THE EFFECTS OF SYSTEM GROUNDING, BUS INSULATION AND

PROBABILITY ON ARC FLASH HAZARD REDUCTION PART 2: TESTING

Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. PCIC2014-4

John P. Nelson, P.E.
Life Fellow, IEEE
NEI Electric Power Eng
P.O. Box 1265
Arvada, CO 80001
USA
jnelson@neieng.com
Joshua Billman, P.E.
Member, IEEE
NEI Electric Power Eng
P.O. Box 1265
Arvada, CO 80001
USA
Josh8039@gmail.com
James Bowen, P.E.
Fellow, IEEE
Aramco Services Company
9009 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77096
USA
JBowen@ieee.org
Dane Martindale, P.E.
Member, IEEE
Aramco Services Company
9009 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77096
USA
Dane_martindale@msn.com

Abstract This paper provides a follow-up to the paper, The
Effects of System Grounding, Bus Insulation and Probability
on Arc Flash Hazard Reduction The Missing Links. [1] In
that paper, system grounding and bus insulation were
considered a means of reducing the probability of an arc
flash incident by approximately two orders of magnitude. In
September 2013, additional testing was conducted on a low
voltage motor control center with the expectation that
engineering enhancements such as insulated vertical bus,
high resistance grounding, and other techniques, could be
implemented to further reduce the probability of an arc flash
incident. The testing performed was with faults initiated in
locations typically found in operating petrochemical facilities,
in low voltage motor control centers, with the starter unit door
open. This paper discusses the findings of testing on real-
world electrical equipment in an effort to further understand
and minimize the probability of an arc flash incident. The
paper reviews the physics of the arcing fault and how ignition
wire, geometry, and the number of anode/cathode pairs all
contribute to arcing fault energy and personnel exposure.
Index Terms - low voltage motor control center, arc voltage,
safety by design, arcing faults, impedance grounding, high
resistance grounding, arc physics, solidly grounded.
I. INTRODUCTION
Arc initiation in the functioning Low Voltage Motor Control
(LVMCC) is typically initiated in one of two ways. These
typical initiators are through a catastrophic failure of the
insulation system or the introduction of a foreign object
across the air gap between conductors. The insulation failure
may be caused by: 1) a loose connection causing
overheating that over time can ionize enough air and
insulation to result in a flashover, 2) misalignment forced to
the point that insulation fractures or 3) the unsuccessful
interruption of a short circuit resulting in an un-cleared fault.
Faults initiated by a foreign object inserted across the air gap,
may be caused by: 1) slippage of a tool such as an
uninsulated screw driver or a metal fish tape, or 2) rodents or
reptiles trying to find a warm place to nest, either directly
bridging the air gap between conductors, or building a nest
that bridges the insulation system. [2]
The first paper in this series examined how high resistance
grounding (HRG) and enhanced engineering techniques,
such as insulated buses, could reduce the probability of an
arc blast incident by approximately two orders of magnitude.
This in turn, has the potential to drastically lower the
probability of an arc flash injury or fatality. [3] Early
manufacturers development testing involved standard 600 V
switchgear. In September 2013, initial testing was performed
on a LVMCC, anticipating results similar to testing which
previously occurred on 600 V switchgear. The tests also
included several barriers to isolate the high arc energy area,
where technicians are exposed.
A total of 15 tests were planned, using a combination of 15
new, 480 V, size 1, and size 3, motor starters units. After
each test, the test specimen of three vertical sections was
cleaned and arranged for each subsequent test. Results
indicated the test specimen was sufficiently damaged so only
12 of the 15 tests could be conducted.
The series of tests conducted included both solidly grounded
and high resistance grounded test sources. Since most of
the arc flash testing research in the industry has been
performed with an arcing three-phase fault, this battery of
tests were initiated using a series of phase-to-ground and
phase-to-phase faults.
1) Tests with a High Resistance Grounded System (HRG)
A series of tests was conducted on a HRG system. Phase-
to-ground tests were conducted to show the benefit of the
HRG, by limiting fault current to a value with no arc flash
issues. Phase-to-phase faults were then conducted to
understand the impact of initiating a fault which is closer to
real-world experience than the three-phase arcing fault.
Faults were initiated, both downstream and upstream, from
the 480 V LVMCC motor starter units molded case circuit
breaker.
2) Tests with a Solidly Grounded System
A series of tests was conducted on a solidly grounded
system. Phase-to-ground and phase-to-phase tests were
initiated both upstream and downstream on the LVMCC
motor starter units molded case circuit breaker.
The remainder of this paper will discuss results and findings
from the testing that was performed. A number of
observations were made which were quite unexpected. The
tests were conducted, not in the interest of repeatability, but
for the purpose of investigating practical, real-world incidents.

1
978-1-4799-3055-5/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE
 II. INCIDENT ENERGY REVIEW

With his 1982 paper, Ralph Lee [3] pioneered investigating

the electrical arc blast hazard. Since that time, considerable
testing has been conducted, papers written, standards and
codes issued, and arc flash hazard studies performed, all in
an effort to improve electrical safety in the workplace. There
is little doubt that the industry presently has an appreciation
for the concern by Ralph Lee on the dangers of the electrical
arc blast. However, at the present time, there are still a
number of unanswered questions as to how best to protect 1b) Three Phase Equivalent Circuit
the worker from such hazards, whether through personal Fig. 1 Equivalent Arcing Fault Circuit
protective equipment (PPE) or safety by design with the PPE
as a level of back-up protection. With regard to the proper The energy associated with the fault is linearly proportional
PPE, there are large variations in the estimated value of to the maximum power and time. Therefore, the maximum
incident energy levels based on the different models energy associated with a fault is simply:
available within the industry. As discussed in [1], the number
of variables is so great that an exact value of incident energy Emax = Pmax * Time
level cannot be reasonably determined. The incident energy
level from one installation to another with relatively similar (4)
designs can and will vary considerably due to these Where,
variables. Therefore, it is important to grasp the basic Emax = maximum energy (Joules)
concept of incident energy, which Ralph Lee describes in a
succinct manner. Assuming a point source of energy, which holds equally
For a simple single-phase circuit, Fig 1a, the power true with an arc-sphere of energy, the incident energy at a
delivered to an arc is determined by Equation (1). known distance from the point source correlates to a
spherical area relationship of:
Pa = Vs*If**cos () (1) 2
Where, Ein = Emax Joules/cm (5)
2
Pa = fault power dissipated (Watts) 4**D
Vs = system voltage (Volts) Where,
If = fault current (Amps) Ein = maximum incident energy level at a distance D
Cos() = Power factor in centimeters
2
The maximum power transfer, Pmax, occurs when arc Using 5 Joules = 1.2 Calories to convert (5) to Cal/cm for a
resistance, Ra, equals system impedance, ZS, so that cos() = three phase fault,
0.5 and Equation (1) is simplified to: 2
Ein = (0.24) (1/2 * 3 * Vs * If) (Time) Cal/cm (6)
2
Pmax = 0.5*Vs*If (2) 4D
Where, 2
Pmax = max power dissipated across the = 0.0165 * Vs * If * (Time) Cal/cm (7)
2
arc (Watts) D

And for a three phase circuit:
Pmax = 0.5 3VsIf
1a) Single Phase Equivalent Circuit
Now, (7) refers to a point source of energy and that energy
emanates spherically from that source. For a number of
(3) years, Lees equations were used to calculate incident
energy levels. However, one notable flaw in his equations is
the fact that they are only valid in open air, as experienced
with a fault on a power line in an open-air substation. The
incident energy from a fault originating inside the equipment
was observed to be different from a fault originating in open
air. As such, considerable research has been conducted on
an arc in a box. In review of the relative maximum energy
levels that may be present in any given fault, several aspects
must be considered. First, consider a 480 V system with fault
current levels ranging from 5 to 100 kA. Second, consider
the energy for times of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 seconds. The
calculated results using (7) and converting it to Joules are
shown in Table 1.

2
 TABLE 1 As the contacts continue to stretch the gap, the arc
MAXIMUM ENERGY FOR 480 VOLT SYSTEMS develops into an arc with roots at the anode and cathode.
Depending on the polarity of the sinusoids of the phase, or
Emax (M-Joules) phases of the fault current, the anode and cathode shift with
I 0.1 0.5 1.0 each zero passing of the sinusoid.
(kA) Sec Sec Sec In a metal conductor, the voltage is proportional to the
5 0.21 1.04 2.08 current flow through the conductor [9]. When the relationship
10 0.42 2.08 4.15 of the current and voltage is observed across an arc of
20 0.83 4.15 8.30 varying length, the current increases in magnitude as the arc
30 1.25 6.23 12.46 voltage drop decreases in an inverse relationship. The
40 1.66 8.30 16.61 plasma field created by the arc provides some level of
50 2.08 10.38 20.76 thermal inertia, and as the sinusoid forces the current to
60 2.49 12.46 24.91 approach a zero crossing, the driving voltage must be high
70 2.91 14.53 29.06 enough to result in a restrike in order for the arc to be
80 3.32 16.61 33.22 sustained. In the low voltage system, the local x/r results in a
voltage crossing at the point of current zero. This lends to a
90 3.74 18.68 37.37
rather unstable arc on the other side of the current zero,
100 4.15 20.76 41.52
when the anode and cathode must reverse positions. This
instability is in a race very similar to the transient recovery
An interesting point that Lee made was that his
voltage experience in high voltage breakers post current
calculations were based on maximum power transfer, which
interruption.
naturally assumes that the arc resistance is equal to the
As the contacts part, the flashover results in an active arc
system impedance. For any other value of arc resistance,
due to active free electrons created from the hot spots. In the
maximum power and likewise, maximum energy is not
case of an ignition wire, the vaporization of the wire results in
transferred to the arc blast. Therefore, the use of Lees
the injection of a massive number of high-energy ions and
equations should provide worst-case energy levels at the
free electrons. The higher energy state means the electrons
point source. From there, the magnitude and direction of the
are traveling faster and colliding more to jump-start the
incident energy is dependent on the enclosure geometries
plasma field development.
and the direction of the electrodes (buses/conductors).
Field experience indicates that in a LVMCC with the typical
phase spacing, the phase-to-phase arc is rarely created. As
III. ARC PHYSICS REVIEW discussed in the earlier paper [1], a large portion of the faults
are ground faults only, while very few phase-to-phase faults
During the tests, the flat three phase bus orientation did not occur, as it is very difficult to create the right amount of free
only maintain an arcing current from C phase to B phase and electrons to maintain a sustained arc. It also means that
from B phase to A phase. Rather, the test sample clearly there is a significant difference in the stability of the arc,
showed signs of multiple arcs with current using the structural depending on the fault initiator. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the
steel to create a current path from C phase to A phase. This arc stability in low voltage systems is a function of the
test battery demonstrated at least four separate number of free electrons generated and the distance the arc
anode/cathode combinations occurring during a full loop of must travel. By using a large fine stranded ignition wire that
three phase current. vaporizes over the entire length, more free electrons are
To understand the energy release that occurs and how this created making the plasma field sustainable. In comparison,
is disadvantageous when considering the impact of the the LVMCC design leaves only a few opportunities to create
various current flows, the physics of the arc must be the plasma field necessary to result in slow clearing high-
reviewed. The high energy, low voltage electric arc in energy phase-to-phase faults, while a technician performing
atmospheric conditions has been studied in the development work in a motor starter unit.
of low voltage air circuit breaker designs Electric arcs
generated in the circuit breaker operation closely match the
method in which arc faults are created with the human
interface in low voltage motor control centers. Such is also
the case when drawing a screwdriver from an energized pair
of terminals. During an arc fault, when the contacts begin to
separate, the current density becomes very high at the few
microscopic peaks in the physical surface imperfections. The
last points to break connection have all of the current of the
fault traveling through those few peaks in the contact,
resulting in heating that is sufficient for melting, and in some
cases, vaporization. The localized vaporization leads to a
fast discharge between the parting contacts in the
surrounding area. This vaporization occurs at the copper Fig. 2 Arc Column [7]
boiling temperature of 2835 K, much higher than the copper
melt temperature of 1357 K. The temperature of the arc column is between 5000 K and
20,000 K. At a temperature of 2000 K, the N2 and O2
molecules in air start to dissociate into electrically neutral

3
atoms and free electrons. The higher temperature increases
the speed of dissociation and the collisions result in a plasma
as the temperature continues to increase towards 9000 K.
The electrical conductivity of the plasma field at this
temperature is many orders of magnitude greater than air at
atmospheric conditions. If the temperature is at the low end
of the spectrum, the degree of ionization will be low and the
gap will be non-conductive, as can be seen in Fig. 3. At the
high end of the temperature spectrum the arc column will be
a relatively good conductor with the conductivity approaching
that of carbon. (Approximately 10 to 100 Siemens/cm)
This ionization phenomenon has been utilized in air blast
circuit breakers to destabilize the arc. Using a large ignition
source to simulate the fault in the field, greatly contributes to
the initial arc temperature, the test is creating a much more
severe case than would be experienced if the arc was started
with a smaller ignition source. The ignition source should be
representative of the causes of arcing faults experienced in
field installation of LVMCC.
Fig. 3 Degrees of Thermal Ionization at Atmospheric
Pressure [7]
The total arc voltage is a function of the current magnitude.
When the arc is in thermal balance, the arc reaches some
minimum voltage drop. At this point, the arc is characterized
by a maximum current and a minimum voltage.
The cathode region will emit current carrying electrons into
the arc column. In addition, the area surrounding the
cathode will be an accumulation of positive ions arriving from
the arc column as the copper boils off.
The anode serves as a collector for the high-energy
electrons arriving from the cathode. The electrons are
moving at a high speed and will deliver a significant amount
of energy to the anode. The anode surface will maintain a
higher temperature due to the energy transfer. The surplus
of electrons leads to the high electric field strength close to
the anode surface. Just as in arc welding, where the
electrode is positively charged to maximize the depth of
penetration and weld speed and the energy released. The
converse is true when the electrode is negatively charged the
energy is greatly reduced.
4
At current zero, the anode and the cathode reverse
polarity. As can be seen in the appendix A oscillography the
system X/R will align voltage and current such that the
voltage zero crossing is within msec of the currents zero
crossing, due to the addition of the purely resistive arc to the
system. [8] If the plasma is hot enough, thermal inertia still
causes re-ignition, reducing the required restrike voltage in
the low voltage fault allowing current to continue to flow after
the current zero.
Current continuation also occurs if the arc plasma is
sufficiently ionized at the current zero, and the new cathode
emits a sufficient amount of electrons. During this change,
the arc channel will pass through a minimum in temperature
and then start to heat again. This is where the arc is at its
least sustainable point.
For a low voltage system if the arc plasma at the moment
of current zero is weakly ionized, the arc will typically
extinguish. This is different from medium voltage systems
where the current lags the voltage, such that a peak voltage
may exist allowing a continuation of the arc.
Arcs that occur from short circuits in power systems may
conduct a current of many kilo-amps. The arc voltage in air
at atmospheric conditions may vary, but is typically on the
order of 10-50 V/cm for current on the order of 50 kA.
In the LVMCC with the typical phase spacing, the arc is
rarely created. As discussed earlier, with a large portion of
the faults being ground faults, only a few situations typically
present themselves for multiphase arcing faults. Historically,
faults at the bucket stabs begin with a hot stab deteriorating
the solid dielectric insulation. This action then begins with a
streamer that may eventually result in an electron avalanche
and flash over. When a phase-to-phase fault does occur, the
high level of available fault current can allow a significant
plasma field to result in multiple arcs.
Due to the design of the LVMCC, arcs may exist between
metal support pieces and conductors as shown in Fig. 6 and
described in the observation portion of the paper. When
these faults occur, the localized current vectors around any
node must still sum to zero in compliance with Kirchhoffs
First Law. This does not prohibit the system from developing
more than two arcs, and in some cases, as observed during
this testing of multiple arcs in series. The multiple arcs in
series utilize the steel supports, allowing multiple anodes of
either copper or steel. The steel support has a different
thermal ionization that was not studied as part of this paper.
IV. TEST SUMMARY
The test sample consisted of three vertical sections of
LVMCC with a 3200 amp horizontal bus and 600 amp vertical
buses. The sample motor control center was populated with
size 1 or size 3 starters for each test, with all other buckets
removed. To simulate the case where the majority of injuries
occur, the tests were all conducted with the bucket door
open. The system configuration One Line Diagrams are
shown in Appendix A1 for the high resistance grounded tests
and A2 for the effectively grounded tests.
The three vertical sections were considered the smallest
conceivable LVMCC with a 50kA available short circuit
current that would be found in the typical industrial
installation. The 3200 amp horizontal bus was selected due
to experience with non-standard short time testing at 500
msec at 50 kA, to ensure the test sample would survive. The
size 1 and size 3 starters provided some variability in stab
assembly design and bucket volume. Fig. 5 indicates motor
starter unit location for specific trials during the test
sequence. The location was changed as the vertical section
of LVMCC deteriorated.
Fig. 5 Motor Starter Unit Location for Test Trials
A. Test Conditions
The arc fault tests were performed with a current profile
matching the proposed IEEE PC37.20.7/D4B IEEE Guide for
Testing Metal-Enclosed Switchgear Rated Up to 38 kV for
Internal Arc Faults. [12]
The testing was conducted with a prospective current of 50
kA, a peak current of 109 kA, and a planned current duration
of 500 msec. To help protect the test specimen, the current
duration was reduced to 200 msec after the first two tests.
To maintain the specified current profile, the test lab required
an operating voltage of the 538 V on the test sample. While
well within the 600 V rating of the equipment, this made the
test more onerous than the planned 518V required for a 480V
installation.
The ignition wire utilized for the first battery of test was a
fine strand #10 gauge bare tinned copper wire. The primary
fault was generated by securing the ignition wire under the
terminal screws of the individual molded case circuit breaker in
the LVMCC starter unit being tested. See Fig. 6
Many of the tests were duplicated with either a high
resistance or effectively (solidly) grounded system, to
demonstrate the differences system grounding may play in
multi-phase and single-phase arcing faults and the resultant
energy release.
5
B. Trials 1 and 2
Trials 1 and 2 were calibration tests to establish the
prospective current and the current profiles were, consistent
with IEEE C37.20.7. [12]
Fig. 6 10 Gauge Fine Strand Ignition Wire from B to C Phase
at the Top of LVMCC Circuit Breaker Terminals.
The prospective current is the available current the sample
would experience with a three-phase bolted fault at the point
where the test unit is connected to the test labs power
source. The arcing current is greatly reduced due to the
impedance of the sample and the arc itself.
C. Trial 3 Line Side B to C Phase Fault with HRG
1) Test Sample: The horizontal bus was modified to
insulate the conductors with the exception of end of run
locations. The riser bus was a bare bus secured by glass
polyester clamshells with a steel sheet metal clamp around
the three phases. The clamshell assembly was not a sealed
unit. For the first trial, the riser bus was insulated above the
bucket to the horizontal bus connection, and below the
bucket to the next stab point below, with high voltage EPR
insulating electrical tape.
The motor starter units molded case circuit breaker had
been modified by adding electrical insulation paper
interphase barriers between phases, to extend the arc path
and change direction of the plasma jets. The phase barriers
were 2.5 cm in height. The fault was initiated at the top of the
size 1 starter units molded case circuit breaker in vertical
section 1, between the line side B and C phase lugs. The
ignition wire loop was pointed vertically over a field installed
interphase barrier.
2) Test Observation: The fault was initiated with the
closing of the test labs making switch (MS), and the test
current ended 500 msec later with the test lab circuit breaker
ABUB opening. [see Fig A1]
With the instant vaporization of the ignition wire, the fault
propagated to the A phase stab assembly in 2.4 msec, when
a zero crossing almost extinguished the C phase current.
The fault traveled down the three phase riser bus, to just
above the last clamshell support, and rooted at this point.
The fault began to travel at 5 msec and coincided with the
peak B phase current. See Fig. A3.
The calorimeters data acquisition system failed to record
the energy level of the fault although this visually appeared to
be a low level exposure to the front. The leads from the
starter unit stabs to the line side of the size 1 circuit breaker
melted to the point they detached from the circuit breaker.
The vaporization of the leads retarded and ultimately stopped
as the arc moves away from the original arc fault site.
The metal clamps at the glass polyester bus supports
became a conducting path for current from A phase through
the steel and back to the C phase. The current flow through
the metal bracket resulted in four arcs operating at the same
time.
The last 6 inches of bus and the lowest bracket were
damaged to the point that the bus had to be cut off and the
final metal bracket removed. The voltage drop of the arc
approached 250 V.
D. Trial 4 Line Side Fault B to C Phase with HRG
1) Test Sample: The test was the same as trial 3 with
the exception of glass polyester being used for the
interphase barriers on the line side of the breaker and the
circuit breaker back plane. Additionally, the vertical bus was
insulated further with electrical insulating tape to change the
sample reaction. The clam shell bus supports had bare bus
where the copper entered and left the clam shell assembly
2) Test Observation: The Trial 4 fault propagated to A
phase within 3 msec. The fault struck from B and C phases
at the top of the breaker to A phase stab in the motor starter
unit. This appeared to be the same arc propagation
experienced in trial 3. The leads melted from the top of the
breaker. Again, as A phase voltage peaked, relative to C
phase, the fault began to travel down the riser bus rooting at
the bottom bracket. The arc jumped 12 inches of electrical
tape that had been used to insulate the section of riser bus
in close proximity to the bucket. The calorimeters recorded
2
levels of less than 1 calorie/cm at 18 inches from the motor
starter unit front face. The greatly reduced calories are due
to the speed that the arc left the bucket and traveled down
the riser bus. After this test was completed, the vertical bus
in section 1 was removed.
E. Trials 5 and 6 Load Side Phase-to-Ground Fault with
HRG
1) Test Sample: The next two tests were conducted on
the vertical bus in section 2, and on the load side of the
molded case circuit breaker in a size 3 motor starter unit with
the circuit breaker set to trip at 1000 amps. To attempt
demonstrate the arc flash capability of the HRG on ground
faults, a 24 gauge, single core wire was used. With a 5 amp
grounding resistor in the neutral of the lab supply transformer,
the energy should not be sufficient enough to establish a
plasma field or even melt the 24 gauge wire in the 200 msec
test duration.
2) Test Observation: In this case, the 24 gauge single
core wire from the C phase load side lug, of the molded case
6
circuit breaker to the ground stud of the bucket, did not melt.
The fault stayed on the system until the lab circuit breaker
was opened at 200 msec with no effect on the three, phase-
to-phase voltages and no arcing fault, just as expected.
The test in trial 5 was repeated for trial 6 with the same
results.
E. Trials 7, 8 and 9 Load Side Phase-to-Ground Fault with
Effectively Grounded System
1) Test Sample: These tests were conducted with the
system solidly grounded and a 10 gauge ignition wire
connected on the load side of the molded case circuit
breaker, which was set to trip at 1000 amps.
2) Test Observation: In trial 7, the ignition wire blew off
trying to establish a stretched arc from the circuit breaker in
the starter unit. The breaker did trip and the motor starter unit
was removed to allow for internal inspection of the molded
case circuit breaker. In trials 8 and 9, the circuit breaker in
the starter cleared in less than 4 msec (less than of a
cycle). This time was insufficient for the ignition wire to melt.
2
The calorimeter recordings were negligible at 0.03 cal/cm .
F. Trial 10 Line Side Phase to Ground Fault with
Effectively Grounded System
1) Test Sample: With the system solidly grounded,
the fault was initiated on Phase C to ground on the line side
of the molded case circuit breaker with a 3 inch long 10
gauge ignition wire.
2) Test Observation: The fault initiated with 11 kA to
ground through the solidly grounded system. The fault
propagated to A and B phases at 12 msec ( cycle), but the
plasma field established was insufficient to become
conductive, and the fault extinguished in 21 msec in A phase
with the other two phases extinguishing 1/3 cycle later. The
oscillography for this fault can be seen in Appendix Fig A4.
This fault extinguishing demonstrates the low voltage arcing
fault advantage when the thermal inertia of a limited plasma
field is combined with X/R forcing the current and voltage to
be approximately in-phase resulting in the zero crossing of
the current is at the voltage zero.
2
The calorimeters recorded a max of 2.5 cal/cm . Obviously,
this event would not have occurred in a high resistance
grounded system.
G. Trial 11 Line Side Phase-to-Phase Fault with HRG
1) Test Sample: The transformer neutral was
reconfigured to a HRG system. The test motor starter units
location was moved to the 3rd vertical section of the MCC.
(See Appendix Fig. 5.) The riser bus from MCC section 2
was removed from the test sample due to the high level of
damage.
The MCC motor starter unit was modified by fully potting
the stab assembly and the top of the breaker with the ignition
jumper in place, with a low impedance intumescent caulk. All
riser bus was insulated with electrical tape. A size 3 stab
assembly was used on a size 1 motor starter unit, in an
attempt to limit the vaporizing of the lead conductors.
 2) Test Observation: The ignition wire was connected
B to C at the top of the motor starter unit circuit breaker and
energized. The fault propagated to A phase within 4 msec
and the fault began to travel to the riser bus in 19 msec. The
fully potted intumescent putty exploded the stab assembly,
allowing the fault to once again propagate to the rear
assembly riser bus. The fault rooted at the bottom of the riser
bus. The calorimeter recorded a maximum level of 1.8
2
cal/cm . At the end of the test, the test sample tested at 0.6
megohms Phase-to-Phase and Phase-to-ground with a
1000V insulation tester.
H. Trial 12 Load Side B to C Phase fault with HRG
1) Test Sample: The outside LVMCC sidewall was
installed and a sheet of glass polyester was used to block the
allowable gas expansion of the rear section of the LVMCC to
one vertical section, In all other tests conducted, the plasma
field had all three vertical sections to expand over. Silicone
caulk was used to insulate the clamshells on the riser bus
and the riser bus was fully insulated with electrical tape.
Installing two interphase barriers of glass polyester
segregated the length of the riser bus. All metal brackets
supporting the bus clamshell supports were coated with
silicone caulk in situ.
2) Test Observation: The fault, once again, was ignited
via an ignition wire B to C phase. The arc propagated to A
phase stab in 3 msec, and started to move into the bus
before rooting to the end of the horizontal bus. The fault
current was approximately 15 kA until the fault traveled to the
horizontal bus at the end panel. During the first 25 msec the
fault is unstable. The arc involved the end panel in a diffused
2
arc. The maximum calorimeter reading was 6.3 cal/cm . The
silicone caulk and the restricted back plane volume in
conjunction with the insulated riser bus slowed the arc
propagation, but the plasma field still sufficiently ionized the
air to allow the fault to propagate to the weakest spot. The
restricted volume caused by the barriers forced more of the
energy out the front of the assembly and into the
calorimeters.
I. Trial 13 Line Side B to C Phase with HRG
1) Test Sample: The sidewall of the LVMCC was
removed to return to a large rear volume condition. The
glass polyester wall was maintained between section 2 and
3. A glass polyester barrier separating the main bus from the
riser bus was installed. At the entry point of the leads from
the motor starter unit, the main stab was caulked to form a
barrier while not potting the assembly. The interphase barrier
of glass polyester installed between the riser bus phases was
kept in place for this test. The ignition wire was terminated
from B to C on the line side of the motor starter unit circuit
breaker and pointed horizontally to change the direction of
the plasma jet.
2) Test Observations: The fault remained in the bucket
and did not move to the riser bus. It was well established
across all three phases at the top of the circuit breaker. The
fault started across B to C phase and then propagated to the
A phase of the top of the breaker. It was extinguished at B
7
phase 19 msec (1 1/8 cycles) with A and C phase
extinguishing 5 msec (1/3 cycle) later, at the current zero
crossings. The fault developed more pressure and distorted
the motor starter unit. The top of the LVMCC bucket was
deformed sufficiently to release the bucket latch, but the arc
was extinguished prior to the fault pressure uncoupling the
bucket from the riser bus and starting a second fault. The
2
calorimeters recorded a max of 1.2 cal/cm . The Appendix
Fig. A5 shows trial 13 oscillography.
J. Trial 14 Line Side B to C Phase Fault with HRG
1) Test Sample: Silicone caulk was used to seal the
main bus stab assembly of the motor starter unit for A and B
phases. The ignition wire was placed horizontally across the
top of the circuit breaker. The horizontal and vertical bus
structures were not modified from the previous trial. A new
top shelf was installed for the bucket.
2) Test Observations: The fault propagated to A
phase, and within 4 msec, moved to the riser bus and the
metal bracket supporting the glass polyester clamshell at a
weak spot in the site installed silicone caulk. The bracket
was mounted closely to the motor starter unit stab assembly.
The pressure of the fault caused a bowing of the top shelf of
the motor control center bucket. The bowing of the shelf
resulted in an uncoupling of the motor starter unit securing
clip and the stabs drawing an arc as they disconnected. This
may have contributed to the fault moving to the back of the
cell. The fault rooted at the stab location and the closely
mounted clamshell bracket. The calorimeter was recorded at
2
a maximum energy density of 2.8 cal/cm .
The test sample was destroyed beyond repair at this point.
I. OBSERVING THE UNEXPECTED
The test laboratory was set up to provide 85 kA peak of
fault current and the planned duration was for 0.5 seconds.
The nominal test voltage was to be 480 V; however, voltages
in the range of 540 V was required to produce the required
fault current profile. Due to various conditions in the lab, the
expected maximum bolted fault current was limited to 65 kA
peak, with many of the faults being further limited due to the
arc voltage and arc resistance. Yet, fault currents in the
range of 30-50 kA peak were recorded.
Performing research is always an eye-opening
experience that, many times, results in the unexpected. The
September 2013 tests were no exception in that observations
were made that were totally surprising to the authors.
A. Lower than expected incident energy measurements
The expected incident energy levels were a fraction of what
was calculated. Incident energy levels in the range of 50-70
2
cal/cm for the 0.5 sec test was expected centered on several
incident energy level models, including IEEE-1584 and recent
IEEE/NFPA preliminary equations. However, when tests
were performed at 0.5 and 0.2 seconds fault duration, the
2
calorimeters showed incident energy levels below 3 cal/cm .
After receiving assurances that the calorimeters were
properly calibrated, and the incident energy was measured,
the expected incident energy in front of the LVMCC was
found to be much lower than calculated. Further analysis
revealed that the energy was present but the incident energy
was diverted to the back of the LVMCC and dissipated over
the volume of the equipment. Or, in other words, the energy
was drawn away from the front of the LVMCC and released
in the back of the LVMCC from vertical buses. Even though
the vertical buses were insulated with electrical insulating
tape, the non-insulated sections of the vertical bus allowed
the plasma gases to propagate the fault away from the
source, to the bottom of the bus, until extinction took place
through the opening of the source breaker.

B. Fast propagation of single-phase fault to three-phase

faults
Fig. 8a Arc Damage from Outside Phases to Enclosure
Supports
The single phase-to-ground faults on the effectively grounded
system and the phase-to-phase faults on the HRG systems
quickly propagated into three-phase faults. The supposition
of placing phase-to-ground faults and phase-to-phase faults
on the system was that faults may self-extinguish or lessen
the fault energy since three phases were not involved.
However, without exception during the testing, the faults did
not self-extinguish and all of the faults quickly propagated into
three-phase faults within a surprisingly quick 5 msec. This
fact supports the many models that assume that the arcing
fault will involve all three phases unless the fault is on the
load side of a current limiting breaker or the fault is a single
phase to ground fault on an HRG system. The geometry of
the motor starter unit and the open bare conductors along
with the large ignition wire are all considered contributing
factors.
Fig. 8b Arc Damage to Bottom of Vertical Bus
C. Non-ground fault current flow through the enclosure
D. Fast acting motor circuit protectors
Using Fig. 7 as a representation of three conductors or
buses, an arcing three-phase fault on a HRG system does The effects of a current limiting motor circuit protector (MCP)
exist, with the path between the outside phases A and C. were amazing, in that fault clearing times were in the time
The premise prior to the testing was that arcing from bus to frame of approximately 3-5 msec, roughly cycle.
the metal enclosure and bus supports, would not sustain an
arcing fault with a HRG system. However, as shown in Fig. E. Arc cooling /stretching designs
8a, damage to the enclosure steel, in this case the insulator
supports, is clearly evident. This damage occurred even As discussed in section III, the arcing fault voltage
though a HRG system was in use and there was no current significantly increases and the arc current decreases, as the
path back to a grounded source. The current path was arc is stretch by the geometry of the arc path. So designs
clearly from the energized bus to the enclosure and back to that can effectively cool the arc or stretch the arc, work well to
another phase. Damage was noted on the outside edges of minimize free electrons and increase the resistance of the arc
the outside bus, which would indicate fault currents flowed to the point that a large enough voltage drop will result in
between the outside buses via the metal support structure. automatic arc extinction. It is well established that arc faults
See Fig 8b. The symmetry of the three currents in the will travel if the insulation system permits. In all but one of
oscillographs also lead the authors to believe that current is the three-phase fault tests, the arc quickly propagated to the
flowing, in this case, between the outside A and C phase back of the equipment and down the riser bus away from the
buses. source. Large, high temperature plasma fields drive the
necessary restrike voltage to a relatively small value. The
importance of the unity X/R ratio in low voltage system is
evident since the zero crossing of the current occurs near
A B C zero voltage, thus working in favor of a failed restrike if the
plasma temperature can be reduced sufficiently or the
restrike voltage can be increased through control of the
geometry. However, as can be seen in the oscillography in
Fig. 7 Electrical Buses in an Enclosure the appendix, in most cases, the current remained relatively
contiguous even though the phase current and voltage are in

8
phase indicative of a purely resistive circuit. At the end of trial
4 and during the first two loops of current on trial 11, 12, 13
and 14, the current experienced restrikes indicating a level of
arc instability prior to the arc moving to the riser bus. If the
equipment design stretched the arc at the end of the riser
bus, where the arc terminated, the arc could be forced into
instability and possibly extinguished.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The partnership safety by design plays in conjunction with
arc flash standards for protecting personnel from arc blast
injuries needs to continue and it should be based on real-
world experience. Ralph Lee presented equations based on
the maximum power transfer theorem where the arc
resistance is equal to the system impedance. Therefore, his
position was that the maximum power and energy must be
used to calculate the incident energy levels. Since that time,
research has been conducted such as open air an arc in a
box to see if using the maximum power transfer theorem is
correct. Some research has been conducted to minimize the
amount of PPE required while other research has been
conducted to determine the worst-case conditions. In many
cases other contributing factor such as ignition wire and test
sample geometry can make the worst-case condition less
than practical. The testing for this paper was performed on
real-world equipment. Based on this testing, these
interesting conclusions were developed:
1) The metal brackets used to mount the riser bus
glass polyester clamshell constantly became arc
current path from A to C phase, and in the final
test, even included B phase. A more effective
model needs to be developed to understand the
impact of bare metal bracketing, which can
become a primary current path. The energy
released by the additional anode effects of the two
additional arcs that were observed A to steel and
steel to C phase, as this path results in a
significant amount of energy release.
2) The traveling fault collapsed the arc locally,
resulting in the low-level calorimeter recordings.
Additional testing is scheduled to investigate the
repeatability of this phenomenon and gauge how it
may be exploited in future design at the front of
the motor starter unit.
3) The combination of the uninsulated riser bus/ fully
insulated horizontal bus may result in a cost
effective high-speed method of personnel and
equipment protection.
4) The LVMCC equipment was braced sufficiently to
allow for tests in excess of the 8 cycle tests
currently being proposed, and could be tested at
0.2 or 0.5 seconds with a perspective current of 50
kA.
5) Using insulated solid barriers at the top of the
motor starter units molded case circuit breakers,
as many modern designs offer, is an effective
method of minimizing the opportunity for an
individual working in the LVMCC motor starter unit
to initiate a high level slow to clear fault.
9
6) The assumed arcing current in IEEE Guide 1584
may not be valid for the typical arc impedance
experienced in LVMCC. During the test
conducted on this geometry, the arcing current
was close to 50% of the prospective current.
7) The C37.29.7 working group has recognized that
the 10 gauge fine strand copper ignition wire is
excessive, and has already been changed in the
next version of the draft to a recommended 12
gauge fine strand. This size must continue to be
evaluated with respect to the extensive plasma
field initially created, and whether this truly
simulates the ions and free electrons typically
created by the technician generated arcing fault.
The length of the ignition wire must be evaluated
for its impact on ion and free electrons present at
the instant of vaporization.
8) The peak current recommended in IEEE Std.
C37.20.7 may be excessive considering the
typical X/R ratio realized in the low voltage
equipment, and should be re-evaluated.
9) Clamping the ignition wire under the circuit
breaker lug is not a practical method of fault
ignition testing; it often vaporizes the motor starter
unit stab leads at the breaker lugs. These
whipping leads helped contribute to the
temperature of the plasma field and aid in the
propagation of the arc. Further, the clamped
ignition wire does a poor job of simulating the
initial plasma field of an arc fault in the field.
10) With the high temperature plasma, the fault easily
propagated from a B to C phase fault on the high
resistance grounded system, and C phase to
ground on the solidly grounded system, to
encompass all three phases. Any thought that the
incident energy level will be significantly reduced
on an arcing fault for a non-three phase fault, will
have to evaluate the ignition wire source. Arcing
faults will propagate into three-phase faults if bare
conductors are involved in a plasma field of the
size tested.
11) The high resistance grounded system behaves as
would be expected for a ground fault. A single-
phase arcing ground fault is impossible to create
on an HRG system.
12) The modern molded case circuit breaker, working
well at a 1000 amp setting, easily cleared the fault
in 3-5 msec for faults occurring on the load side of
the breaker.
13) The clamshell bus support allows fault current to
pass through the clamshell once the internals
have established track paths. Bus insulation
should be plasma tight to prevent arcing in
internal locations, where a serpentine path may be
effective for dielectric requirements of todays
standards.
14) In evaluating the available arc flash energy the
test indicated, that due to open nature of LVMCC
and the consideration to the volume of the MCC
enclosure may be an important variable.
15) In the case of the three-phase fault the current
reaches equilibrium locally. This may result in
 multiple arcs in series and the energy release of
multiple cathode/anode pairs.
16) Interphase barrier can play an effective part in
stretching the arc and changing the direction, as
well as, minimizing the opportunity of a fault
propagation.
17) The motor starter unit configuration with the circuit
breaker to the far side, and mounted high in the
bucket, appears to be problematic in relation to
the bus stab locations. The alignment between the
circuit breaker B and C phase and the lead to the
A phase bus stabs demonstrated a propensity of
the arcing fault propagating into the uninvolved
phase(s) during the tests
18) While additional research needs to be conducted,
there is a reasonable possibility that the required
level of protective clothing may be lower on real-
world equipment than presently required.
19) Direction of the ignition wire can have a significant
impact on the direction of the initial plasma jets.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge Alan Moser for providing
the test specimen, on behalf of Eaton Corporation. The
authors also wish to acknowledge the KEMA Testing
Laboratory and its personnel for assisting with the testing of
the LVMCC.
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Nelson, Billman, and Bowen, The Effects of System
Grounding, Bus Insulation and Probability on Arc Flash
Hazard Reduction The Missing Links, IEEE PCIC
Conference Record, 2012, pp. 27-39.
[2] J. R. Dunki-Jacobs, The Escalating Arcing Ground-
Fault Phenomenon Industry Applications society
Transaction, vol 1A-22, Nov/Dec 1986, pp. 1156-1161.
[3] R. H. Lee., The Other Electrical Hazard: Electric Arc
Blast Burns, Industry Applications Society
Transactions, vol IA-18, May 1982, pp. 246 251.
[4] Dunki-Jacobs, Shields, and St Pierre, Industrial Power
System Grounding Design Handbook, Thomson-Shore
Printer, Copyright 2007.
[5] R. H. Kaufmann and J. C. Page, Arcing Fault
Protection for Low-Voltage Power Distribution Systems
Nature of the Problem, pp. 60-165 June 1960.
[6] NFPA 70, 2012 National Electrical Code, Quincy, MA:
NFPA.
[7] Rudenberg and Reinhold, Transient Performance of
Electrical Power Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1950.
[8] C. E. Solver, Electric Arcs and Arc Interruptions,
Chalmers University of Technology, Lecture Notes,
June 2002.
[9] J. M. Somerville, The Electric Arc, Butler and Tanner
Ltd., 1956.
[10] L. Ghezzi and A. Balestrero, Modeling and Simulation
of Low Voltage Arcs, Technical University of Delft,
Doctorate Thesis, October 2010.
[11] KEMA PowerTest, LCC, Test Report # 13215-B,
September 9-14, 2013.
10
[12] IEEE PC37.20.7/D4B IEEE Guide for Testing Metal-
Enclosed Switchgear Rated Up to 38 kV for Internal Arc
Faults
[13] IEEE-1584-2002 IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash
Calculations
VIII. VITAE
John P. Nelson graduated from the University of Illinois
Champaign-Urbana, in 1975, with a Bachelor of Science in
Electrical Engineering, and a Master of Science in Electrical
Engineering, from the University of Colorado Boulder, in
1979. He previously held positions with Public Service
Company of Colorado, from 1969-1979, and Power Line
Models, from 1979-1984. Presently, Nelson is the CEO and
a principle engineer of NEI Electric Power Engineering,
where he has been employed since 1984. Nelson has also
been active in the IAS Petroleum and Chemical Industry
Committee since 1980. Elevated to IEEE Fellow in 1999,
Nelson is the recipient of the 2012 Harold Kaufman award.
In addition, Nelson is a registered
professional engineer in the state of Colorado, as well as,
nine other states.
Joshua D. Billman earned a Bachelor of Science in
Electrical Engineering from Metropolitan State College, in
2006, and is located in Denver Colorado. He is currently an
electrical engineer with NEI Electric Power Engineering,
located in Arvada, Colorado. Billman is also a registered
professional engineer in the state of California.
James E. Bowen earned a Bachelor of Science in
Electrical Engineering from Texas A&M University, in 1976.
After working for SIP Engineering as a power engineer for
three years, he joined Exxon Chemicals in 1979. His duties
included maintenance, project design, construction follow-up
and commissioning for the petrochemical and cogeneration
processes.
In 1997, Bowen joined Powell Electrical Manufacturing
Company, as the Technical Director, where he provided
leadership in the design development of medium-voltage
switchgear and circuit breakers. In 2009, Bowen joined
Dashiell Corporation as the Vice president of Advanced
Technical Services, where he worked to advance the
concepts of safety by design into the high voltage substation.
In 2010, Bowen joined Aramco Services Company as a
Power System Technologist. His current role includes
investigating technologies that can be applied by Aramco to
improve safety, reliability and profitability. He has presented
at numerous technical seminars for the IEEE Houston
Sections Continuing Education on Demand. Bowen is a
professional engineer in the state of Texas and an IEEE
Fellow.
Dane A. Martindale earned a Bachelor of Science in
Electrical Engineering from Texas A&M University, in College
Station, Texas, in 2007. Upon graduation, he worked for the
Dashiell Corporation, where he specialized in the design and
construction of high voltage substations and transmission
lines. In April 2013, he accepted a position with Aramco
Services Companys Power Engineering group. His current
role includes investigating technologies that can be applied
 by Aramco to improve safety, reliability, and profitability. He
is a professional engineer in the State of Texas and an IEEE
member. Martindale is currently pursuing a Master of
Engineering degree at the University of Idaho.

11
 APPENDIX A
2
Trial Test It ArcEnergy Current Arc AVG
2 2
No. (MA sec) MJ Duration Volts Cal/cm
msec
3 760 8.03 512 257 --
4 4.47 9.38 519 406 0.6
9 554 0.1
10 0.35 28 554 2.1
11 250 4.09 225 344 1.8
12 260 3.88 224 348 6.3
13 14.3 0.4 26 - 1.2
14 242 3.69 225 333 2.8

TABLE 2. TEST RESULTS FOR VARIOUS TRIALS

Fig. A1 High Resistance Ground Test Set-up One Line Diagram

Fig. A2 Effectively Grounded Test Set-up One Line Diagram

N Neutral XFMR Transformer MBUB Master Back Up Breaker Xs Station Reactance

G Generator MS Making Switch ABUB Auxiliary Back Up Breaker Xp Primary Reactance
V Voltage I Current XLIM Current Limiting Inductance TD Test Device
Measurement Measurement RLIM Current Limiting Resistance

Legend for Fig. 1 and 2

12
Fig. A3 Trial 3 Line Side B to C Phase Fault with HRG

13
 A phase fault
extinguished

C phase Fault Zero crossing instability followed by

initiated phase realignment to be 180 out with B

Fig. A4 Trial 10 ine Side Single Phase to Grount with Effectively Grounded

14
 A Phase Fault propagation

B to C Phase
Fault initiation
B Phase Fault
extinction

A and C transposed to 180 out and die

at the zero crossing

Fig. A5 Trial 13 Line Side B to C Phase With HRG

15