Updates on Code Revisions

2016 EFCOG Electrical Safety

Workshop
 Upcoming Revisions

• 2017 NEC to be published September 2016

• 2018 NFPA 70E – 2nd Review of Proposals, comment
resolution, and final votes – THIS WEEK, to be published
September 2017
• IEEE 1584 – to be released 2016- late -– Guide to Arc Flash
Calculations
 2018 NFPA 70E
Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace

1. All references to other standards will be removed from mandatory text.

2. The DC shock table will be reduced to 50 volts, but the lower range will
go from 50 to 300 volts.
3. The lower thresholds for hazardous energy will be implemented into
Articles 320, 330, and 350 will be 50 Vac and 100 Vdc.
4. The exception to 130.2 has been removed.
5. Deleted references to SPGFCI introduced during first draft.
6. PC 32 Richard Waters reject.
7. Better clarification of Shock Hazard definition with informational note.
8. PC 31 Richard Waters reject.
9. Global change replacing short circuit current to available fault current
with informational note to definition addressing batteries.
10. Defined Fault Current and Fault Current, Available, including an
illustration.
 2018 NFPA 70E
Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace

11. Documented program must include inspection element.

12. Applying hierarchy of controls to risk assessments.
13. PC 153 Mark Scott reject.
14. Documented program must include investigation of near misses.
15. Minor changes to training for safe release but not much impact for us.
16. Article 120 major changes in format and content.
17. PC 158 Mark Scott reject.

PC 145 Mark Scott reject. I did not capture the actions on other 120 PC by
EFCOG members, but they may have been folded into the major overhaul
of 120.
IEEE 1584 – Guide to Arc Flash
Calculations
 IEEE P1584
Final Report of Task Group
‘New Model Validation’
Chair – Dan Doan
Vice Chair – Albert Marroquin

Meeting at ESW on March 7, 2016

6
• Membership
• Scope
• Meeting schedule
• Summary of evaluation
• Conclusions
• Path Forward

7
Membership
Dan Doan Chair
Albert Marroquin Vice-Chair / Secretary, ETAP
Jim Babcock Member
Lloyd Gordon Member
Ken Jones Member
Wei Jen Lee Member
Afshin Majd Member, EasyPower
Vince Saporita Member, EATON
Tom Short Member, EPRI
Marcelo Valdes Member, GE
Mike Lang IEEE/NFPA Collaboration Chair
Daleep Mohla P1584 WG Chair
Bruce McClung P1584 WG Vice Chair
Jim Phillips P1584 WG Secretary

8
Scope

• Review the new model, model basis,

methods, data
• Compare results to the existing
2002 model
• Develop application guidance to be
included in the text of the next
edition of IEEE-201X for review by
P1584WG

9
Model Modifications (Each was reviewed by TG)
Modification Modification Date
Number
1 September 2013
2 July 2014
3 August 2014
4 October 2014
5 March 2, 2015
6 March 16, 2015
7 April 4, 2015
8 June 15, 2015
9 July 28, 2015
10 August 21, 2015
11 September 2, 2015
12 September 14, 2015
13 September 25, 2015
14 November 14, 2015
15 December 3, 2015
16 December 14, 2015
17 December 21, 2015
10
Summary of evaluation

For details, see TG reports August 2015 and February 2016.

Phase 1: Understanding of test results and data

processing
Phase 2: Creation of validation plan and comparison
validation tools
Phase 3: Comparisons against processed test results
performed by IEEE/NFPA Collaboration
Phase 4: Comparisons against IEEE 1584-2002 test
results.

11
Phase 2 Tools
Validation Tool Created by
Matlab Comparison Program (s), C#, C++ Albert Marroquin
Based Arc Current Asymmetrical /
Symmetrical Component Program
Iarc Comparison Program using Excel Marcelo Valdes

Comparison Program(s) to Check against all Tom Short

types of available data / Alternative
Regression AF Model Programs

Typical Factory/Site Model Comparison Dan Doan

Statistical Analysis Tools and Plots in Excel Afshin Majd

Model Result Comparisons against Test Jim Babcock

Results – Excel and third party software

12
Examples: Arc Current Comparison Spreadsheet

13
Examples: HCB configuration with graphing of box
size, IE, and working distance:

14
Examples: Modification Comparison spreadsheet:

15
Phase 3

•Model predictions were compared against all test

results to determine the overall performance of the
model
•Outliers and incomplete test data points were
reviewed
•Final model development test data (subset of total test
results) was agreed on with collaboration research
team
•Annex to report has 2 files, ‘Model Development’ data
and ‘All Test’ data spreadsheets

16
Phase 4

•Final model release candidate was reviewed and

compared with model development test data
•Comparisons showed the proposed model has
improvements over the 1584-2002 model:
– HCB, HOA, and VCBB configurations are available
– Continuous model between LV and MV
– Arcing current variation is considered at MV
– More enclosure sizes
– Larger variable range especially gap
– Results are less ‘over-conservative’, especially AFB at MV
– Gap variable considered for entire voltage range

17
Range of Parameters

– Voltage: 208V to 15kV (all configurations)

– Frequency: 50 or 60 Hz
– Bolted Fault:
• 208-600V 500A to 106kA
• 601V-15kV 200A to 65kA
– Gap between conductors:
• 208-600V 0.25 to 3 inches (6 to 76 mm)
• 601V-15kV 0.75 to 10 inches (19 to 254 mm)
– Working Distance: 12” minimum
– Arc Flash Boundary: same as WD
– Duration: no limits
– Enclosures: Note: Width must be > (4 x Gap)
• 208 - 600V 14x12 to 20x20 (inches)
• >600V - 2.7kV 20x20 to 26x26 (inches)
• >2.7 - 5kV 26x26 to 45x30 (inches)
• >5 - 15kV 36x36 to 45x30 (inches)

18
Application Guidance

– Use Average and Minimum Iarc calculations, determine the

durations for both, find the IE’s, and pick use the higher
value. (All configurations, all voltages)
– Enclosure sizes – use closest size from table 8.2, or use a
value in the range allowed by voltage for more detailed
calculation. Also use deep/shallow selection for <600V.
– Some guidance on selecting configurations (HCB vs VCB
vs VCBB, for example)

19
Model Files

The following documents/files go along with

the report:
DataSummary All Test.xlsx
DataSummary Model Development.xls
IARC Ratio at Different Voltage_1.xlsx
IEEE1584 ExcelCalculator_Version 2.6.2_User Define.xlsm
IEEE1584 ExcelCalculator_Version 2.6.2_User Define_M.xlsm

20
Example Calculator sheet

21
Conclusions

• TG reviewed the proposed model in 17

modifications
• Exceptions:
• TG did not duplicate the regression
analysis that provided the equation
values
• TG did not review equations for ‘HCB
with CT no Tube’ (no test data
provided)

22
Conclusions

• TG consensus: If applied within valid

parameter ranges, the proposed model will
provide results which are consistent, in more
applications than 1584-2002
• The new model is based on over 1800 test
points with additional configurations
• The new model corrects some anomalies in
1584-2002 such as discontinuity at 1kV
• TG has completed its scope and submitted a
detailed report to WG officers
23
Future Research Recommendations

• There is room for improvement; more testing

would be useful to determine effect of:
• Range of enclosure sizes
• Enclosure depth
• Distance from arc to back of box
• Larger and smaller gaps based on actual
equipment
• Larger working distances
• Effect of actual equipment including contents
• DC

24
Working Group Presentations
 Working Groups

4 DOE Electrical Safety Handbook

2 Hazardous Energy Control
3 10CRF851 Flowdown, and Subcontractors
5 Risk Assessment per 70E-2015
1 DC Systems
 Working Group 4
DOE Electrical Safety Handbook

Lloyd Gordon, LANL

Mike Hicks, Idaho DOE
Eugene Santiago, BNL
John Lacenere, PPPL
 Working Group 2
Hazardous Energy Control
Stephanie Collins, LBNL
 Working Group 3
Electrical Safety Subcontractors
and 10CFR851 Flowdown
Jeff Williams, NNSA, Los Alamos
etc.
 Working Group 5
Risk Assessment

Greg Christensen, INL

 Working Group 1
DC Systems

Leads
Gary Dreifuerst, ex LLNL
Stan Berry, ex Navy
Alan Tatum, current ORNL
Peter McNutt, NREL