White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
-
Upload
alexander-wijesooriya -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
1/15
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
2/15
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
3/15
When the employer has reason to believe that any affected employee who has already been
trained does not have the understanding and skill required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the
employer shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is required include,
but are not limited to, situations where: Changes in the workplace render previous training
obsolete; or Changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous training obsolete; or
Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of assigned PPE indicate that the
employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill.
The employer shall verify that each affected employee has received and understood the required
training through a written certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the
date(s) of training, and that identifies the subject of the certification.
The NPFA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC) included a section (110-16) requiring the labeling of
panels with an arc flash warning beginning with the 2002 edition. The 2005 edition of the NEC made
minor changes and now reads;
110-16 Flash Protection
Switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, meter socket enclosures, and motor control
centers in commercial and industrial occupancies that are likely to require examination,adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized must be field marked to warn qualified
persons of the danger of electric arc flash. The marking must be clearly visible to qualified
persons before they examine, adjust, service, or perform maintenance on the equipment.
The NEC does not provide specific direction regarding label content. Consequently the information
shown in Figure 1 could comply.
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved3
! WARNINGAppropriate PPE Required
Arc Flash and Shock Hazard
Basic Arc Flash Warning Label
FIGURE 1
However, for personnel assigned to perform energized work this is not enough information since it does
not quantify the hazard in a way that appropriate PPE can be selected. Fine print notes in the NEC
reference NFPA 70E-2004 as a guide to quantifying the hazard. The NEC warning label is an interim
step for work on energized equipment.
NFPA released an update to NFPA-70E in 2004 that adopted the IEEE Std. 1584-2002 methods for
determining the incident energy (a simplified explanation of this calculation method in included in
Appendix 1). The standard was renamed to NFPA 70E Standard for Employee Safety in the Workplace2004 Edition. This standard details methods and procedures that meet OSHA requirements for safe work
practices. All new arc rated PPE include the Arc Thermal Performance Value (ATPV) with units in
cal/cm2. The required PPE at specific locations is determined by comparing the calculated incident
energy to the ratings for specific combinations of PPE. An example is given in NPFA 70E as follows:
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
4/15
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved4
TABLE 1
Protective Clothing Characteristics
Hazard/Risk Category
Typical Protective Clothing Systems
Required
Minimum Arc
Rating of PPE
(cal/cm2)
0Non-melting, flammable materials (natural or treated
materials with at least 4.5 oz/yd2)N/A (1.2)
1 FR pants and FR shirt, or FR coverall 4
2 Cotton Underwear, plus FR shirt and FR pants 8
3Cotton Underwear, plus FR shirt and FR pants and FR
coverall25
4Cotton Underwear, plus FR shirt and FR pants and
multiplayer flash suit40
This example should NOT be used for final calculations. For actualapplications, the calculated incident
energy must be compared to specific PPE combinations used at the facility being evaluated. Theexception to this is the upper limit of 40 cal/cm2. While PPE is available in ATPV values of 100 cal/cm2
or more, values above 40 cal/cm2 are considered prohibited due to the sound, pressure and concussive
forces present. Above 40 cal/cm2 these forces are more significant than the thermal values. It may be
unfortunate that some PPE manufacturers have adopted these categories when promoting their PPE. In
doing so these manufacturers label the PPE for any value within the category range. Therefore a garment
with an 8.2 calorie/cm2 rating can be labeled HRC2 (Hazard Risk Category 2) even though the Category 2
can go up to 25 calories.
NFPA 70E also contains an example set of Hazard/Risk Category Classifications that defines the PPE
classification based on voltage and task being performed. These are not recommended for use since they
assume the same combinations of PPE used in the example table. Additionally, some of the
task/categories recommended do not make logical sense (i.e. removing a cover is determined a higher riskcategory task than directly working on the energized equipment). Also, the fine print notes and other
notes indicate that the actual incident energy might be higher or lower based on higher or lower fault
currents or clearing times.
An alternate calculation method is included in NFPA 70E Annex D (D.1 through D.7). This method is
based on earlier testing that differentiated the effect on incident energy when an arc in contained in a box
versus open air. However this method is limited to low voltage (600V and less) applications.
In addition to flash protection, NFPA 70E also defines requirements for shock protection and safe
distances for qualified and unqualified personnel. These include:
Flash Protection Boundary. An approach limit at a distance from exposed live parts within
which a person could receive a second-degree burn if an electric arc flash were to occur.
Appropriate flash-flame protection equipment must be utilized for persons entering the flash
protection region. This distance may be outside or inside the following shock protection
distances.
Limited Approach Boundary. An approach limit at a distance from an exposed live part within
which a shock hazard exists. A person crossing the limited approach boundary and entering the
limited region must be qualified to perform the job/task.
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
5/15
Restricted Approach Boundary. An approach limit at a distance from an exposed live part
within which there is an increased risk of shock, due to electrical arc over combined with
inadvertent movement, for personnel working in close proximity to the live part. The person
crossing the Restricted approach boundary and entering the restricted space must have a
documented work plan approved by authorized management, use PPE that is appropriate for the
work being performed and is rated for voltage and energy level involved.
Prohibited Approach Boundary. An approach limit at a distance from an exposed live part
within which work is considered the same as making contact with the live part. The person
entering the prohibited space must have specified training to work on energized conductors or
live parts. Any tools used in the prohibited space must be rated for direct contact at the voltage
and energy level involved.
Distances ApproachFIGURE 2
NFPA specifies the approach boundary distances based on the voltage at the point being evaluated as
follows:
TABLE 2
Approach Distances versus Voltage
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved5
In order to meet the requirements of the standards referenced here, more than just a warning is necessary.
The following are two examples of labels generated using the arc flash module in a power systems
analysis software package.
72660ANALYSIS REQD15kV
72660ANALYSIS REQD5kV
11242ANALYSIS REQD480V
AVOID CONTACTAVOID CONTACT42ANALYSIS REQD208V
PROHIBITED
APPROACH
RESTRICTED
APPROACH
LIMITED
APPROACH
FLASH HAZARDSYSTEM
VOLTAGE
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
6/15
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved6
Complete Arc Flash Labels
FIGURE 3
The left hand label indicates a Class 0 protection (using the NPFA 70E example categories) and the label
on the right indicates prohibited work (incident energy is far above the 40 cal/cm2 limit for energized
work). Note that in the right hand label, the text and the color of the label changes to indicate the
prohibited status of location. The labels show the calculated flash protection boundary, incident energyand PPE category (with description). In addition to the incident energy information, the label also
includes required glove classification and the shock protection boundaries required by NFPA 70E. Since
these labels are part of a certified process, they include who performed the work and on what date.
Summarizing the various standards discussed here yields the following requirements.
1. The arc flash hazardmust be quantified2. Appropriate PPE must be selected for non-prohibited work3. The arc flash assessment results must be documented4. Personnel must be trained, understand the hazards, and take appropriate action.5. Analysis should be re-evaluated if the standards, PPE types, or system configuration changes.
IV. QUANTIFYING THE HAZARD
The majority of electrical facilities have yet to implement an Arc Flash protection program or perform
analysis on their systems. This presents a quandary for the personnel assigned to perform energized
work. How to perform the work safely?
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
7/15
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved7
The first question to ask is does the work qualify as energized work? Does the location require hardware
to be removed or will the plane of the equipment be passed, and is the voltage present above 50 Volts. If
so, then it is considered energized work.
The next step is to determine if the area of work has sufficient energy to require arc rated PPE. If the
equipment is rated 240V or less and is served by a 125kVA transformer or smaller, then it is considered
Category 0 (does not require arc-rated PPE).
If it is determined that energized work needs to be performed and the location may require arc-rated PPE
then a hazard assessment must be completed.
If sufficient lead-time exists before the start of a project the locations where energized work is to be
performed can be evaluated and labeled with the appropriate incident energy/shock protection information
(This would be a complete Arc Flash study). The alternative is for the worker to do a field assessment to
determine what PPE is required. For low voltage equipment this can be done using the simplified
equations in IEEE 1584 in either a hand calculation or a spreadsheet program. Medium voltage
applications are more difficult since the available fault current may be harder to determine from the
installed equipment (the transformer impedance is not the dominant impedance for medium voltage
systems as it is for low voltage).
In order to quantify the arc flash hazard using the IEEE methodology for a specific location the following
items are required.
1. Available fault current at the location.2. Clearing time for the source-side protective device(s) at the calculated arcing fault current.3. Location type (open air, cable, switchgear)4. Working distance for energized work.5. APTV values for PPE combinations used at the site.6. Site specific issues and limitations (egress, process)
The first two items are generally obtained from short-circuit and protective device coordination studies.
In order for the results to be accurate, the study must be complete and up to date. However, unlike most
short-circuit and coordination studies, accurate installed source information instead of worst-case
information is required. Using worst case fault duties could result in using a clearing time that is too
short, yielding an incident energy value that is much lower than that with an accurate short circuit duty.
The third through sixth items are generally obtained though investigating the installed equipment
configuration. Working distances are generally set at 18 inches for low voltage locations. Medium
voltage locations have working distances set based on procedures and equipment configurations. The
ATPV values for PPE and combinations available are also required to complete the assessment.
Site specific installation data is collected to take into account any installed conditions that may increasethe hazard/risk. This can include continuous process or chemical installations where an arc fault may
increase the risk of other hazards. It also must take into account the physical location with respect to
egress. Locations where the flash hazard boundary exceeds the limits of an electrical vault or room, or
are elevated, may increase the risk due to limited egress.
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
8/15
Arc Flash Field Evaluation
FIGURE 4
The figure above is an example of a low voltage field evaluation spreadsheet used to determine incident
energy and required PPE using the simplified equations in IEEE 1584. This example uses minimal data
to determine PPE levels (and includes a table to indicate minimum distances for all PPE levels).
However, it is not as rigorous as a full analysis, and should not be used in place of a full study or to
develop labels for locations evaluated.
Complete data (either with field collected data or an existing short circuit and coordination study that isaccurate and complete), should be used to perform a full analysis using the IEEE calculation method.
Example: An infrared scan on 2000A 12.47kV switchgear lineup needs to be performed. The
switchgear is protected by ANSI very-inverse curve overcurrent protection (CT 2000:5, Pickup
2000A (5A secondary), Time Dial 3), with a 5-cycle circuit breaker. The available fault current is
14kA. The worst case working distance is 24 inches when the cover is being removed.
Determine the incident energy for this work.
Using the IEEE calculation method the arcing fault currents (100% and 85%) are determined to
be 13.51kA and 11.48kA. Looking up these currents in the manufacturers literature yields
clearing times of 0.55s and 0.65s. Adding these times to the clearing time for the breaker and
applying these values and the working distance yields a worst-case incident energy value of16.6cal/cm2 and a flash protection boundary of 358 inches. This is a Class 3 location that would
require a two layer arc-rated outfit (ATPV equal to or greater than the calculated incident energy)
with hooded head protection, Class II (15kV) gloves, electrical work boots, and hearing and eye
protection.
Figure 5 below uses the example data in a spreadsheet to determine incident energy and required PPE
using the IEEE 1584 equations.
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved8
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
9/15
If this same equipment has buss differential protection the time can be reduced to the operating time of
the relay and the clearing time of the breaker (approx 7 cycles). The incident energy is reduced to 2.9
cal/cm2 and the flash boundary to 60 inches.
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved9
Full Arc Flash Field Analysis
FIGURE 5
When performing the assessment, it may be determined that some locations would require extreme
protective equipment (i.e. a flash suit), exceed the rating of available PPE, or be classified a prohibited
work area. Without modifying the equipment there are only two ways mitigation can be utilized to reduce
the incident energy to workable levels to allow for energized work.
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
10/15
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved10
Increasing the Working Distance
The incident energy drops significantly over distance (proportional to the square of the distance in open
air), increasing the working distance will reduce the incident energy. Working distance can be increased
by using remote racking devices, remote operating devices, and extension tools (i.e. hotsticks).
Example: Using the above example determine the PPE required by the operator of the infraredcamera assuming a minimum 48 inch working distance.
Substituting 48 inches into the calculations reduces the incident energy to 11 cal/cm2.
Reducing the Clearing Time
Since the incident energy is directly proportional to the clearing time, reducing the clearing time can
significantly reduce the incident energy. Reducing the settings or adding instantaneous trips can reduce
the incident energy. The changes need to be weighed against the impact on selectivity.
An alternative to permanently lowering coordinated settings is to temporarily reduce settings for only the
time during which on-line work is performed. Locations with microprocessor-based relays can beprogrammed to implement lower settings (i.e. an instantaneous setting just above the peak demand level)
with a contact input, such as a front panel control and/or switch. The disadvantage of this technique is
that it results in nonselective operation for downstream faults during the maintenance window.
Lowering device settings is the least cost solution to lowering incident energy exposure, but is limited by
the range of available settings that will still achieve selective operation. In medium voltage relaying, this
can be achieved by changing the curve shape or lowering the time dial settings. Low voltage protection
changes are more limited due the device characteristics.
V. CASE STUDIES
The need for Arc Flash studies and training is not limited to commercial/industrial facilities. They areneeded in any location where energized work is necessary. This includes, but is not limited to hospitals,
data centers, utility substations and distribution systems, office buildings, factories, and municipal
facilities. The following case studies some typical applications and results from Arc Flash evaluations.
Naval Base: Relay testing and on-line partial discharge cable testing needed to be performed at a naval
station. The areas of work are the 69kV and 12kV substations and the 12kV distribution cables between
the substations out to the pad mounted unit substations. Many of the substations have single door access
with the protective relays in the same cubicle as the circuit breakers. Partial discharge cable testing will
require removal of switchgear covers to access the conductors. Additionally, access to the conductors
outside the substations will require entry into manholes and vaults. No Arc Flash analysis had been
performed for the base.
The 69kV and 12kV substations all have bus differential protection. All conductors between substations
have pilot wire protection. Conductors to feeder unit substations have no pilot wire or differential
protection.
A hazard analysis was performed based on an existing short-circuit and coordination study, which was
current and accurate. Without the differential and pilot wire protection incident energies in the
substations and conductor runs between substations were as high as 16 cal/cm2. With differential and
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
11/15
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved11
pilot wire protection incident energies are less than 2 cal/ cm2. Analysis of the conductor runs to the unit
substations resulted in incident energies less than 4 cal/ cm2 for all runs within the scope of the project.
Review of all locations to be worked on determined that standard turnout gear consisting of 8.2 cal/ cm2
rated coveralls with appropriate hand, eye, head and foot protection was sufficient for all areas.
Waste Water Treatment Facility: Arc Flash hazard evaluations were performed for the distributionsystem which consists of 12kV fused switchgear and pad mounted switches, 5kV motor control centers,
and 480V switchgear and motor control centers. Energized work is performed at all levels for infrared
scans and meter readings are taken at all low voltage locations. Analysis indicated that all the medium
voltage locations had incident energies below 5 cal/cm2. Low voltage locations had incident energies
from below 1.2 cal/cm2 to above 40 cal/cm2.
Settings were recommended to reduce the incident energies with minimal impact on selectivity. As a
result only two locations (out of a total of 225) were labeled as prohibited for energized work.
Review of the incident energies calculated determined that a standard uniform consisting of a 8.2 cal/ cm2
rated shirt and 11 cal/cm2 rated pants with appropriate hand, eye, head and foot protection was sufficient
for approximately 170 locations where energized work was allowed. Around 30 locations required anadditional layer consisting of 11 cal/cm2 rated coveralls and a 25 cal/cm2 rated hood. The remaining
locations require a flash suit or PPE combination with a minimum 40 cal/cm2 rating.
Beverage Bottling Facility: Arc Flash hazard evaluations were performed for the distribution system
which consists of four 480V services that included 480V switchgear, panelboards and motor control
centers. Energized work including infrared scans and meter readings are performed on all equipment.
Fused main switches protect three of the four 480V switchgear locations. Analysis indicated these
locations have calculated incident energies above 100 cal/cm2 and cannot be worked on energized. The
fourth location is protected by a circuit breaker, and has calculated incident energies below 20 cal/cm2.
Recommendations were made to upgrade the fused switches mains to circuit breakers to reduce incident
energy to workable levels.
Review of the incident energies calculated determined that a standard uniform consisting of a 8.2 cal/ cm2
rated shirt and 11 cal/cm2 rated pants with appropriate hand, eye, head and foot protection was sufficient
for all but five of the locations where energized work was allowed. The remaining areas required an
additional layer consisting of 11 cal/cm2 rated coveralls and a 25 cal/cm2 rated hood.
CONCLUSIONS
The requirement to perform Arc Flash evaluations can no longer be ignored. The methods to quantify this
hazard exist, and as a result the standards require that action be taken to protect personnel who perform
energized work and assure they are properly trained to recognize the hazards present.
This paper has described the process of arc flash hazard analysis, including the calculation of incident
energy levels in arc flash faults and selection of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) levels.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety Requirement for Employee Workplaces, 2000 Edition2. IEEE Guide for Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE Standard 1584-2002.3. NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, 2004 Edition.
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
12/15
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved12
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Christopher Inshaw is a Consulting Power Systems Engineer for Emerson Process Management,
Electrical Reliability Services (formerly Electro-Test) in Fresno, CA. He received his BSEE degree from
CSU Fresno. He is a Member of IEEE and a Registered Professional Engineer in California and Nevada.
He performs power systems studies including Arc-Flash on all levels and types of power systems.
Fred Toepfer is business development manager for Emerson Process Management Electrical
Reliability Services. He received his BSEE degree from Louisiana State University and MBA from
Vanderbilt University. He has over 25 years of sales and marketing experience in the power industry
related to service and new product/business development. He is currently responsible for the arc flash
solution business of Electrical Reliability Services in the US. [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
13/15
APPENDIX 1: IEEE 1584 Calculation Method
IEEE Std 1584-2002 contains calculation methods developed through testing by several sources to
determine boundary distances for unprotected personnel and the incident energy at the working distancefor qualified personnel working on energized equipment. The incident energy level can be used to
determine the proper PPE required for personnel.
The equations developed in the IEEE standard assess the arc flash hazard based on the available (bolted)fault current, voltage, clearing time, equipment type, grounding, and working distance. The working
voltage is also used to determine other variables. The equations account for grounding, equipment type,
and construction. This method can also determine the impact of some classes of current limiting low
voltage fuses as well as certain types of low voltage breakers. The calculations can be applied over a
large range of voltages.
The many variables of this method make it the preferred choice for Arc Flash evaluations, but at the same
time requires either a complex spreadsheet or computer program to be used efficiently. The calculations
are summarized as follows:
1. Determine the Arcing Current
For applications under 1000V
)(lg00304.0)(lg5588.0000526.00966.0lg662.0lg bfbfbfa IGIVGVIKI ++++= (1)
For applications 1000V and higher
bfa II lg983.000402.0lg += (2)
Convert from lg
aI
aIlg
10= (3)
where:
lg is the log10
Ia is the arcing fault current (kA)
K is 0.153 for open configurations
Is 0.097 for box configurations
Ibf is the bolted fault current for three-phase faults (symmetrical RMS)(kA)
V is the system voltage
G is the gap between conductors, (mm) (See Table 1)
Calculate a second arc current equal to 85% ofIa, so that a second arc duration can be determined.
2. Determine the Incident Energy
The following equations should be used for both values ofIa determined in the first step.
GIKKE an 0011.0lg081.1lg 21 +++= (4)nE
nElg
10= (5)
=
x
x
nfD
tECE
610
2.0(6)
for locations where the voltage is over 15kV the Lee method is used.
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
14/15
=
2
51012.5D
tVIxE bf (7)
where:
En is the incident energy (cal/cm2) normalized for time and distance
K1 is 0.792 for open configurations
Is 0.555 for box configurations
K2 is 0 for ungrounded or high resistance grounded systemis 0.113 for grounded systems
G is the gap between conductors, (mm) (See Table 1)
E is the incident energy (cal/cm2)
Cf is a calculation factor
1.0 for voltages above 1kV
1.5 for voltages at or below 1kV
t is the arcing time (seconds)
D is the distance from the possible arc point to the person (mm)
x is the distance exponent from Table 1
Ibf is the bolted fault current for three-phase faults (symmetrical RMS)(kA)
V is the system voltage
The arcing time tis the clearing time for the source-side protecting device that clears the fault first.
TABLE 1
Factors for equipment and voltage classes
System Voltage (kV) Equipment Type
Typical gapbetween
conductors
(mm)
Distancex Factor
Open Air 10-40 2.000
Switchgear 32 1.473
MCC and panels 25 1.641
0.208-1
Cable 13 2.000
Open Air 102 2.000Switchgear 13-102 0.973>1-5
Cable 13 2.000
Open Air 13-153 2.000
Switchgear 153 0.973>5-15
Cable 13 2.000
The incident energy is the worst case of the two values calculated (100 or 85% Ia).
3. Determine the Flash Boundary
The flash boundary is the distance from an arcing fault where the incident energy is equal to 1.2 cal/cm2.
For the IEEE Std 1584-2002 empirically derived model
x
B
x
nfBE
tECD
1
610
2.0
= (8)
For the Lee method
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved2
-
7/27/2019 White-Paper-Arc-Flash-Compliance.pdf
15/15
=
B
bfBE
tVIxD 51012.5 (9)
where:
DB is the distance of the boundary from arcing point (mm)
En is the incident energy (cal/cm2) normalized for time and distance
Cf is a calculation factor1.0 for voltages above 1kV
1.5 for voltages at or below 1kV
t is the arcing time (seconds)
EB is the incident energy in cal/cm2 at the boundary distance
x is the distance exponent from Table 1
Ibf is the bolted fault current for three-phase faults (symmetrical RMS)(kA)
2006 Doble Engineering Company-73rdAnnual International Doble Client Conference
All Rights Reserved3