ARC-FLASH HAZARD ANALYSIS
“Putting the Pieces of the Puzzle Together”
John Lane, PE Electrical Safety Engineer AVO Training Institute
Two industrial electricians began work in the basement electrical room one day. They wanted to take some physical measurements and knew the switchgear was energized but were in a hurry to get started. As they were taking measurements on the bus with a wooden ruler the metal tip of the ruler made contact with the bus and caused a massive electric arc. The arc-flash only lasted a fraction of a second. Although no one was electrocuted, one man died instantly from the arc-flash and the other man was badly burned. The man that died was within 24 inches of the bus while the other man was about ten feet away. The objective of OSHA, NFPA, ASTM, IEEE, and others is to protect the worker from electrical hazards. Potential hazards from electricity include shock, arc-flash, and arc blast. This paper will focus on arc-flash and its analysis. When the insulation medium, between phases or phase and ground, whether air, porcelain, polymer, or other medium can no longer support the applied voltage an electrical arc is formed. A short circuit or insulation breakdown is a switching action that creates a bypass around a circuit which involves either phase-to-phase or phase-to-ground or a combination. The heat generated by the high current flow may melt or vaporize the material and create an arc. This arc-flash creates a brilliant flash, intense heat, and a fast moving pressure wave that propels the arcing products. While commercial electricity has been around for over 100 years, the most common hazard of electricity has been electric shock or electrocution. As commercial electric systems grew, other hazardous effects such as arc-flash and arc-blast began to surface. The initiation, escalation, effects, and prevention of electrical arcs have been analyzed and researched since the early 1960’s. Human errors and equipment malfunctions contribute to the initiation of an electrical arc. Engineering design and construction of arc resistant equipment as well as requirements for safe work practices are continuing to target the risk of electrical arc-flash hazard. As the demand for electricity increases, transmission and distribution utility systems are being upgraded. Transformers are being upgraded or replaced with higher KVA ratings and lower impedances at both the utility and industrial/commercial level. Also, as the demand for higher reliability also increases, transformers are being operated in parallel by closing a tie breaker. All of these modifications to the system can cause dramatic increases in the available fault current. More electrical energy throughput is a result of these modifications; however the downside is an increase in the electrical current to feed a fault to existing equipment in industrial and commercial facilities that may now be under-rated to interrupt available fault current. This increase in available fault current can wreak havoc on under-rated and/or improperly maintained equipment. As the awareness of the arc-flash hazard increases many are puzzled by phrases like; “limited”, “restricted”, “prohibited approach Boundary”, and “flash protection boundary”. Understanding these 1
terms is important to understanding arc-flash hazard protection. For more definitions that apply to arc-flash hazard refer to appendix A. Limited Approach Boundary- A shock protection boundary not to be crossed by unqualified persons unless escorted by a qualified person. Restricted Approach Boundary- A shock protection boundary to be crossed by only qualified persons. When crossed the use of shock protection techniques and equipment is required. Prohibited Approach Boundary- A shock protection boundary only to be crossed by qualified persons. When crossed the same protection is required as if direct contact is made with the live part. Flash Protection Boundary- Distance at which the incident energy level equals 1.2 cal/cm2 for faulting clearing time greater than 0.1 seconds. Use 1.5 cal/cm2 for clearing times that are 0.1 seconds or faster.
Critical point or initiation of arc
Flash Protection Boundary (arc-flash)
Figure 1-Limits of Approach Most employers and employees understand the analysis of electrical shock hazard but very few understand the electrical arc-flash hazard let alone how to properly perform an analysis. There are many pieces to this puzzle but after we analyze each of the pieces carefully we will find that they all fit together in a manner that provides electrical workers the protection they deserve. Listed below are the major pieces of the puzzle: ! Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis ! Compliance with regulations and standards concerning Arc-Flash Hazard Protection ! Using the proper method of calculation…. NFPA 70E, IEEE Std 1584, or a combination of the two ! Using the proper procedures for accurately calculating Incident Energy ! Benefits of performing a detailed Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis?
Why Perform an Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis?
As stated earlier in this paper, an electrical arc is formed anytime there is an insulation breakdown between phases or ground. It could happen when no one is around, someone walking in proximity, or someone working on the equipment. The most hazardous situation is when someone is working on or near energized equipment. They probably have the equipment doors open and are in close proximity to the equipment. When an electrical worker, while working inside an energized electrical panel, makes contact between phases or phase and ground with a conductive object like a screwdriver, pliers, or body parts, an electrical arc can form. The temperature of the arc can reach upwards of 35,000 oF, which is approximately four times hotter than the surface of the sun. The electrical arc creates a pressure wave. The incident energy is the energy of this arc-flash coming into contact with a surface. The surface in question here could be a person. A 10,000 amp arc at 480 volts is equivalent to 8 megawatts or approximately 8 sticks of dynamite. In some cases the arc vapor can have a substantially higher resistance than the solid metal. For low voltage circuits the arc consumes most of the available voltage leaving only the difference between system voltage Eo and arc voltage Varc. It is this difference (Eo - Varc) that forces the current through the system impedance. For medium voltages it may take longer for the system impedance to start to limit the fault current. The arc-flash is like a laser but is not quite as hot. A laser can create heat as high as 100,000 oK while the arc-flash can approach 20,000 oK or 35,000 oF. Essentially an electric arc creates a radiation burn which accounts for the internal burns a person can receive when exposed to an electrical arc flash. Ralph Lee, a former Dupont Consultant, was instrumental in the study of Electrical Arc Blast Burns back in the early 1980’s. Lee’s work showed that skin temperature above 96 oC for 0.1 seconds or 6 cycles would result in an “incurable burn” or a 3rd degree burn. At 80 oC the skin would be “just curable” or a 2nd degree burn. To perform an accurate arc-flash hazard analysis a realistic value for the three-phase bolted fault and the total clearing time for the affected protective device must be known. Questions the Electrical Power Systems Engineer should ask before starting an Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis: ! Do I know if the overcurrent devices will trip in the fastest possible time? ! Is my facility having unexplained outages? ! Have I expanded the facility and/or added new electrical equipment? ! Is the protection equipment rated to safely clear available fault current? ! What arc exposure time do I use to calculate flash protection boundary distance? ! What can I do to mitigate excessively high fault currents or long tripping times? ! Have I tested and performed regular maintenance on my protective devices? Note: For detailed information on protective device maintenance and testing refer to “Protective Device Maintenance as it applies to the Arc/Flash Hazard” in the Summer 2002 issue of NETA WORLD by Dennis Neitzel, Director of the AVO Training Institute. After an arc-flash hazard analysis has been completed, engineering may be required to mitigate high levels of incident energy to manageable levels. Only a complete electrical system analysis can identify the level of personal protective equipment required at each location in the system. 3
What do the Regulating Authorities say about Arc-Flash Hazard Protection?
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132 (d) requires employers to assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or likely to be present, and select and have each employee use the types of PPE that will protect them. The employer shall also communicate these decisions to the affected employees. The employer shall also verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the particular workplace evaluated. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.333 requires employees who are exposed to electrical shock hazard to be qualified for the specific task they are performing. This involves not only safe work practices but using the appropriate Personal Protection Equipment (PPE). OSHA 29 CFR 1910.335 (a)(1)(i) states that employees working in areas where there are potential electrical hazards shall be provided with, and shall use, electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.335 (a)(2)(i) states that when working near exposed energized conductors or circuit parts, each employee shall use insulated tools or handling equipment if the tools or handling equipment might make contact with such conductors or parts. If the insulating capability of insulated tools or handling equipment is subject to damage, the insulating material shall be protected. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.335 (a)(2)(ii) states that protective shields, protective barriers, or insulating materials shall be used to protect each employee from shock, burns, or other electrical related injuries while the employee is working near exposed energized parts which might be accidentally contacted or where dangerous electric heating or arcing might occur. When normally enclosed live parts are exposed for maintenance or repair, they shall be guarded to protect unqualified persons from contact with the live parts. NEC® 110.16 states that equipment must be marked to warn qualified persons of potential electrical Arc-Flash Hazards. NEC® 110.9 states that the equipment intended to interrupt current at fault levels shall have an interrupting rating sufficient for the nominal circuit voltage and the current that is available at the line terminals of the equipment. NEC® 110.10 states that the electrical characteristics of the circuit must be known to properly select and coordinate protective devices used to clear a fault. The characteristics of the system are source impedance, individual component impedances, connected loads, and short-circuit current ratings. Protective devices must be coordinated so as to protect people, equipment, and isolate the least affected part of the system. NFPA 70 E-2000, part II, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-1.3.3 states that a flash hazard analysis must be performed in order to determine the level of hazard and appropriate PPE for given tasks. These regulations and standards were put in place to protect the worker. Many of the above regulations and standards were specifically put in place after a severe accident occurred, usually involving a fatality.
NFPA 70E provides the formulas and tables needed to solve for the incident energy. On the surface it may appear relatively easy to perform an arc-flash calculation. But as one gets deeper and deeper into the calculations it can become very puzzling. The three-phase bolted fault current on the low side of a transformer feeding a line of switchgear can be calculated. Use the worst case by assuming an infinite bus to give maximum fault current. An infinite bus assumes that the impedance ahead of a device is essentially zero. Then assume a fault clearing time of around 0.2 seconds and a working distance of 18 inches. Based on this data, one may think they are calculating the worst-case scenario for incident energy in calories per centimeter squared (cal/cm2). Using three-phase bolted fault current values based on an infinite bus may result in calculating faster time-current response from protective devices resulting in lower calculated incident energy values as well as lower flash boundary values. The end result could be the worker has a false sense of protection, when in fact, he is under protected. It is also important when applying current-limiting fuses to calculate a realistic value for fault current based on system impedance. A current-limiting fuse by definition interrupts all available current above its threshold current and below its maximum interrupting rating and limits the clearing time to equal to or less than one-half cycle at rated voltage. Proper maintenance and coordination of protective devices is paramount when doing an arc-flash hazard analysis. Let’s take a look at an example. A 1000 kVA 13.8/0.480 kV transformer with 6 % impedance should give approximately 20 kA bolted fault current at 480 volts assuming an infinite bus. With a clearing time of 0.11 seconds at 18 inches the incident energy is approximately 4.4 cal/cm2. However, after a thorough analysis of the system the fault current was closer to 10 kA due to system impedance. The clearing time is now 2.5 seconds due to the lower fault current being in the long-time pickup range of the protective device. At a distance of 18 inches the incident energy is now 53.2 cal/cm2. See figure 2 for incident energy versus time graph. The person working on this switchgear would most likely receive life-threatening external and internal burns as well as broken bones from the arc blast. When an electrical arc is struck, there is an explosive liberation of energy which includes a shock wave. A very serious burn can result without ever making physical contact with the energized equipment.
180 160 Energy(cal/cm 2) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Figure 2-Energy vs. Time Graph 5
Which method of calculation should I use…. NFPA 70 E, IEEE-1584 or a combination?
The equations in NFPA 70E, 2-184.108.40.206, Part II, Appendix B, are based on the concept of maximum power transfer where the fault impedance is equal to the system impedance. It assumes the arc current is approximately equal to the bolted fault current. This assumption may be okay for voltages higher than 600 but not valid for under 600 volts for reasons noted earlier in this paper. The equations for arc-flash boundaries are based on the “LEE” method. Ralph Lee, a former Dupont consultant, wrote an IEEE paper in 1982 describing the arc-flash hazard and provided equations for calculating incident energy and arc-flash boundary. This is known as the table method. The tables are for specific fault currents and specific clearing times and do not cover all applications. The biggest limitations of the Lee method are; it does not include a method for finding arc current and does not consider “arc in a box”. The equations in NFPA 70E, Part II, Appendix B, were developed in the early 1990’s by Dupont, Dick Doughty, Tom Neal, and others. They tested arc in a box and arc in air cases mostly at 600 volts and developed equations using spreadsheet based curve fitting methods. Although crude, they gave adequate results and were a tremendous step forward over the Lee method. Arc current, incident energy and flash boundary can be calculated using this method. A few years ago a group in the Petroleum Industry formed a working group to investigate arc-flash hazard calculations. With the support of Dupont Nomex division there was significant testing. Testing was done at a number of high power laboratories to develop a better understanding of the electrical arc-flash characteristics and resultant incident energy. Three types of test were performed: Single-phase arc in open air, three-phase arc in open air, and three-phase arc in box configurations. The results of these test and analysis were published in IEEE standard 1584 in 2002. The arc-flash hazard calculations included in this standard enable quick and comprehensive solutions for arcs in single-or three-phase electrical systems, open air or box enclosure, and low or medium voltage. The formulas are backed by field tests that validate the formulas. Previous formulas did not take into account persons standing in front of opened covers or the thermal effects from arcs inside enclosures. Although IEEE standard 1584 has made significant advances in arc-flash hazard there is more research to be done in this area. Research is continuing on arc-flash and arc-blast hazards. Arc-blast hazard has been estimated that a one megawatt fault is equal a stick of dynamite. The only difference is that the expansion rate of dynamite is in the micro-second range (1 X 10-6) while arc-blast is in the milli-second range (1 X 10-3).
What are the steps required to accurately calculate Incident Energy?
Experienced Electrical Power Engineers have become a rare commodity due to the high tech revolution, which started back in the early 1980’s. Many universities exchanged their electrical power programs for high tech programs. The electrical power workforce, both engineers and technicians, is also shrinking due to retirements. This means that there will be fewer experienced electrical workers in the workplace performing this very demanding work and fewer experienced engineers planning and designing power systems. This is a recipe for disaster. Many electrical systems, both utility and industrial/commercial, are reaching the end of their useful life. Future 6
electrical systems, as well as existing system upgrades, should be designed with worker safety as well as reliability in mind. It will be imperative that new electrical workers be properly trained in the hazards as well as given the best information and PPE to protect them from these hazards. An Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis and finding the proper PPE is more than just calculating a bolted fault current based on an infinite bus. An Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis starts with gathering up-to-date equipment information, then performing a detailed analysis comprised of a load-flow study, short circuit study, and protective device coordination study as well as an equipment evaluation to determine that the current withstand rating is acceptable. For facilities with generators and large motors (100 hp or larger) a motor starting and fault contribution analysis should also be performed. When the arc-flash hazard label is put on the equipment, you can sleep better at night if you know the arc-flash study was performed with the most up-to-date information and methods. Site assessment and Data Gathering: An initial site visit to gather data and a site overview is vital. The system one-line diagram, see figure 3, and supporting schematics and documents should be checked and updated during the field visit. Data gathering consists of all equipment nameplate data, protective device settings, and load information. Any planned facility upgrades within the next few years should also be noted as this could impact analysis. Source impedance data from the electricity provider will also be required to accurately calculate the short-circuit current. The data gathered from the initial field visit is CRITICAL in performing a safe and realistic arcflash Hazard Analysis.
Figure 3-One-line diagram with short circuit currents labeled on buses 7
Short Circuit Analysis: The field data is used to build a system model. Short circuit studies are done to determine the magnitude of the prospective currents flowing through the power system at various time intervals after a fault occurs. Once the model is built a short circuit analysis is performed. The short circuit data is used to determine the bolted three-phase short circuit current, which is in turn used to calculate the arcing fault current. Protective Device Coordination Analysis: Protective devices like fuses, circuit breakers, and relays have curves that are plotted on loglog graph paper in current versus time like that shown in figure 4. Several of these curves are placed on graph paper. Protective device coordination is a process in which these device curves are set in a manner such that when a fault occurs that the protective device closest upstream of the fault opens as rapidly as possible to minimize hazardous conditions to people, protect valuable equipment, and isolate the problem with minimum disruption to the balance of the electrical system. The equipment and protective device data that was input initially to build the system model is used for protective device coordination analysis. When facilities are changed or upgraded it is necessary to revisit the existing protection scheme to determine if changes need to be made to ensure that devices are coordinated properly. A change in load or equipment could change the timing and coordination of the protective devices.
Figure 3-Protective Device Coordination Curves 8
Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis: Arc-Flash Analysis Evaluation calculates the incident energy and arc-flash boundary for each location in a power system. Trip times from protective device settings and arcing fault current values from the short circuit analysis are used in arc-flash hazards analysis. Incident energy and arc-flash boundaries are calculated following the NFPA 70E or IEEE 1584 Standards. Clothing requirements are specified for given tasks. Arc-Flash Hazard warning labels showing flash protection boundary, incident energy, Arc Resistant clothing class required, and other valuable data system can be printed on stick-on labels and easily placed on equipment. Figure 4 and 5 show the results of an Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis and an Arc-Flash Hazard warning label respectively.
ARC FLASH EVALUATION REPORT (IEEE 1584)
PROTECTIVE BUS NAME DEVICE NAME 1 2 3 4 5 B1-46KV B2-2400 B3-2400 B4-480 B5-480 46KV BUS C1 RELAY C1 FDR RELAY SUB-C MAIN 480 FDR
KV 46 2.4 2.4 0.48 0.48
ARCING BREAKER BUS BOLTED PROT DEV BOLTED FAULT TRIP/DELAY OPENING TIME (SEC) GROUND FAULT (KA) FAULT (KA) TIME (SEC) 16.75 8.94 8.11 13.71 13.67 16.75 8.94 8.11 13.71 13.67 16.75 7.52 6.95 10.56 10.25 0.125 0.268 4.057 2.76 0.03 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 YES YES YES YES YES
EQUIP TYPE SWG SWG SWG SWG SWG
ARC FLASH WORKING INCIDENT GAP BOUNDARY DISTANCE(I ENERGY REQUIRED PROTECTIVE FR CLOTHING 2 (MM) (IN) N) (CAL/CM ) CLASS 153 36 36 18 18 NA NA 390 302 28 18 18 18 111 76.1 2.31 ****DANGEROUS!!NO FR CLASS ****DANGEROUS!!NO FR CLASS CLASS 1, FR SHIRT & PANTS
Figure 4-Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis Results
Figure 5-Arc-Flash Hazard Labels for Equipment
Equipment Evaluation Analysis: The Equipment Evaluation Analysis compares equipment withstand ratings with calculated operating and short circuit analysis. This is very important when upgrading electrical facilities, especially when increasing available power or adding/replacing transformers, motors or generators. Systems may be paralleled to increase reliability. This has a significant impact on the available short circuit current to a downstream device. Circuit Breakers and other devices that are under rated for 9
fault current withstand pose a serious arc and blast hazard to anyone close to the device. Figure 6 shows the results of a typical Equipment Evaluation Analysis.
ALL PROTECTION DEVICES-EQUIPMENT EVALUATION REPORT BASED ON ANSI FAULT ANALYSIS CONTINUOU VOLTAGE(K S AMPS INT KA CLOSERATING% DESCRIPTIO V) LF/DEV/RATI CALC/DEV/S LATCH KA VOLT/INT/CN BUS/DEVICE NG% ERIES CALC/DEV L SPS 12003000A SPS121-31.5 AK-25 EC-2 AK-50 POWER SENSOR MA 12002000A MA 250 3.76 1200 0.31 360.11 400 90.03
DEVICE/BUS MANUFACT URER B1-46KV SEIMENS 480 FDR GE SUB-C MAIN GE SWGR C-1 ALLISCHALMERS
PARTING TIME SPEED CYCLES 2.0 3.0 SYMM SYMM
0.00 31.5 0.00 30.0 360.11 500 0.0
38.02 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.00
72.02 1200 6.00
50.42 0.0 0.0
3.0 5.0 SYMM
Figure 6-Equipment Evaluation
What are the benefits of performing a detailed Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis?
A very large manufacturer was recently cited and heavily fined for PPE and LOTO (lockout/tagout) violations by OSHA and affirmed by a judge due to a serious injury to an electrician. The agreement reached in the settlement states that: " Task-specific analysis will be performed to determine proper PPE for over 4000 electricians. " NFPA 70E will be used to make that determination. " Company will take steps to assure that the electricians are aware of provisions contained in the Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis and will take steps to assure that electricians comply by using the required PPE. This is a VERY positive step in recognizing the electrical arc-flash hazards and making sure that electrical workers or anyone exposed to these hazards be given proper training and be required to wear proper PPE. Although this is a result in a serious burn injury that will scar a person for life, both physically and mentally, it serves as a wake-up call to employers and employees alike that electrical arc hazards are real and should not be taken lightly. Below are some of the benefits of performing an accurate arc-flash hazard analysis: " " " " Provide the best possible PPE for electrical workers both qualified and unqualified. Possibly lower insurance premiums. Brings electrical system up to date by providing current one-line diagram. Enhance System Reliability--Proper protective device coordination study to insure closest device to fault opens in the least amount of time—assuming proper periodic maintenance and testing of protective devices per manufacturer’s recommendation. " Equipment Evaluation Analysis is very important—If available fault current is higher than equipment rating severe arc-flash and arc-blast will most likely result. 10
" Since the system is modeled on software it will be easy to make future changes or upgrade with minimal expense or effort. " Drastically lessen your chances of having to make a very unpleasant visit to survivors. Last but not least—IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!
If employers and employees are NOT proactive in this effort then the accident noted in this article may apply to you. Treatment costs for burn victims can approach a half-million dollars a month. A fatality in the workplace has been estimated at 8.5 million dollars. Cost should never be a consideration when it comes to safety in the workplace especially for the hazards that electrical workers face. Electrical workers rarely get a second chance to return to their previous job assignment following an accident. They are either killed or maimed for life. Obviously, the best way to prevent an arc-flash hazard is to totally de-energize the equipment. However, even if you can totally de-energize the equipment you must open devices upstream. It is best if this can be done remotely, but if it cannot be, you must be trained and know the proper arcflash protection required for the given task. Proper procedures for lockout/tagout call for testing for zero voltage and applying grounds. This will also require proper training and PPE. There is no substitution for training and following proper procedures in the electrical business. You will probably not get a second chance if you are involved in an electrical accident. There is no product or process, which cannot be de-energized, worth more than a human life. Yet, decisions are made every day not to de-energize or circumvent the lockout/tagout procedures that compromise a person’s safety.
Limited Approach Boundary- A shock protection boundary not to be crossed by unqualified persons. Restricted Approach Boundary- A shock protection boundary to be crossed by only qualified persons. When crossed the use of shock protection techniques and equipment is required. Prohibited Approach Boundary- A shock protection boundary only to be crossed by qualified persons. When crossed the same protection is required as if direct contact is made with the live part. Flash Protection Boundary- Distance at which the incident energy level equals 1.2 cal/cm2 for faulting clearing time less than 0.1 seconds. Use 1.5 cal/cm2 for clearing times greater than 0.1 seconds. Incident Energy- The energy of this arc-flash coming into contact with a surface. Bolted Fault Current- A short circuit between two or more different phase conductors in which the impedance is virtually zero. Arcing fault current- Flow of current through a path consisting of vapor. The vapor has a substantial higher resistance than the solid metal. For low voltage circuits the arc consumes most of the available voltage leaving only the difference between system voltage Eo and arc voltage Varc. It is this difference (Eo - Varc) that forces the current through the system impedance. The arc-flash is like a laser but is not quite as hot. A laser can create heat as high as 100,000 oK while the arc-flash can approach 20,000 or 35,000 oC. Essentially an electric are creates a radiation burn.
Qualified worker- A person who has received training on equipment and hazards on a particular piece of equipment. Flash Hazard-A dangerous condition associated with the release of energy caused by an electric arc.
References R. A. Jones, “Staged Tests increase Awareness of Arc_flash Hazrds in Electrical Equipment”, IEEE Trans Ind. Applicat., vol 36, No. 2, pp 659-667, March/April 2000. Lanny Floyd, “Continuing Journeys in Arc-Flash Injusry Prevention: IEEE Std 1584”, IEEE Trans Ind. Applicat., vol 9, No. 3, pp 659-667, May/June 2003. Craig Wellman, “Don't Get Burned - Perform Arc-Flash Calculations”,Electrical Contracting & Engineering News, March 2003. Ralph Lee, “The Other Electrical Hazard, Electric Arc Blast Burns”, IEEE Trans Ind. Applicat., vol 36, No. 2, pp 659-667, March/April 2000. Leslie Geddes, “Handbook of Electrical Hazards and Accidents”, CRC Press, 1995. Power Systems Engineering Committee, IEEE Recommended Practice for Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Analysis, IEEE Std 399-1997. IEEE-SA Standards Board, “Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems”, IEEE Std 242-2001. National Fire Protection Association 70E-2000 edition. National Electrical Code- 2002 edition. IEEE Standard 1584-2002, “IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations”, Industry Applications Society.
Biography John Lane, PE is an Electrical Safety Engineer at the AVO Training Institute in Dallas, TX. He graduated from Oklahoma State University in 1986 with a degree in Electrical Power Engineering. He worked for ARCO Transportation in the pipeline division while going to college. After college he worked for General Electric Company three years where he participated in the Field Engineering Program in Schenectady, NY. John has worked for various consultants and electric utilities and been involved in different areas of electrical power for 17 years including system planning, system protection, and engineering manager. He is a member of the IEEE Industry Applications Society and Power Engineering Society. He is a register engineer in Texas, California, and Oklahoma. John can be reached at [email protected]