Electric Shock Hazards - Risk Assessment and Safety
Management
Thomas Lanzisero
UL University
UL LLC
Melville, NY, USA
thomas.p.lanzisero@ul.com
Abstract— Risk assessment typically includes various stages to
identify, analyze and evaluate risk, and to reduce risk as needed.
For example, the risk of electric shock could be assessed for a
product. But to achieve an acceptable level of safety, and then to
maintain that level, and even assess opportunities for
improvement, it could be very useful to incorporate this risk
assessment into a more complete framework of a safety
management process. Such a comprehensive and systematic
approach can help to manage the safety of a product, as
demonstrated by examples of electric shock hazards.
This paper will address electric shock hazards in terms of the
ASSET™ Safety Management Process, focusing on hazard
analysis and protective measure strategies to reduce the risk of
electric shock. (Abstract)
Keywords- elctric shock; risk assessment; hazard analysis;
safety management
I. INTRODUCTION
Risk assessment typically includes various stages to
identify, analyze and evaluate risk, and to reduce risk as
needed. For example, the risk of electric shock could be
assessed for the application of a product. But to achieve an
acceptable level of safety, and then to maintain that level, and
even assess opportunities for improvement, it could be very
useful to incorporate this risk assessment into a more complete
framework of a safety management process. Such a
comprehensive and systematic approach can help to manage
the safety of a product, as demonstrated by examples of electric
shock hazards.
This paper addresses electric shock hazards in terms of risk
assessment and other approaches integrated into the ASSET™
Safety Management Process. For this application, the focus is
on hazard analysis and fundamental protective measure
strategies to reduce the risk of electric shock. An electric shock
hazard is a source having the potential for different types and
degrees of harm. This harm is expressed in terms of
susceptibility to specific levels of current and duration, and
impacted by other factors such as body current pathway,
contact area and moisture condition, frequency and wave-
shape. The paper will then address protective measure
strategies and considerations to prioritize them, including
limitation of current magnitude by impedance in the source, in
978-1-4673-1033-8/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
the body or in connections between them, or by limitation of
current duration.
Safety requirements developed using risk assessment can
offer clear safety objectives and means to meet them. The
hazard analysis stage of risk assessment addresses each hazard
to reduce risk of harm. This approach would determine which
undesirable effects are to be avoided, the susceptibility to them,
their conditions and causes, and appropriate protection against
them. Such a risk-based approach would identify the objectives
of protecting against each specific undesirable effect, and
directly relate them to appropriate protection requirements and
limits.
The UL ASSET Safety Management Process is based on
Applied Safety Science and Engineering Techniques, in turn
based on risk assessment, hazard based safety engineering and
other disciplines of safety science and management of risk,
quality and other aspects of product design. The ASSET
Safety Management Process was introduced and outlined in
previous IEEE papers for 2010 and 2011 ISPCE. This process
to meet safety objectives includes stages to determine scope
and context, to identify and analyze hazards having potential
for harm, to determine and prioritize protective measures in
terms of strategies, categories and mechanisms, and to evaluate
protective measures and their safety attributes. Such safety
attributes involve those specific characteristics, properties and
performance relied on for safety, including aspects such as
efficacy, durability and reliability to suit the needs of the
application.
The ASSET Safety Management Process can be used to
support informed decisions about the safety of a product
relative to safety objectives, such as in applicable standards,
codes and regulations, and to identify and bridge any identified
gaps. Such gaps could potentially exist for new hazards or
risks not anticipated by existing requirements, for example due
to new products, technologies, features or uses. Gaps could
also exist for innovative protective measures that may not be
explicitly permitted in the wording of requirements, but which
could be shown to provide an equivalent level of safety to meet
the intent of the requirements. Additional stages in this safety
management process then help to determine whether and how
an acceptable level of safety is maintained, and to assess
opportunities for improvement, throughout the product life.
 II. ELECTRIC SHOCK HAZARDS
Electrical energy, and the products that generate, transmit,
distribute, control, store, convert and utilize it, can present
many hazards having potential for harm. The primary
objective of electrical safety is to reduce relevant risks to an
acceptable level, particularly concerning fire, arc flash / blast
and shock hazards. We know electrical energy can be
hazardous, even lethal. For example, an appliance electrical or
other utilization equipment can involve the risk of electric
shock to persons, whether in normal, off-normal or abnormal
use, or in normal or fault conditions.
Many of us may have experienced what we consider
electric shock, but at levels that were fortunately low. We may
think we know shock by experience. But what exactly is
electric shock, what is the hazard, what is the harm, how is it
caused, and how can it be prevented, or how can we protect
against it? We can consider electric shock as any undesirable
physiological effect due to the flow of current through the
body. The harm is the undesirable effect, which can directly or
indirectly lead to injury or death. The severity of these effects
increases with current levels or duration of time, and depends
on the susceptibility of body parts and systems in the current
pathway. In general, increasingly higher current can cause
increasingly severe effects, for example from sensation to
involuntary reaction, to strong muscular effects, difficulty in
breathing and inability to let go, to ventricular fibrillation and
death.
The susceptibility to these physiological effects is
described, for example, in the IEC 60479 series. IEC 60479-1
is a Basic Safety Publication that describes the effects of
current and the threshold levels at which these effects are likely
to begin across the population. It focuses on sinusoidal AC at
power line frequencies (50/60 Hz) and on DC. IEC 60479-2
addresses special aspects, such as higher frequencies, complex
frequencies, AC/DC composites, short duration impulses,
multiple bursts and other non-sinusoidal waveforms.
Figure 1. Electric shock hazard leads to harm (undesirable physiological
effect / injury) if body susceptibility to that effect is exceeded. Susceptibility is
based on current for a duration
Touch voltage thresholds have also been determined, which
correspond to certain current thresholds, physiological effects
and varying body impedance, as described in IEC 60479-5.
The relationship between these thresholds and some
conventional touch voltage limits is outlined in IEC 61201,
which serves as an application guide. This can help provide a
better understanding of conventional contact voltage limits
(such as NEC Class 2) and the underlying conditions that apply
to them, such as skin contact area and moisture, and suitability
of startle reaction current levels with regard to contact
circumstances.
Based on research data and analysis, these international
technical reports are developed by IEC Technical Committee
TC64 MT4, with experts in science and engineering disciplines
such as human physiology, electrical engineering and other
relevant fields. Such technical information forms the
foundation for risk assessment in the development and
implementation of codes and standards for safety. This also
forms the technical basis for many existing and developing
requirements on electric shock and protection, with suitable
safety factors considered between limits in product safety
standards and the physiological thresholds of susceptibility.
A person interacting with a hazardous energy source can be
coupled with its energy, resulting in injury if the magnitude,
rate and duration exceed certain thresholds. In the case of
electric shock, this coupling is generally caused by contact, in
the form of current that flows for a certain duration through the
impedance of the body. The electrical circuit through the body
is completed by two separate contacts: one to the source of
current and one to its return. For example a person could make
hand-to-hand contact across line–neutral in a circuit, or hand-
to-foot contact with a hand on the line-side of a circuit and a
foot in contact with ground (concrete floor, water pipe, other
grounded parts, etc.), to which the return circuit (neutral) is
referenced.
Electric shock harm is considered as any undesirable
physiological effect due to current that exceeds the threshold of
susceptibility for the involved body parts. The harm is based on
susceptibility to current and duration, and protection is
therefore based on limiting either the current or the duration, or
both. Voltage can be addressed simply by its ability to drive
current as limited by impedance, including but not limited to
the use of a low voltage source.
All likely conditions — wanted and unwanted — must be
considered. Fault conditions, even multiple conditions, may be
unwanted but must be anticipated. As an example, circuits can
be miswired, resulting in unintended wiring configurations of
branch circuits, receptacles, and connected loads, and leading
to unwanted supply source conditions such as no grounding,
reversed polarity and open neutral. Open grounding or reversed
polarity could exist undetected and long term. Open neutral
conditions may not exist undetected as long (indicated by
unenergized loads), but consideration is still warranted.
These conditions can increase the risk of electric shock.
Leakage current normally flows from the supply source
through resistive and capacitive paths returning to accessible
conductive parts and ground. But if the grounding connection is
open (green wire in the equipment or in the supply), this
leakage current is now touch current, available to flow through
a person who simply needs to contact accessible metal on the
equipment (enclosure) and ground (concrete floor, water pipe,
other grounded parts, etc.). In addition, if the neutral
connection to the equipment is open, some circuitry normally at
neutral (ground) potential will be raised to line potential. If N-
G capacitance is symmetrical with L-G capacitance, this
condition will double the leakage current and further increase
the risk of shock.
These conditions therefore form the basis for typical
product leakage/touch current testing requirements as in
UL/ANSI 101 or in IEC 60990. Products are tested to
applicable leakage current limits under these unwanted but
anticipated conditions to ensure that the protection against
electric shock is effective.
III. RISK ASSESSMENT IN DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY
STANDARDS AND CODES
A risk-based approach to develop safety standards provides
a means to establish a clear connection between protection
requirements and the undesirable effects, such as injury, to be
avoided. Likewise, the undesirable effects would be clearly
identified and linked to the protective mechanisms in the
requirements. Limits to protect against the harm need to be
appropriate, based on technically correct analysis and
application of data on physiological thresholds of
susceptibility, and with safety factors suitable for the level of
risk.
So what is a hazard, how does it cause harm, and how do
we protect against it? Simply put, a hazard is something that
can cause harm. As an example, a residential Class 1 branch
circuit can cause electric shock injury or death to persons that
interact with it, directly or by way of wiring, devices or
equipment. A risk assessment approach seeks to reduce risk of
harm by addressing each hazard and its elements of risk. It
would first determine the specific harm to be avoided and the
susceptibility to it, then analyze the causes of the harm, and
then focus on appropriate protection against it.
Determining the harm to be avoided would address each
undesirable effect, such as specific injury under set
circumstances, and particularly the susceptibility to the harm.
Analyzing the causes of harm would cover the mechanisms,
factors, conditions and cause-and-effect relationships, and
would then identify the source as hazardous. Focusing on
appropriate protection would identify and then prioritize
protective mechanisms that are effective, reliable and practical.
A risk assessment can provide a clear, straightforward
model for an otherwise complex problem. It’s a tool we use to
analyze a problem and prioritize its solutions — to solve a
problem in the right way. It emphasizes and supports the need
to first analyze, then evaluate, test and validate. This approach
identifies a hazard, such as parts energized by a branch-circuit
supply source capable of causing harm upon interaction with
persons (electric shock) or property (fire). This interaction
results in injury if a person is coupled with this energy at a
magnitude, rate and duration that exceeds the threshold of
susceptibility, the ability to sustain or withstand it without
injury or other undesirable physiological effects. The more
severe or likely the injury, the greater the risk.
Protection from harm involves a means to control, reduce,
limit or prevent interaction with this hazardous electrical
energy source — to reduce the magnitude, rate or duration
below the susceptibility threshold. You may have heard the
order of priority to reduce this risk expressed as “Eliminate the
hazard, guard against the hazard, or warn about the hazard.”
Protective mechanisms need to be effective and reliable to
mitigate the hazards and reduce the level of risk under all likely
conditions of the application throughout the expected life of the
product.
All likely conditions must be anticipated and considered.
This includes conditions of normal use and reasonably
foreseeable misuse and abuse. Fault conditions are simply
unwanted conditions, states or events that may contribute to the
harm being considered. Analysis tools such as fault trees are
sometimes used to outline the relationships between the factors
that contribute to harm — particularly critical paths — and to
help design protective mechanisms in the right order of
priority. This may highlight the effect of certain external
factors that must also be considered. Multiple faults must also
be considered. As an example, one fault could precipitate
another, or one fault could exist (undetected, indefinitely) and
then another fault could occur at the same time. .
IV. RISK ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRIC SHOCK HAZARD –
SOME BASIC EXAMPLES
Risk can be assessed for electric shock harm to a person.
Recall that a person interacting with a hazardous energy
source is coupled with its energy, resulting in injury if the
magnitude, rate and duration exceed certain thresholds. In the
case of electric shock, this coupling is caused by contact, and
in the form of current that flows for a duration through the
impedance of the body. The electrical circuit through the body
is completed by two separate contacts: one to the source of
current and one to its return. For example a person could make
hand-to-hand contact across line–neutral in a circuit, or hand-
to-foot contact with a hand on the line-side of a circuit and a
foot in contact with ground (concrete floor, water pipe, other
grounded parts, etc.), to which the return circuit (neutral) is
referenced.
Electric shock harm is considered as any undesirable
physiological effect due to current that exceeds the threshold
of susceptibility for the involved body parts. The harm is
based on susceptibility to current and duration, and protection
is therefore based on limiting that current or duration.
A. Harm: Susceptibility to Current and Duration
For some common Class 1 residential branch circuit
applications (240/120 Vac rms, 60 Hz), the following
time/current thresholds of physiological susceptibility from
IEC TS 60479 provide a frame of reference for the population.
The reference is a common current pathway, left hand-to-both
feet. Susceptibility may differ with different pathways, as well
as factors such as dc, frequency, waveshape and others not
included here.
Recall that limits in standards and guidelines generally need to
be separated by safety factors from the physiological
thresholds for injury, with greater risk warranting greater
safety factors. Values are given in ac rms, but certain effects
involving muscle stimulation may be more closely associated
with peak voltages, so the equivalent peak voltages for clean
sinusoidal waveforms are also shown. Some examples follow.
The physiological threshold for startle reaction is 0.5 mA AC
rms (0.7 mA peak) independent of duration. These effects
increase with current and current density over the area of
contact. This is also a commonly used leakage / touch current
limit in many product standards. If below this level,
physiological effects include [possible] perception but usually
no [significant] startle reaction. Note that startle and related
effects may not be direct injuries, but could result in injury in
certain applications and circumstances simply as a
consequence of an unexpected or undesirable physiological
effect. This may indirectly cause injury, but injury
nonetheless. The harm is the undesirable effect, whether or not
an injury is directly caused by the body current.
The physiological threshold for muscular reactions such as
immobilization, difficulty in breathing and inability to let-go
can be as low as 5 mA AC rms (7 mA peak) dependent on
duration. These effects are generally undesirable and could
result in injury in certain applications and circumstances. If
below this threshold, physiological effects include “[likely]
perception and involuntary muscular contractions... but
usually no harmful electrical physiological effects.” 2
The physiological threshold for ventricular fibrillation is as
low as 35–40 mA AC rms (approx 50 mA peak) dependent on
duration, but based on current that may last a few heart cycles
(seconds) or more. This threshold current also depends heavily
on pathway through the body, and may be higher (such as
hand-to-hand) or lower (such as chest-to-hand). If below this
threshold, physiological effects include “strong involuntary
muscular contractions, difficulty in breathing, reversible
disturbances of heart function, [and] immobilization, [with]
effects increasing with current magnitude, but usually no
organic damage is to be expected.” 2
Above this threshold, “pathophysiological effects may occur
such as cardiac arrest, breathing arrest, and burns or other
cellular damage. Probability of ventricular fibrillation
[increases] with current magnitude and time.” 2
Note that these are only examples of the many effects of
current for branch circuit applications. Other harmful effects
are also possible, depending on factors such as pathway and
affected organs and body subsystems.
V. RISK ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRIC SHOCK PROTECTION —
SOME BASIC EXAMPLES
The risk-based approach provides a means to address hazards
that can cause harm, as well as protective means that can
reduce risk of harm, such as electric shock. The safety
objective is to avoid certain undesirable physiological effects,
and the protection requirements need to address directly the
susceptibility to these effects. As electric shock harm is based
on susceptibility to current and duration, then protection is
based on limiting the current or duration. To protect against a
specific effect, the current or duration must be limited below
the level that could cause that effect.
A. Protection: Limiting the Current or the Duration
Current is limited by impedance, but whether we can rely on
body impedance, source impedance or some other series
circuit impedance depends on the circumstances. Recall that
the needed current limitation must be based on the
physiological effect to be avoided and the corresponding
current threshold (0.5 mA for reaction, 5 mA for let-go, etc.).
Note that voltage is simply addressed here by its ability to
drive current, but limited by impedance. Current duration
(time) can also be limited, such as by specifically designed
protective devices.
Again, the limitation must be appropriately below the
thresholds (time/current) for the specific physiological effects
to be avoided. Recall also that protective mechanisms need to
be effective and reliable, as well as appropriate for the
application. Some examples follow.
1) Limiting the Current with Body Impedance (Low
Voltage Source)
Body impedance consists of internal body resistance that
varies with the current pathway, and skin impedance
(resistive/capacitive) that varies with skin contact area and
moisture condition, frequency and voltage. Note that skin
impedance consists of two contacts for entry and exit of
current though the body. Body impedance is also ultimately
proportional to the current itself as the two skin contact
impedances may differ, and vary as a function of the voltage
across them.
Let’s look at variation with voltage. Body impedance is high
by nature, primarily due to skin impedance. At very low
voltages, this impedance remains high enough, on the order of
kilohms to adequately impede the flow of current below
critical thresholds. For example under ordinary conditions
such as hand contact with equipment and foot contact with
ground, NEC Class 2 circuits would not have the potential to
reduce our skin impedance and body impedance, and the
current able to flow would not be likely to cause effects more
severe than reaction.
Notable differences include relatively larger contact area, and
damaged or wet skin (note lower NEC Class 2 limits for wet
contact). In order for voltage to be low enough to protect
against electric shock, the body impedance must be high
enough to limit the body current to acceptable levels — under
all likely circumstances and conditions of contact. As body
impedance decreases as a function of the voltage across the
body, the higher the voltage, the lower the body impedance.
At lower voltage, the body impedance is higher, but other
factors need to be considered including skin contact area and
moisture condition.
Figure 2. Reducing the risk of electric shock: Body Impedance can limit
current below susceptibility to harm (undesirable physiological effects) — but
only under the right conditions such as with a low voltage source
2) Limiting the Current with Source Impedance (Current-
Limiting Source)
A supply source may have adequate impedance in the normal
current-carrying path. A current source has source impedance
so much higher than the remaining circuit impedance that
different loads (from a normal electrical load, to a body, to a
short circuit) do not appreciably change the current. This
source impedance would need to be high enough to limit the
available body current to acceptable levels, such as below the
0.5 mA AC threshold for reaction. This source impedance
may also exist in the path to ground, such as in a ground-
isolated secondary supply. This may provide protection by
limiting fault current that may flow in the grounding path
through a person contacting the supply and ground.
Figure 3. Reducing the risk of electric shock: Source impedance can limit
current below susceptibility to harm (undesirable physiological effects) — but
only under the right conditions such as with a limited current source
But in order for such isolation to be an acceptable protective
mechanism, it must be effective and reliable in the application.
Adequate isolation from ground (protective earth) can be very
difficult to maintain for a product due to interaction with
users, interconnection with other equipment and contact with
other parts and the surrounding environment. Moreover, if this
isolation is compromised it is rarely detected or indicated
except for special cases involving suitable monitoring and
protection circuitry for isolation from ground (for example a
line isolation monitor for isolated power systems required in
applications such as Health Care Facilities covered by Article
517 of the NEC.
3) Limiting the Current with Additional Series Impedance
At residential Class 1 branch circuit voltages (240/120 V), the
skin impedance is dramatically reduced, and total body
impedance approaches only the internal body resistance on the
order of 500 Ohms. With this low body impedance and the
low source impedance inherent to a branch circuit (voltage
source), there is little to impede the current below hazardous
levels. However, there could be other series impedance to
limit this current, by intention or by chance.
Figure 4. Reducing the risk of electric shock: Additional series impedance
can limit current below susceptibility to harm (undesirable physiological
effects) — but only under the right conditions such as with insulation /
isolation in equipment, installation or by person (behavior).
Figure 5. Reducing the risk of electric shock: Source impedance to ground
can limit current below susceptibility to harm (undesirable physiological
effects) — but only under the right conditions such as with a source that is
isolated from ground, and monitored.
Of course, such protection is a common part of equipment and
installations, provided by insulation and isolation, as well as
training, work practices and behavior. In many cases suitable
personal protective gear such as insulating gloves or insulated
tools may be used. Chance impedance could involve
increased body resistance due to very small and dry contact
areas (fingers, hands), even for a shorter current pathway such
as across the same hand. There could also be additional
resistance provided by clothing (shoes, etc.) or the
environment (dry wood floor, carpet, etc.) depending on the
current pathway and circumstances of contact.
No one would expect to rely on chance impedances for safety,
but this helps explain why some have been fortunate to
interact with a hazardous source without the severe
consequences that are possible.
4) Limiting the Current Duration (Time)
In addition, there are other protective mechanisms that limit
the current as well as the duration of current, reducing the
severity and the likelihood of injury under different
conditions. One example is a ground-fault circuit interrupter
(GFCI) that detects current differential between the line and
neutral conductors. Under high-impedance fault conditions
the GFCI shall trip on differential current of nominally 5 mA
within approximately 5 seconds (within milliseconds in
practice), protecting against muscular reactions such as
immobilization, difficulty in breathing and inability to let-go.
Under low-impedance ground-fault conditions (short circuit),
instantaneous fault current could be much higher, but the
GFCI will very rapidly enter the trip mode, required to trip
within milliseconds, well below the short-duration threshold
for ventricular fibrillation and protecting against it.
Figure 6. Reducing the risk of electric shock: GFCI can limit current and time
below susceptibility to harm (undesirable physiological effects such as
inability to let-go or ventricular fibrillation).
Of course there’s much more to all this, but these were just a
few basic examples of applying a risk assessment approach to
electrical safety and protection against the risk of electric
shock.
VI. SUMMARY
This basic overview of a risk assessment approach can help
shed some light on electric shock and fundamental protection
strategies. Risk-based requirements would identify the
objectives of protecting against each specific undesirable
effect, and directly relate them to protection requirements.
Limits to protect against the harm need to be appropriately
based on physiological thresholds of susceptibility, with safety
factors suitable for the level of risk. This approach provides us
with a way to address hazards that can cause harm, in order to
address protection mechanisms that can suitably reduce the
risk of harm.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author acknowledges the value of hazard based safety
engineering and the added UL contributions of Robert J.
Davidson, Jr, as well as the work and publications of IEC
Technical Committee TC64 MT4, particularly the contributions
and support of Walter Skuggevig of Underwriters Laboratories.
REFERENCES
[1] Safety aspects, guidelines for their inclusion in standards, ISO IEC
Guide 51, 2nd ed., Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical
Commission, 1999.
[2] Hazard Based Safety Engineering (HBSE), Student Guide, 2nd ed.,
Hewlett-Packard Company, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Underwriters
Laboratories Inc., 2001.
[3] Hazard Based Safety Engineering (HBSE) UL Supplement,
Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 2003.
[4] T. Lanzisero, “Applied safety science and engineering techniques
(ASSET): taking HBSE to the next level”, IEEE conference proceedings
of International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering, 2010.
[5] T. Lanzisero, “ASSET: The evolution of hazard based safety
engineering into the framework of a safety management process”, IEEE
conference proceedings of International Symposium on Product
Compliance Engineering, 2011.
[6] Effects of current on human beings and livestock - part 1: general
aspects, IEC technical specification 60479-1, 4th ed., Geneva,
Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2005.
[7] Effects of current on human beings and livestock - part 2: special
aspects, IEC technical specification 60479-2, 3rd ed., Geneva,
Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2007.
[8] Effects of current on human beings and livestock - part 5: touch voltage
threshold values for physiological effects, IEC technical report 60479-5,
ed. 1.0, Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical
Commission, 2007.
[9] Use of conventional touch voltage limits - application guide, IEC
technical specification 61201, ed. 2.0, Geneva, Switzerland:
International Electrotechnical Commission, 2007.
[10] W. Skuggevig, “Standards and Protective Measures” in Electrical
Stimulation and Electropathology, J. Patrick Reilly, New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 1992. pp. 429-465.
[11] T. Lanzisero, “A hazard based approach to reduce the risk of shock”,
IAEI News, Sep/Oct 2006.
[12] Standard for safety, leakage current for appliances, UL 101, 5th ed.,
Northbrook, IL: Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 2002.
[13] Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor
current, IEC 60990, 2nd ed., Geneva, Switzerland: International
Electrotechnical Commission, 1999.