results of the implementation of some or all of these developments in distribution systems typical of
the cement industry can be illustrated through a simulated case study. The case study that is presented
here will involve two low voltage unit substation arrangements that are considered to be commonly
applied in the cement industry. In the foregoing, the focus will be on the system protected by the main
breaker as this portion is one problematic area where arc energy might be easily controllable. Time
current curve analysis will be used to demonstrate the selective operation of the overcurrent devices as
well as indicate the estimated arcing current determined for the bus being protected and the associated
arc flash heat energy released.

BASE CASE DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

The Base Case consists of two examples of unit substations representative of those commonly applied in
the cement industry. The first consists of a transformer rated 1,500kVA with a 2,000A secondary main. A
cable extends power to a separate motor control center with a 2,000A main bus. In this example, a group
of motors with a total load of 1,000hp is connected. A 600A molded case circuit breaker is considered to
be the largest branch or feeder overcurrent device that would be applied on this motor control center, and
becomes the device with which the main circuit breakers overcurrent settings must be coordinated.

The main circuit breaker is a low voltage power circuit breaker, designed and manufactured in compliance
with ANSI standards. When provided with a short-time trip, this breaker need not be provided with an
instantaneous trip, which would compromise selective operation with the downstream overcurrent devices
at severe short circuit currents. Without the instantaneous trip, and as demonstrated by the time current
curves, this breaker is completely selective with the 600A feeder applied at the motor control center bus.

The second substation represents those cases where cost efficiencies are obtained by using transformers
with higher kVA ratings, which tend to be less costly on a per kVA basis and are more space efficient. In
this case a 2500kVA transformer is applied with secondary substation equipment rated 4000A. Since
motor control center equipment is not commonly available at this bus rating, 1600A feeder breakers are
applied to distribute power to four motor control centers, each with a group of motors totaling 400hp. Low
voltage power circuit breakers are applied once more, and overcurrent protection is provided by long-time
and short-time tripping. Instantaneous trips are omitted to provide complete selectivity from the main
breaker down to the motor control center branch and feeder level. A 600A molded case circuit breaker is
considered to be the largest branch or feeder overcurrent device that would be applied on this motor
control center, and becomes the device with which the main circuit breakers overcurrent settings must be
coordinated.

Figures 1A and 1B show the time current curves of the two base case substations and the feeder breaker
at the motor control center. There are a set of curves illustrated here that may be unfamiliar to the
 MCC 1 CABLE SUB 2 XFMR
SUB 1 XFMR SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable
SUB 1 XFMR SUB 2 XFMR
SUB 1 MAIN SUB 2 MAIN
SUB 2 FDR 1
MCC 1 FDR MCC-2 FDR
Category 4
Category 4 Category 3
Category 3
Category 2
Category 2
Category 1
Category 1

Category 0
Category 0

TX Inrush TX Inrush

MCC 1 CABLE SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable

Figure 1A Figure 1B

reader. That is the constant energy curves associated with the limits for each hazard risk category.
These curves are similar to those applied for showing the short circuit withstand limits of transformers and
cables and can be applied in much the same way. That is, a fault current cleared below the limit
indicated by a constant energy line is within the capabilities of that PPE category. See [4] for further
details on the construction and application of these curves. The energy curves shown are based on the
following standard assumptions. At the low voltage power circuit breaker switchgear, the arc gap is
32mm and the working distance is 610mm (24 inches), while at the motor control center the arc gap is
25mm and the working distance is 457mm (18 inches).

Analyzing the time current curves reveals that the main breaker on the 1500kVA substation provides
adequate protection to both the motor control center feeder cable and the substation transformer for
through-faults. The main is fully selective with the motor control center branches and feeders. The short-
time setting for the breaker supplying motor control center loads is at the minimum available for this
particular device, a nominal 0.1 second. At the estimated arcing fault current for the motor control center
(indicated by the vertical line benchmark between 0.01 and 1.0 second, the main breaker limits arc
energy to within Category 3 levels, which requires multiple layers of PPE to be worn while working on or
around the equipment protected by the main. On the 2500kVA substation, the main breaker and 1600A
feeder breaker are completely selective with the motor control center branches and feeders. The main
breaker provides adequate protection to substation transformer for through faults while the feeder breaker
provides adequate through-fault protection to the feeder cable used to supply the motor control center.
The estimated arcing fault energy on the main bus is limited by the main breaker to within Category 3
capabilities. While the goals of system protection and selectivity have been achieved in both substations,
reducing the arc flash energy further would be very desirable from a personnel safety perspective.

APPLYING LOWER SHORT-TIME DELAYS

The first area of improvement to illustrate is that of reducing the short-time setting to an adjustment less
than 0.1 seconds. This change and the changes discussed in subsequent sections can be easily
 MCC 1 CABLE SUB 2 XFMR
SUB 1 XFMR SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable
SUB 1 XFMR SUB 2 XFMR
SUB 1 MAIN SUB 2 MAIN
MCC-2 FDR
MCC 1 FDR SUB 2 FDR 1
Category 4
Category 4 Category 3
Category 3
Category 2
Category 2
Category 1
Category 1

Category 0
Category 0

TX Inrush TX Inrush

MCC 1 CABLE SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable

Figure 2A Figure 2B

implemented by replacing the trip device programmer on the circuit breaker. Replacement of the entire
breaker is not necessary or warranted unless the breaker is reaching the end of its useful life, or spare
parts are proving to be difficult or expensive to obtain. UL489-listed insulated case breakers with stored-
energy closing mechanisms might also have improved trip devices available and can be similarly easy to
replace. Figures 2A and 2B show the possible coordination which the reduced short-time settings. Note
that the coordinated settings are completely selective and provide proper protection against through-fault
currents for the cables and transformers applied.

On the 1500kVA substation, Figure 2A, the maximum total clearing time at the estimated arcing fault
current has been reduced to 0.085 sec. This is almost within the limits of Category 1 PPE, but achieving
Category 2 levels is still a significant improvement. The total clearing time of the motor control center
feeder just about exactly coincides with the commit time of the secondary main breaker short-time delay.
Since the total clearing times reflect worst case conditions and tend to be drawn very conservatively, the
touching of the two curves does not represent a significant risk to selective operation in the opinion of the
author.

The short-time settings of the feeder breaker on the 2500kVA substation could have been very similar,
but the maximum short-time pickup setting would not have been able to avoid some overlap with the
instantaneous trip pickup on the motor control center feeder. An I2t setting allows the short time pickup
setting to be reduced a little lower, yet still have the same minimal time delay at the estimated value of the
main bus arcing current. The short-time delay of the 2500kVA main is selected to coordinate with the
feeder short-time. The arc energy boundary curves indicate that the protection provided to the main bus
keeps the arc energy within the capabilities of Category 2 PPE. However, it should be noted that
additional energy provided by the short circuit contribution of the connected motors would increase this
slightly. If the motors are assumed to contribute to the arc energy for a duration of up to 5 cycles, the arc
energy would exceed the limits of Category 2 by almost 10%. This exposes a weakness in the
application of the arc energy boundary curves. While they can be easily applied in systems where there
is only one predominant source, in applications with multiple sources or significant motor contribution they
might be misleading and more rigorous analytical techniques should be used.
SELECTIVE INSTANTANEOUS TRIPS AND ZSI

The next set of curves involves the use of current limiting branches and feeders on the motor control
center. This may not be a practical change for existing equipment. Replacement of the entire motor
control center may prove to be less costly than replacing individual units. However, on new equipment
current limiting circuit breakers should be available for use as both motor circuit protectors and feeder
breakers. The curves show a modern state-of-the-art current limiting breaker applied on the motor control
center feeder. This will allow the substation breakers to have an instantaneous trip provided that the
instantaneous trip uses the filtering techniques previously discussed. Actually, any instantaneous trip
may be able to coordinate with a current limiting device if the setting can be adjusted high enough to
make it insensitive to the peak let-through current. But an instantaneous trip with filtering designed to
coordinate with current limiting devices can be adjusted to a setting that is just above the current limiting
threshold of the current limiting device. In these curves a special technique is applied to graphically
indicate the current threshold for current limiting operation and the range for which the instantaneous
filtering is operational. Due to the limits of the breaker design, the filtering cannot be supported any
further and a conventional instantaneous trip must override the filtering.

The instantaneous trip on the motor control center feeder is drawn conventionally from the pickup setting
up to the threshold where the circuit breaker is current limiting. At this point, a distinctive knee is drawn.
The total clearing time of the breaker at current levels beyond this can be essentially ignored when
coordinated with a breaker containing a selective instantaneous trip. The operational range of the filtering
on the selective instantaneous trip of the substation circuit breaker is represented by a gap shown
immediately above the 0.01 sec axis. This time duration of the gap is arbitrary and is there simply to
indicate the range of currents for which the selective filtering is active. Where the gap ends and the curve
returns to 0.1 sec shows where the conventional instantaneous override begins.

MCC 1 CABLE
SUB 1 XFMR
SUB 1 XFMR
SUB 1 MAIN

MCC 1 FDR

Category 4
Category 3

Category 2
Category 1

Category 0

TX Inrush

MCC 1 CABLE

Figure 3

In Figure 3, the selective instantaneous is set to just above the current limiting threshold of the 600A
breaker and the two instantaneous trips are selective from that point to the maximum bolted fault current.
While this is not an improvement for arc flash, it is nonetheless an improvement in equipment protection
and the amount of damage that might occur from severe fault currents has been reduced by about 50%
by virtue of the reduced total clearing time of the instantaneous trip to that of the short-time delay. The
margin between the protective devices and the short-circuit heating limits of the cable and transformer
has been improved.

For the motor control centers supplied from the 2500kVA substation, current limiting breakers will be
applied and allow the use of the selective instantaneous trip on the feeder breaker. In addition, the trip
devices on the feeders and main have the capability for zone interlocking both the short-time and
instantaneous tripping. Figure 4A shows the coordination from the main down to the motor control center
for a feeder fault, which would enable the main breakers restrained setting, and a backup delay in the
main instantaneous trip. Note that while instantaneous trips are applied on three levels of protection, the
instantaneous trips are selective with each other.

Figure 4B shows the mains unrestrained setting which would be active when the feeder breakers short
time does not detect a fault current, which should only be the case for a main bus fault or feeder breaker
internal fault. The downstream feeder and motor control center branch are not shown because they are
not relevant to this graph. Note that the short-time setting limits the arc flash energy to within Category 1
PPE capabilties. However, again a more rigorous analysis would show that motor contribution could
increase the arc flash energy slightly beyond this and require the use of Category 2 PPE. The
instantaneous trip will minimize the damage of severe faults on the main bus as well as keep the through-
fault effects on the transformer well below its withstand limits.

REDUCED ENERGY LET-THROUGH MODE

The reductions in arc flash energy possible by temporarily enabling a Reduced Energy Let-Through
(RELT) mode is illustrated on Figure 5A and 5B. This is a second instantaneous setting that when
enabled is intended to clear arcing faults that might occur in the portion of the system for which the
breaker has principal responsibility. The setting should be selected with little regard for coordination with
downstream overcurrent devices. However, it would be desirable for the setting to permit the flow of
normal load inrush currents so that nuisance tripping under other than fault conditions does not occur. In
the two substations of this case study, the RELT setting is adjusted to greater than the instantaneous
pickup setting of the 600A molded case breaker. This is well below the anticipated arc fault current level,

SUB 2 XFMR SUB 2 XFMR

SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable
SUB 2 XFMR SUB 2 XFMR
SUB 2 MAIN SUB 2 MAIN
MCC-2 FDR
SUB 2 FDR 1
Category 4 Category 4
Category 3 Category 3

Category 2 Category 2
Category 1 Category 1

Category 0 Category 0

TX Inrush TX Inrush

SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable

Figure 4A Figure 4B
 MCC 1 CABLE SUB 2 XFMR
SUB 1 XFMR SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable
SUB 1 XFMR SUB 2 XFMR

SUB 1 MAIN SUB 2 MAIN

SUB 2 FDR 1
MCC 1 FDR MCC-2 FDR
Category 4
Category 4 Category 3
Category 3
Category 2
Category 2
Category 1
Category 1

Category 0
Category 0

TX Inrush TX Inrush

MCC 1 CABLE SUB 2 FDR 1 Cable

Figure 5A Figure 5B

so operation of the RELT under arcing fault conditions is quite probable. In both cases, the total clearing
time of the RELT function limits the heat release of the estimated arcing fault current to within the
capabilities of Category 1 PPE. Under these conditions, work may proceed with the wearing of a
minimum of fire resistant shirt and fire resistant pants, or fire resistant coveralls. Such minimal PPE
allows the worker to perform the task in better comfort, which can boost productivity, but more
importantly, help assure that the work can be completed without incident.

CONCLUSION

Advances in low voltage circuit breaker trips provide more solutions for the engineer to reduce the effects
of arc flash in electrical distribution equipment. In both modestly sized and larger sized substations it is
possible to limit the arc flash heat energy to within the capabilities of Category 2 PPE, and perhaps even
that of Category1 PPE while maintaining selectively coordinated overcurrent protection. The use of
Category 1 PPE may be possible if selective coordination is temporarily waived and a low-pickup
instantaneous setting or RELT function is applied. These capabilities make the workplace safer as the
potential threat of arc flash is reduced, and the ability to wear lighter and more comfortable materials
makes the task easier to accomplish and may reduce the time required to complete the work.
REFERENCES

[1] "IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations," IEEE Std 1584-2002 , vol., no., pp. i-113,
2002

[2] Valdes, M.; Cline, C., Hansen, S., Papallo, T., "Selectivity Analysis In Low Voltage Power Distribution
Systems With Fuses And Circuit Breakers," Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical
Conference Record, 2009 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-10, May 3 2009-May 7 2009

[3] Valdes, M.; Crabtree, A.; Papallo, T., "Selectivity via the Peak-Current-Let-Through Method: What
Traditional Time Current Curves Will Not Tell, but Should," Cement Industry Technical Conference
Record, 2009 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-9, May 29 2009-June 5 2009

[4} Parsons, A.C.; Leuschner, W.B.; Jiang, K.X., "Simplified Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis Using Energy
Boundary Curves," Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on , vol.44, no.6, pp.1879-1885, Nov.-Dec.
2008