How to
Conduct
Arc Flash
Studies
BY ED McCONNELL AND TOM NESTOR, SSOE GROUP
I dentifying the risk of arc flash is not
easy, but it is essential so utility workers
can protect themselves. More than 2,000
workers were injured or killed by electrical
shock and arc flash in 2010, according to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since
then, no significant improvements have
been shown in electrical-related fatalities.
Arc flashes typically are caused by a
short circuit in an electrical system that
results in an uncontrolled release of energy.
Third-party electrical systems analysis
programs, however, help engineers iden-
tify which areas of the electrical system
pose the greatest risk of injury. When the
final report on incident energy values is
complete and delivered, utilities must be
assured that all possible scenarios have
been considered so employees can be
protected. The following key approaches
provide solutions to two challenges of
conducting arc flash studies.
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection typically accounts for 30
to 50 percent of the total cost of the overall
study and is essential in developing an
accurate arc flash study.
Assemble team. The team must employ
and use people who:
•  Are qualified according to OSHA
definitions of a “qualified individu-
al.” These definitions include being
familiar with the equipment, knowing
what voltage level with which they
will be working, and knowing how
to use the proper personal protective
equipment (PPE).
•  Are knowledgeable of the electrical
system and qualified to operate it.
•  Follow the standards that are
Ed McConnell, a registered professional
engineer, is a master engineer at SSOE Group,
a global engineering, procurement and con-
struction management firm. With more than
35 years of experience, he specializes in facility
electrical power distribution, large motor starting,
lighting, electrical systems grounding, building
grounding, building utilities electrical power
and control, substations, security systems, com-
munication systems, and fire detection and
alarm systems. Reach him at 419.255.3830 or
ed.mcconnell@ssoe.com.
established by the engineer, can inter-
pret the data and log it correctly on
data collection forms.
•  Can open an electrical box, determine
what size wire is connected, iden-
tify the specific fuse information and
determine settings for circuit breaker
systems, including adjustable trip set-
tings.
•  Bring a basic knowledge of arc flash
evaluation and are trainable based
on a solid knowledge of electrical
systems.
Collection tools. Consistency in col-
lection improves the flow of the overall
Tom Nestor, a registered professional engi-
neer, is an electrical engineer at SSOE Group.
With more than 40 years of experience, he
is responsible for the proper technical and
administrative completion of projects, including
facility electrical power distribution, large motor
starting, lighting, electrical systems grounding,
building grounding, building utilities electrical
power and control, substations, security systems,
communication systems, and fire detection and
alarm systems. Reach him at 419.255.3830 or
tom.nestor@ssoe.com.
This excerpt from a data collection form shows how order is given to data collected. © SSOE

process and often relies on using a team standardized data collec- 800A FUSE EXAMPLE
tion form that matches well with the data entry to be done later.
1000
This consistency is critical when an electrical contracting firm sep-
arate from the engineer is used for data collection. Interpreting the
physical equipment data and converting it to an accurate one-line
diagram is critical for entering the data correctly into the study 100

software. The software builds an electrical model of the system. Time to clear fault
at far end of bus
Accurate connections and interfaces are critical to produce accu- 800A Feeder Fuse duct. Approximately
0.55 seconds.
rate study results. Photographic documentation is also important 10
Incident energy
approximately 2.5
because the ability to visualize the facility ensures data collection times higher than
at source end.
is more precise and speeds the compiling of information for the
model. It also allows the engineer to visualize or remember the
1
system in the office. In a study at a chemical company, it was Time to clear fault
unclear without photos whether circuit breakers were individual at source end of bus
duct. Approximately
or in a panel board. A photo would have shown that what was 0.17 seconds.

designated as a panel was actually individual, molded case circuit 0.10 Arcing fault current at
far end of bus duct.
breakers. This affected the modeling phase and required different Shown as 78 percent
of the current at the Arcing fault current at
input and more labels. Photographs should show how conduits source end. source end of bus duct.
are routed, whether into the ground or ceiling, and the accessibil-
0.01
ity of components. Wire sizes and lengths should be identified. 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Do their paths follow a direct route or do they run underground TCC Name: 800A Fuse Time Current Curve Current Scale x 1. Reference Voltage: 480

or up a wall and over a roof? Photos show how equipment fits

into a space. A wide-angle shot that shows an electrical panel
mounted on the wall with a conduit up to the ceiling clarifies
whether the distance is 15 or 30 feet above the panel. A close-up
of the equipment also can help identify the nameplate and model
number. It should be taken with no flash so a bright spot does not
cover information printed on reflective surfaces.
A good set of plan drawings also identify feeder and cable
lengths. Drawings show where cables are horizontal and vertical
and distances between feeders. Short feeder lengths are easy to
estimate and do not affect study values significantly; however,
longer feeders can be harder to estimate and have a greater signifi-
cance in the study because of the higher impedance in the cable.
The number of feeders in the system determines the cost of data
collection. In a hospital, there might be 1,000 devices that need to
be labeled. If it takes six minutes each to calculate feeder lengths,
this part of the data collection can take up to 100 hours.
Time Current Curve (TCC) illustrates longer trip time for lower fault current and higher
incident energy. © SSOE
Preplanning. Data collection can become complicated when
the subject is a large, complex electrical distribution system. The
study can consist of several buildings, or there might be a number
of system ties. These complex studies require careful preplanning
and identifying a person familiar with the site to work with the
data collection team. Some owners recommend a contractor who
worked regularly on the site to assist in data collection. In com-
plex facilities, electrical rooms sometimes are in obscure, difficult
to access locations. Instead of using a door off the main corridor,
the electrical entry might be inside a closet and up a ladder.
Alternatively, the electrical equipment might be in the mechanical
room but separated from the mechanical equipment by a wall
or partition. It saves time to have someone on the team who is
familiar with the electrical locations. The same person can help fill
in important preplanning information that
is missing from existing plan drawings and
one lines, such as recent system changes.
Preplanning includes knowing the spe-
cific requirements of certain areas of the
plant or building and orienting those who
are going into the location. Some areas that
require access for data collection have spe-
cial PPE requirements. For example, when
evaluating electrical equipment in the
batch house of a glass plant, each collec-
tor must wear a respirator or a mask. This
rules out people with beards because they
are unable to wear respirators. Another
example is some electrical equipment in
an area designated as a confined space. In
this case, the person must be qualified to
go into such a space and be familiar with
all the rules this entry entails.
Even with preplanning, in hazardous
locations it might not be apparent that
equipment is inaccessible while the pro-
cess is operating. With a system shutdown,
access still might be possible but could be
encumbered by a switch cover secured
with 14 bolts that normally could be
opened with a latch if it were in a nonhaz-
ardous location. More time is required to
get into a breaker in a hazardous location
even if it is shutdown. To do an assess-
ment under these conditions, hot work
and additional permits might be required.
Ensure the right, knowledgeable
employees on the site are available to
provide access. This is a significant issue
during spring break on a college campus,
for example, when maintenance staff is a
skeleton crew. Someone on that crew with
keys must be available during shutdown.
Electrical bus ducts present another
preplanning wild card. Usually mounted
15 to 20 feet above the floor, a system can
have a concentration of plugs through a
bus length of hundreds of feet. The team
needs to know in advance if a man lift is
required to access the plugs, especially if
they cross production lines in a plant. As
bus duct data must be collected during
a shutdown, a process plant that runs
24/7 must alert the team when there is an
opportunity for collection, which could be
months away. When the study needs to
be completed quickly, assumptions must
be made based on the best information
provided in preplanning.
Evaluating incident risk. Any uncon-
firmed assumptions that need to be made
in data collection should have a conser-
vative bias. When equipment areas are
unavailable due to inaccessibility, the elec-
trical engineer, maintenance manager or
electricians can be relied on for temporary
information. The assumptions can later be
verified when the equipment is accessible,
for example, if there is a shutdown six
months later.
OSHA recognizes exceptions for equip-
ment shutdowns. In a glass plant, for
example, the electrical feed to a glass fur-
nace might be shut off for two hours while
glass sits. The collectors can wear safe
PPE, such as 40-Cal suits, to look at high-
energy equipment during this time. Often,
though, it is wiser to make conservative
assumptions rather than to put someone
at risk for data collection. Conservative
assumptions should lead to a higher level
of risk. This leads to higher cost of PPE
and more cumbersome access issues, but it
ensures personnel will be protected against
the incident energy that is possible.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Sometimes during the data input phase,
analysis software detects incomplete data.
In a hospital project, for example, the
model type of one circuit breaker in a
substation was properly identified but
another breaker type was not. As a result,
all breakers were assumed to be of the
type identified. When the original panel
had been installed, extra spaces had been
provided so additional breakers might not
have been the same model. The difference
in model type of a 30-amp breaker might
not make much difference in the study
results, yet the information must be veri-
fied as accurately as possible so the analysis
will keep the electricians safe when work-
ing on the panels.
Accurate information helps electricians
determine the proper PPE required for
their locations. Conservative assumptions
instead of actual data can add additional
cost in providing a level of PPE that is not
required. The results also can force the
technicians working on a device to work
in suboptimal conditions. Electricians do
not want to have to put on 40-Cal (Level
4) suits because of the difficulty of work-
ing with tools and the uncomfortable
conditions inside the suits. Many industrial
plants require all maintenance people to
wear 8-Cal clothing, which has a Level 2
arc flash rating. The risk category in which
they work can vary from Level 0 to Level
2 throughout the day, but the convenience
of always being ready for the higher level
is important to them, and Level 2 clothing
is comfortable. The Level 4 suits can be in
more limited supply and are used rarely as
necessary, which limits the extra cost that
goes into expensive suits and their care.
Calculating incident energy hazard.
Once the data is collected and entered in
the electrical study software, the results of
the arc flash study can be obtained. Usually
the results are predictable and intuitive.
That is, when there is a large transformer
that provides a lot of short circuit current,
the arc flash energy level is high. The study
details how high that level will be.
There are some cases, however, where
arc flash values are different than one
would expect. It might seem obvious to
assume that when short circuit current
level goes down, the incident energy also
goes down, this is a not true in all cases.
If a device is exposed to a lower short
circuit current, it might take longer for
that device to operate. Bus ducts can be a
case in point. With a long bus duct, which
has a high impedance, the short circuit
current is higher at the source end than at
the far end. A protective device at the far
end experiences a lower short circuit cur-
rent, thus it takes longer to open the circuit
because of the time and current character-
istics of the trip device. The arc lasts longer
so energy is allowed to flow into the fault
for a longer time.
Bus ducts should be considered a series
of bus ducts instead of a single bus because
of the impedance of the bus. A long
horizontal bus duct may be considered in
50-foot increments or some distance that
makes sense for the grouping of the con-
nected equipment. In a hospital project
where a vertical bus went from the ground
to the 15th floor, each floor’s bus duct was
considered a separate 15-foot section (the
floor to ceiling length). The available inci-
dent energy in each section was different.
Many industrial plants, including most
glass plants, have multiple power sources.
Many have substations that are double-
ended with a tiebreaker so the power can
be fed all from source A, all from source
B or half from each source. Other plants
have a ring bus setup such that, depending
on where in the ring the feed is opened,
portions of the plant load can be fed from
different sources. In any of these multiple-
source systems, calculations must be made
for all scenarios of the loads’ being fed. The
short circuit currents may differ for various
arrangements of the feeds, and thus the
arc flash energy at any point in the system
will vary. Often when such arrangements
occur, the equipment is labeled with the
worst-case scenario level of arc flash ener-
gy because the person going into the area
does not always know which switches are
opened and closed throughout the system.
Regardless of its type of electrical sys-
tem, the owner must be assured that all
possible scenarios have been considered,
proper incident energy values have been
determined and an accurate arc flash risk
study has been conducted and compiled.
Only then can an owner rest assured that
employees who enter areas where electri-
cal equipment is present are properly
informed about the possibility of injury at
work.

Books, Books…
So Many Books
PennEnergy.com is your best source
for the largest and most comprehensive
compilation of books related to the
energy industry.
• Oil & Gas
• Power Systems
• Renewable Energy
• Business Management
• Mechanical & Chemical Engineering

Check out over 50,000 energy industry titles at

www.PennEnergy.com
Copyright of POWERGRID International is the property of PennWell Corporation and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.