Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 1 of 91

Calculation Methodology
Guidelines/Standards
Determination of the Arcing Current Contributions
Determination of the Fault Clearing Time (FCT)
Troubleshooting “FCT not Determined” Problems
Determination of the Incident Energy
Applying the Maximum FCT Option for the Incident Energy
Differential Relay Handling for AF
Maintenance Mode Switch
Current Limiting Fuse Handling
Modeling Zone Interlock Prot. and Light Detecting Relays
Effect of Arc Resistant Switchgear in Arc Flash
Main Protective Device Isolation
Running Device Duty before Arc Flash Analysis
Logic for Determining the System Grounding
Calculating Incident Energy for PDs
Calculating Incident Energy for Tie-PDs
Incident Energy Level Determination
Arcing Current & Incident Energy Correction Factors

Guidelines/Standards
ETAP Arc Flash has supported two main standards over the last two decades (2002 to 2018). These standard are NFPA 70E and IEEE 1584. Starting with ETAP 19.0.0 ETAP AF will
support both IEEE 1584-2002 [B8] and IEEE 1584-2018 [B1] for a period of about two to three years to allow transition time for implementing the new standard. IEEE standards
supersede previous versions the minute they are released. However, ETAP has decided to continue to support both for a limited period of time to allow current studies which
were started with the 2002 version to be completed. The 2002 option is also supported because of the requirement of maintenance of existing arc flash analysis.

IEEE Standards 1584-2002, 1584a 2004 & 1584b 2011

l The Empirically Derived model is used for voltages in the range of 0.208-15kV. The Theoretically Derived Lee Model is used for voltage levels above 15kV and below
0.208kV. The Lee method is also used if the bolted fault current is outside the range 0.7 kA ≤ Ibf ≤106.

l The empirically derived model has a bolted fault current range of 0.7- 106kA.

l Grounded and Ungrounded (high or low resistance) configurations are considered for faulted buses with nominal voltage in the range of 0.208-15kV.

l The Arc Flash module determines the bolted fault current from the ETAP Short-Circuit module.

l The 3-phase and 1-phase fault current values are used. Depending on the voltage level and the type of equipment, ETAP determines the Arc Fault Currents. Whenever the
theoretically derived Lee method is used, the arcing current is set the same as the bolted fault current.

ETAP uses the equipment type information from the Bus Editor Rating page to determine the incident energy exposure values as a function of distance and location. The
results are displayed on the one-line diagram, the bus arc flash page, AF Result Analyzer, and in the Crystal Reports (including labels).

NFPA 70E-2021 (not including the IEEE 1584 equations of annex D.7)

l The bolted fault current range for the formulae is 16-50 kA.

l The calculation of the incident energy exposure is valid for enclosed system voltages below 600 and only for open air equipment when the voltage is greater than 600 Volts
(see Annex D section D.3 of NFPA 70E 2021).

l This method does not consider the type of equipment and the distance factors. The output of the module remains the same as that of ETAP 4.7.6, which is the look up table
approach.

ETAP does not use the equation listed in sections 5.7 of IEEE 1584-2002 or Annex I of IEEE 1584-2018 for determining the energy of based on current limiting Low Voltage Circuit
Breakers. These equations are not used since the module takes a more conservative approach by interfacing to the actual TCCs of the devices available in ETAP Star. This is
generally considered a more accurate approach and more conservative.

IEEE Standard 1584-2018

The new IEEE 1584-2018 [B1] model supersedes the IEEE 1584-2002 model. The development of this new edition of the standard has taken over fifteen years or work and is a
result of thousands on man hours of research, development and validation. The following sections provide a summary of the main features of this new model.

Model Development
The new model was developed based on over 1800 tests. In comparison, the IEEE 1584-2002 model was developed based on approximately 300 tests. To get a complete
description of the tests performed, please refer to Annex G of IEEE 1584-2018. The following table provides a summary of the tests performed to obtain the processed data used
in the new arc flash model development.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 2 of 91

*Not included in final IEEE 1584-2018 D6 Arc-Flash Model

The original model development intended to have six different electrode configurations but due to limitations in the model development resources, only five electrode
configurations remained.

The test setups are displayed in the following figures:

Vertical Electrodes in the Cubic Box (VCB)Electrodes are Terminated in the Middle of the Box

Vertical Electrodes in the Cubic Box (VCBB) - Electrodes are Terminated at the Bottom of the Box (Barrier Test)

Vertical Electrodes in the Open Air (VOA)

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 3 of 91

Horizontal Electrodes in the Open Air (HOA)

The following images show the plasma flows on the horizontal electrode configurations. The horizontal orientation has been proven to be the one which projects the highest
amount of thermal energy to the calorimeters. The arc-flash event shown here has both convective and radiation modes of heat transfer.

The following image shows the electrode configuration which projects the least amount of thermal energy to the calorimeters (which are placed on the left hand side). Note that
the majority of the transferred energy is in the form of radiation.

The VCBB and HCB configurations both can transfer higher amounts of thermal energy to the calorimeters. The image below shows the plasma trajectory of a VCBB fault. The
barrier at the bottom of the enclosure where the electrodes terminate may cause the plasma flow to be redirected and focused towards the calorimeter on the left hand side.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 4 of 91

Range of the model

Similar to the IEEE 1584-2002 model, the new IEEE 1584-2018 model has a limited range for the input parameters. Please refer to section 4.2 of IEEE 1584-2018 for more details
on the model range of parameters.

The number of tests used to develop the model was much higher than previously used to account for additional configurations, yet the range of the voltage and bolted fault
current (short-circuit current) is similar to that of the previous model. The following table provides a summary of the model voltage, short-circuit current, gap and working
distance range. The notable improvement is the range of the gap for medium-voltage equipment. Previously the gap range (2002 model) extended to only 153 mm. The gap range
has almost doubled.

The following table summarizes the recommended range of the enclosure dimensions. The maximum width or height is 49 inch. It is very likely that larger opening sizes may be
encountered in actual equipment. To handle this, ETAP applies the enclosure size correction factor of the largest opening area supported by the model (2401 in2).

The IEEE 1584-2018 model is valid per its published range for both 50 and 60 Hz, yet 95% plus of the tests were performed on 60 Hz systems. Also noted in the following table is
that only three-phase results were used to create the new arc-flash model. Yet, IEEE 1584-2018 in section 4.11 still recommends that the model can be used for single-phase
systems and expects that the results be conservative.

One of the major improvements in the new IEEE 1584-2018 model is the “enclosure size correction factor” (CF). This CF is new and helps to model more accurately the change in
thermal energy reflection for enclosures of different dimensions and opening areas.

The following table provides a summary of the actual sizes of the test enclosures used in the model development and testing. There are a total of six sizes used. It is noteworthy
that the depth only has an effect for low voltage equipment. Furthermore, the information from the tests performed for the IEEE 1584-2002 model [B3] were reused to expand
the range of enclosure sizes in this new model.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 5 of 91

This section meant to provide a quick overall summary of the range of the parameters of the IEEE 1584-2018 model, yet for complete information please refer to IEEE 1584-2018
section 4.2 and Annex G.

Parameters outside the range of the IEEE 1584-2018 model

This section discusses how to handle situations where some or all of the parameters fall outside the range of the IEEE 1584-2018 model. Most notably, this section also discusses
some of the changes in the recommendations provided in the new standard with reference on how to handle situations where the parameters fall outside the range of the model.

1. Theoretically-derived Ralph Lee Method: The reference to this method has been removed. IEEE 1584-2018 does not make any specific recommendations on what method
to use when any of the parameters falls outside the range
2. The IEEE 1584-2018 standard still makes a suggestion to allow the 3-phase equations to be applied to single-phase systems.

The most dominant parameter in the selection of an arc-flash model is voltage. The most common situation where voltage comes into play is when modeling arc faults in medium-
voltage equipment with voltage rated higher than 15 kV line-to-line. In previous versions of IEEE 1584 (2002) a reference to the Ralph Lee method allowed the possibility to use
this method for this condition, yet its results were found to be totally unrealistic. Also, the physical behavior of the arcs and the mode of failure are totally different for overhead
open-air equipment. Several IEEE papers and tutorials have been written on the subject [B2]. The following table presents a concise view of the application of different models
across voltage levels between 0.208 kV to 15 kV and higher.

The shaded areas in green color (marked as G) indicate that the method is directly applicable. The shaded areas in yellow color (marked as Y) indicate that the model can be
extended with some engineering assumptions. The non-shaded areas indicate that the model should not be used at all. Note that the Ralph Lee method should not be used at all
for voltages above 15 kV, yet since it was previously applied by ETAP as an alternative to the IEEE 1584-2002 method, the program still uses but with a clear warning. The warning
message indicates that alternative methods such as the extension of the IEEE 1584-2002 method or the ArcFault module should be used instead. The following images show
examples of equipment which is clearly outside the range of the IEEE 1584 models.

Another major parameter which can be outside the range of the IEEE 1584 models is the bolted fault current (available short-circuit current). It is more difficult to deal with this
situation since there is not available tests with extremely high short-circuit current values. This situation is most common in low-voltage power distribution systems.

The following image shows the results of a comparative study performed to determine the trend and amount of incident energy predicted by several available methods. As can be
observed in the plot below, four methods were compared for an arc fault with short-circuit current between 100 kA to 200 kA. The gap between conductors was set to 60 mm and
the electrode configuration selected was VOA and the working distance used was 24 inch. The fault duration used was 200 ms.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 6 of 91

As can be seen the IEEE 1584-2002 model produces the least amount of incident energy. The IEEE 1584-2018 method is more conservative and the Lee method and BGI/GUV-
5188 (currently, DGUV-I 203-077, German Arc-Flash Method) produce predict significantly higher incident energy values. Since there are no actual test results performed to
validate any of the results of the methods presented in the previous chart, it may be advisable to look into alternative models and perhaps use a mean or average of all the results
to establish a reasonable incident energy value.

Arc Current Model (0.208 kV to 0.6 kV)

Perhaps the greatest improvement to the IEEE 1584-2018 model is its capability to model five different electrode configurations and their effect on the arc current. The arc
current predictions of the new model have been significantly enhanced when compared to those of the IEEE 1584-2002 model. The main areas of improvement are its improved
expected arc physical behavior, its increased sensitivity to gap variation, the correction of inconsistencies (such as cases when Ia > Ibf), etc. etc. Please refer to Annex G.5.5 of [B1]
for more details on the improvements to the arc current model. The following plot shows a comparative analysis of the arc current predictions of the new model vs. the IEEE
1584-2002 model.

As can be observed from the previous image, the behavior of the arc current for low voltage systems is quite different from that of the IEEE 1584-2002 model. Note that for
voltages above 690 VAC, that the IEEE 1584-2002 model would predict that the arc current could be higher than the short-circuit current.

The following images show the behavior of the new arc current model when analysis for short-circuit current parameter sweep. In the plots below, the y-axis represents the arc
current and the x-axis represents the short-circuit current. The short-circuit current parameter sweep plot shows differences in the arc current predictions which are not as drastic
as what the previous voltage sweep plot shows.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 7 of 91

Arc Current Model (0.6 kV to 15 kV)

Similar to the 2002 model, the IEEE 1584-2018 arc flash model has two different models for arc current. The medium-voltage part of the model is described in section 4.4 and 4.9
of [1]. The model uses an interpolation approach to apply the effect of the voltage on the arc current. The effect of voltage on the predicted arc current becomes less dominant as
the voltage increases.

The new model centers around the calculation of the arc current at three different voltages which are 600, 2700 and 14300 Volts AC. The process of interpolation and selection of
the final arc current for medium voltage is described in section 4.9 of [B1]. The following plot shows the results of a parameter sweep for short-circuit current for the medium-
voltage arc current model. The chart also includes a comparison of the arc current prediction of the IEEE 1584-2002 model.

The previous plot also shows some more fundamental problems with the arc current prediction produced by the 2002 model. The arc currents are the same for VOA and VCB
electrode configurations. This is physically impossible because of the interaction of the metal enclosure with arc columns. This interaction changes the effective length of the arc
columns, changes the arc resistance and total current magnitude. The IEEE 2018 model shows a significant difference between VCB and VOA arc current. This difference will cause
significant difference in the expected time of overcurrent protective devices.

The last set of comparison plots are shown below. The purpose of these plots is to show the behavior of the arc current at voltage levels near the middle and upper voltage limits
of the model (4.16 kV and 14.7 kV).

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 8 of 91

Arc Current Variation Correction Factor

The arc current variation is defined as the probabilistic change in measured arc current between similar test samples. The arc current variation is affected by variations in the
bolted fault current, voltage and gap, yet the new IEEE 1584-2018 model only considers the voltage as the parameters to be used to determine the potential percent variation in
the arc current.

The arc current is the most important factor to determine the operation time of overcurrent protective devices. This is the reason the new IEEE 1584-2018 model applied an
enhanced arc current model. The arc current predicted by the model is considered to be the average arc current for the duration of the arc. In reality the arc current can
experience variations caused by the ac and dc components of the short-circuit current. Also, the magnitude of the arc current can vary as the arc ignites, persists and extinguishes.
The average current model does not include the arc current measured during ignition or extinguishing periods of the arc. It only includes the average of all three-phase arc
currents.

Since the model predicts the average current, it is also necessary to determine the lower bound arc current based on the expected arc current variation. The lower bound or
otherwise called as minimum arc current was determined using a fixed 15% value reduction of the 100% arc current predicted by the model. Please see IEEE 1584-2002 for more
details. The IEEE 1584-1002 model also produced average arc currents and the 85% value was considered to be the lower bound arc current.

The physical concept of arc current variation was not changed. It was simply improved. Based on the analysis done during the new arc flash model development phase, it was
found that the variation in the arc current was higher at voltages below 480 Volts and far less at voltages like 600 Volts and 2700 Volts ac. Yet the variation was still present in
medium-voltage systems with far less impact. The following chart shows the analysis done to determine the arc current variation for the VCB electrode configuration.

The Y-axis represents the variation in the measured average three-phase current magnitude. The x-axis represents the system voltage (referred to as Voc in [B1]). As can be clearly
observed, the variation was still present in the medium-voltage range, but to a less amount than what is shown at 0.208 kV. The chart shows the variation defined as the
difference between the highest measured current and the lowest measured current for the same test setup (i.e. same gap, voltage, Ibf and electrode configuration). The arc
current variation was determined from the median of the measured variation at each voltage level. The plot below shows the median arc current variation in percent for each of
the five electrode configurations.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 9 of 91

The plot shows that the HOA configuration has the highest potential arc current variation and VCBB the lowest variation in the low-voltage range.

The arc current variation is now applied to both medium and low-voltage equipment. The options are placed in the method page of the arc-flash study case.

The value of the arc current variation is no longer fixed to 15% but calculated continuously based on the equations provided in section 4.5 of IEEE 1584-2018.

Just like in previous versions of ETAP, the arc-flash program performs two calculations. One at 100% of the predicted arc current and a second one using the reduced arc current.
The program reports which of the two solutions produces higher incident energy results. For a complete solved example and application of the equations provided in section 4.5,
please also refer to Annex D of IEEE 1584-2018.

Note: The arc current variation value is shown as a truncated integer number in the arc-flash report analyzer. As an example if the arc current variation is 12.2%, the analyzer will
report it as 12%, yet the program uses a full double format number to calculate its effect in the results. The number will be reported as a float number with several significant
figures in a future version of the program.

Incident Energy Model – (0.208 kV to 0.6 kV)

The incident energy model is described in great detail in sections 4.3, 4.6, 4.9 and 4.10 of IEEE 1584-2018. The overall incident energy model is different from that of the 2002
model because it includes the additional three electrode configurations. At the same time for enclosed configurations VCB, VCBB and HCB and enclosure size correction factor is
also applied.

The incident energy model follows the same principle as the arc current. An interpolation process as described in section 4.9 is done to determine the incident energy. The
interpolation takes place by obtaining intermediate incident energy values at 600, 2700 and 14300 Volts ac.

The following chart shows the results of a comparative analysis of the incident energy predictions of the new IEEE 1584-2018 model against those of the 2002 model. This plot
shows the results for a low-voltage case with 208 Volts ac, short-circuit current of 10 kA and a gap of 19 mm.

The y-axis shows the incident energy in cal/cm2 at a working distance of 18 inch. The box size used for the comparison is that of a typical panelboard. The x-axis is the fault
duration. The plots reveals some highly interesting results. First we can observe that the HCB configuration (solid red) produces the highest incident energy flux; even higher than
both the VCBB (solid magenta) and VCB (solid blue). This is of course expected for the new IEEE 1584-2018 model. The surprising result is that the VCB results of the IEEE 1584-
2002 model show incident energy values which are even higher than those of the new model HCB configuration. This is mainly the result of an overly conservative correction
factor which was applied to the 2002 low-voltage incident energy model. The incident energy results for VCB for the 2018 model are significantly lower than those of its
counterpart. This is notable and important since calculations of incident energy may need to extent to short-circuit currents and voltage which were previously ignored based on
the notable 125 kVA / 240 Volt exception.

The following chart shows a comparison at 480 Volts with a short-circuit current of 12.5 kA and a gap of 19 mm. The enclosure size is 20 inch by 20 inch. The working distance is
18 inch. It can be observed that at this voltage level, the HCB configuration produces results which are higher than those of the VCB of 2002. This is what is expected for all cases
at higher voltages like 600, 4160, etc. etc.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 10 of 91

Low Voltage Incident Energy Assignment (low-voltage arc sustainability threshold)

The low voltage incident energy model for IEEE 1584-2018 will be tested with lower voltages and fault currents. As previously described in this chapter, the low voltage arc
sustainability limits have been revised in this edition of the standard. The reasons the limits were revised is because additional electrode configurations such as VCBB used in the
testing revealed that arcs can sustain at much lower short-circuit currents than previously presented in the 2002 standard. It is worth noting the IEEE 1584 struggled significantly
to come up with this revised limits. It is very difficult to determine an absolute low-end arc-sustainability condition. In fact, such task may not be possible using the test setups
shown in this chapter. It may be necessary to determine this level using actual equipment for each manufacturer.

The new limits were derived based on intensive testing performed for both three-phase and single-phase test systems. The one factor which may also play a factor is the electrode
material such as copper or aluminum. Aluminum conductors have different heat transfer and melting temperatures which may make arcs sustain at lower fault currents. However
the standard has no recommended effect for aluminum.

The previous versions of IEEE 1584 suggested a limit for sustainability at around 240 Volts ac with approximately 125 kVA (or 10 kA with a 3.5% impedance transformer). This left a
substantial amount of equipment out of the scope of incident energy calculations. However, since the limit has been lowered to 240 Volt ac with 2.0 kA of short-circuit current, it
means that more systems have to be analyzed. However as mentioned previously in this chapter, an overly conservative incident energy correction factor was removed from the
low-voltage model for IEEE 1584-2018 as shown in the plot below:

As can be easily observed in this plot, the incident energy results of the new IEEE 1584-2018 model are more accurate and also less over conservative for low-voltage equipment
which falls in the potential category of additional equipment which may need to be analyzed under the new limits provided in the 2018 edition of the standard.

Incident Energy Model – (0.6 kV to 15 kV)

The medium voltage part of the model uses interpolation as previously mentioned. The model electrode configurations play a big role in the prediction of the incident energy. The
medium-voltage incident energy model is described in section 4.6 and 4.9 of IEEE 1584-2018.

The plot below shows a comparison of the incident energy for both IEEE 1584-2018 and 2002 models. The results reveal consistently that if the equipment is determined to be
now of HCB configuration that the incident energy can be significantly more. In the plot below the incident energy for a VCB configuration using the 2002 model is 20 cal/cm2
while it is predicted to be over 45 cal/cm2 using the 2018 model if the HCB electrode configuration is used.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 11 of 91

The same can be observed at 4160 and 13.8 kV respectively.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 12 of 91

Arc-Flash Boundary Model (0.208 to 0.6 kV)

The arc-flash boundary model has also undergone a significant improvement. The testing methods used allow the new model to predict shorter boundary distances. It is accepted
that the IEEE 1584-2002 method could produce overly conservative arc-flash boundaries. This can become evident when comparing the incident energy measurements at
different working distances. The testing and data processing used to develop the new arc-flash boundary model reveal a gain in margin which becomes evident when comparing
the results of both methods (2002 and 2018).

The following plots all present a comparison of the predicted arc-flash boundary in mm (y-axis) for both the IEEE 1584-2018 and 2002 methods. The x-axis represents the fault
clearing time or arc duration in cycles. The plots were generated for different equipment with typical data as described in the plot title.

The plot above shows that for low-voltage, (208 Volts), that the arc-flash boundary (AFB) predicted by the IEEE 1584-2018 model is almost half of what was previously predicted
by the 2002 model. The solid blue color plot represents the AFB of a VCB configuration for the 2018 model. The dashed grayscale plot represents the AFB obtained using the IEEE

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 13 of 91

1584-2002 model.

Similar and more dramatic reductions can be observed for 480 Volts ac:

At 600 Volts ac:

Arc-Flash Boundary Model (0.208 to 0.6 kV)

The medium voltage arc-flash boundary (AFB) model also uses interpolation of a set of intermediate values as described in section 4.7 and 4.9 of IEEE 1584-2018 to determine the
final arc-flash boundary. Similar to the low-voltage model, there is a notable reduction in the predicted arc-flash boundary. The overly conservative IEEE 1584-2002 result
consistently produces the highest AFB for similar incident energy values.

The plot below shows the arc-flash boundary vs the arc duration and compares the 2018 AFB vs the 2002 AFB results. This comparison was made for a system voltage of 2700
Volts ac.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 14 of 91

For 4160 Volts ac:

For 13800 Volts ac:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 15 of 91

The arc-flash boundary model for both low-voltage and medium-voltage systems has been significantly enhanced in the IEEE 1584-2018 model. Also similar to the IEEE 1584-2002
implementation, ETAP AF allows the calculation of the AFB at different energy thresholds. The default value is 1.2 cal/cm2, but this value can be overridden with an option in the
arc flash study case parameters page as shown below:

Note: The application of the AFB for the decay method and subtraction of incident energy method required significant proprietary development in the ETAP calculation engine
and therefore cannot be disclosed in this section, but its results have been verified by the ETAP quality assurance program.

Enclosure size correction factor

The opening size and depth of the enclosure are now factors which affect the incident energy. The IEEE 1584-208 standard has implemented a new correction factor (CF) which is
a function of the opening size (height and width), electrode configuration (VCB, VCBB, HCB) and in the case of low-voltage equipment the depth ( depth < 8 inch could be defined
as shallow) of the enclosure.

The enclosure size correction factor for open-air configurations (VOA, HOA) is always 1.0 p.u. The enclosure size correction factor has been normalized to a 20 in x 12 in x 20 in size
enclosure. There is no box effect and the energy flux is considered to be spherical (i.e. in all directions). The image below illustrates the concept.

In the figure above, the distance d is considered to be the working distance. Once there is an enclosure present (VCB, VCBB, HCB), there is a portion of additional energy flux
which is reflected towards the calorimeters (which represent a person standing in front of the equipment). The reflected thermal energy is in the form or reflected radiation,
plasma and superheated molecular material. The images below illustrates the concept of the enclosure effect. To understand the physical heat transfer being represented by the
equations we must first define the base condition. The open-air case can be considered as the reference for heat reflection analysis. The image above shows the heat dissipation
for an open-air arc flash. As an example of the heat flux generated by that arc is 20 cal/cm2-sec at 24 inch working distance; it means that the incident energy for a 1.0 second
duration arc flash is 20 cal/cm2. The first case we can see is the effect of what IEEE 1584-2018 defines as a “typical” low-voltage equipment size enclosure.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 16 of 91

If the same open-air flux is generated inside a typical size enclosure with a depth greater than 8 inch, the IEEE 1584-2018 model would show an additional reflected energy of 1.17
times the open air value. If you take the same box with a variation in the depth (which may be considered for LV cases only); which would now make the enclosure be defined as
“shallow” according the new standard, then the incident energy reflection is reduced to only an additional 0.385 times the open-air flux as shown in the image below. Note that
the working distance and opening size remain constant, but the positioning of the electrodes (arcs) relative to the back wall and front opening has changed. The shallow box
would reflect less energy towards the calorimeters.

Similar to the effect of shallow and typical enclosures for low-voltage equipment, the opening of the enclosure plays a factor in the amount of reflected energy. Comparing the
typical enclosure case above with an incident energy of 43.5 (typical box) against a typical box with a much larger opening size we can see that the reflected energy is only 0.83
times the open-air flux.

The previous images only show the effect of the reflected heat, but do not show the positioning or orientation of the electrodes. IEEE 1584-2018 provides three separate sets of
equations to determine the effect of the enclosure for each of the enclosed electrode configurations (VCB, VCBB, HCB). Please refer to section 4.8 of the standard for more
details. The overall effect of the enclosures as a function of opening area can be visualized by using plots. Note that there is no comparison to the IEEE 1584-2002 model since it
did not support enclosure sizes in a similar way. The plot below shows the effect of the enclosure size correction factor for VCB. The plot includes two curves which represent the
incident energy at the working distance (both open-air and enclosed) versus the opening size. This is an example of the enclosure size correction factor applied to medium-voltage
systems.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 17 of 91

As can be easily observed in the plot, the reflected incident energy reduces until the opening area reaches the maximum opening area of the model (49 in x 49 in). After that
opening area is reached, the standard recommends that the correction factor or the last area be used for larger openings. Because of this assumption, the open air and the
enclosed incident energy values would never converge as the opening area becomes infinitely large. In real life, very large enclosures still may reflect energy mostly because of the
back wall or surface effect so applying this assumption is conservative.

The same plot can be generated for VCBB. In the VCB and VCBB plots it can be observed that there are three clearly defined regions. The first region to the left of the region 1
marker represents the normalized enclosure opening size of 20 in x 20 in where the incident energy is directly proportional only to the energy flux predicted by the incident
energy equations. The second region is between 20 in x 20 inch and 49 in x 49 in where the incident energy reduction is proportional to the opening size. The third region to the
right of the region 2 marker is where the opening size is larger than 49 in x 49 in. These three regions exist for all three electrode configurations.

Note that region 1 enclosure size correction factor can vary only for low-voltage equipment depending on the depth of the enclosure as defined in section 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 of IEEE
1584-2018. The following plot shows how the enclosure correction factor can vary in region 1 if the enclosure is classified as shallow. Basically the image shows that the shallow
box will reflect less energy as shown in the shallow box example above.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 18 of 91

The same plot can be generated for HCB and VCBB. An example of the HCB enclosure correction factor in region 1 is shown below.

The last characteristic of the enclosure size correction factor which needs to be highlighted is the effect of the HCB electrode configuration. The box size was found to have the
least effect in the HCB configuration. Such expectation is obvious as the electrode horizontal orientation creates magnetic forces which eject the arc columns, plasma and
superheated molecules towards the outside directly towards the calorimeters. Only radiation form of heat transfer appears to be present for the HCB configuration. The following
plot shows the HCB enclosure size correction factor effect.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 19 of 91

The plot above shows that for an HCB typical size box at the 20 in by 20 inch opening size that the box effect only increases the incident energy by 0.34 times the open-air incident
energy.

Effect of grounding on the incident energy

The grounding and bonding configuration of the equipment has a significant effect on the predicted incident energy of the IEEE 1584-2002 model. This is no longer the case based
on the findings of the development group of the new IEEE 1584-2018 model. The images below shows the effect of on the incident energy of a grounded (solidly grounded) vs
ungrounded configuration with similar characteristics. The first image shows the incident energy for a low-voltage fault in solidly grounded system using the IEEE 1584-2002
method (the image is the output of the arc-flash calculator in ETAP 19.0.0). The incident energy is approximately 27 cal/cm2.

Using the same inputs for the electrical characteristics of the equipment and varying only the grounding configuration we obtain a higher incident energy value of 35.1 cal/cm2.
This is an increase of approximately 30%.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 20 of 91

The new IEEE 1584-2018 model no longer has an input or considers the grounding or bonding of the equipment. The incident energy is now approximately 27 cal/cm2. The image
below shows a calculation performed with the 2018 method with input parameters matched as close as possible to those of the 2002 method.

The measurements and additional tests performed by the new arc flash model development group showed that the incident energy measurements were very similar for arc-flash
tests with the box grounded/bonded and ungrounded. The plot below also shows that current flowing to ground was negligible during the duration of the arc with only a small

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 21 of 91

portion of current which would flow as the arc might start as a phase to ground event (before all three phases were enraged).

To summarize, the grounding configuration is no longer a factor and should provide a margin for at least equivalent cases (VCB and VOA) in both methods (2002 and 2018).

Determining the equipment electrode configuration

The most important step in implementing the calculations based on the new IEEE 1584-2028 model is to identify which or which ones of the five electrode configurations are
present in the equipment being analyzed. As described in section 6.6 of [B1], it is possible to have one or more electrode configurations present in a piece of equipment.

Matching the equipment to the electrode configurations can be challenging. Magnetic fields influence the trajectory of the plasma as it moves through the conductors at the arc
fault location. The movement and trajectory of the plasma can be determined based on an average of several magnetic fields which flow in conductors with different orientations.
In fact, it is likely that in real-life equipment that the resultant arc current and incident energy maybe the result of the simultaneous influence of several configurations and thus
the incident energy may be somewhere between the results of two bounding configurations.

Table 9 of IEEE 1584-2018 is a good starting point for some guidelines on how to identify the potential electrode configuration(s) present in the equipment. The images below
show examples from table 9:

First for VCB we can see the location identified at the bottom of the low-voltage molded case circuit breaker. If the arc flash occurs there, then by general consensus, this location
is most likely considered as VCB. One generally accepted concept is that arcs in three-phase systems tend to travel or move away from the energizing source. This concept may be
critical for identifying the location within an enclosure where the arc is likely to remain for the majority of its duration.

The following image illustrates the next concept which is that a second configuration may also be present in the same location. The VCBB location is shown on the top of the LV
MCCB.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 22 of 91

The HCB configuration can be identified in a medium-voltage circuit breaker compartment when the breaker is not inside the compartment as shown in the images below. If the
breaker is in place inside the enclosure (as it would be during the racking in and out process), then most likely the configuration which would cover this condition would be again
VCB.

The VOA and HOA configurations in fact may be very similar and they really depend on where the individual is located relative to the electrode orientation. The images below
show potential examples of VOA configuration.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 23 of 91

The HOA configuration example is shown below. Note that in the case of padmount transformer stabs, if the surrounding walls are removed, then the configuration could be open
air or HOA.

However if the side walls are closed then the configuration could be changed to HCB.

The following diagrams show how the test setup can change from a VCB to both VCB and VCBB at the same location. The location of the incoming energizing source is marked to
be able to identify the possible net location of the magnetic fields which tend to cause the motion of the arc components (arc columns, arc jets liquid metal and shrapnel, plasma,
& molecular cloud)

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 24 of 91

There are several aspects of real-life equipment operation which may not fit the test setups at all. One of those aspects which are completely ignored is the possibility of an arc at
a location which is energized by two or more sources. The net direction of the plasma and the traveling direction of the arc may be unknown at that point. Locations where bus
bars or tie-connections are fed by multiple sources may induce magnetic fields in opposite directions as the current flows towards the arc location. What really happens at that
location is unknown unless a test setup with two incoming sources placed in multiple orientations are tested (as part of future development and testing of the standard).

Other conditions are locations where connecting lugs or holders may protrude horizontally could be interpreted as HCB configurations. However, one big question remains which
is how much horizontal length is required for the conductors to truly act as HCB. This is not defined at this time in the standard. More testing in actual equipment configurations
may be required to make a determination on whether the fuse holder shown below will act mostly as HCB or VCB. The image below is figure G.40 of IEEE 1584-2018 (annex G).

In the image above, the protruding fuse holders (red color highlight) may be thought of as resembling an HCB configuration while the incoming vertical conductors coming out of
the fuse cartridge (blue color highlight) could be considered as VCB. The equipment in the image above is not an exact match of either VCB or HCB test setups. As observed in
previous sections of this chapter, the incident energy in HCB configuration could be much higher than that of VCB.

The last item which should be considered for the determination of the electrode configuration(s); which best resemble the actual equipment, is conductor material erosion. Arcs
extinguish because of different reasons. The most important cause for the extinction of the arc is the operation of upstream protective devices; which when opening remove the
voltage and current that feeds the arc. Another important cause is the gap increase introduced because of conductive material erosion. A third and far less common cause for arc-
extinction is the rapid change of the conductive environment around the arc.

If the conductive material inside the location is completely eroded (melted away or evaporated), the effective gap between conductors increases to the point where the arc can
no longer sustain. An analogy for this phenomena can be a fire which exhausts the material it is burning and eventually self-extinguishes. If you combine the conductive material
erosion with the concept of electrode configuration as shown in the previous image, then the arc flash is elevated to a highly dynamic event. The arc flash could indeed start in an
HCB configuration at the fuse holder, but could transition rapidly into a different form as the conductor erodes. The time that it takes for the arc to erode the copper in the
protruding fuse holder and turn into an arc flash event of a different electrode configuration (such as VCB) should be considered. Last, it should also be noted, that conductor
material erosion could take place at a much slower rate for harder conductor materials such as stainless steel or because of lower short-circuit current levels (i.e. the available
energy to fuel the arc is not enough to cause fast erosion). The ejected material speed also needs to build over time. Momentum in the arc plasma may not be built over a short

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 25 of 91

period of time to make the fuse holder part of the conductor actually behave as an HCB configuration as tested in the labs. The conductor material erosion and its rate of change
along with the time it takes for the ejected material to build momentum are factors not considered in the development of the IEEE 1584-2018 equations.

C-Area Plots (Patent Pending)

The concept of the incident energy reference boundary (Area) plots was developed based on the analysis if the variability of each of the input parameters of the new IEEE 1584-
2018 model [B1]. The concept of the C-area is explained in great detail in reference [B11]. As described in [B11], C-area plots allow the visualization of the range and effect of
each input parameter on a TCC plot at the time of short-circuit, protection and coordination. C-area plots are intended for use before an arc-flash analysis is performed (during the
protective device settings selection stage). They allow a protection engineer to consider multiple operating conditions and probabilistic variations in the way an arc-flash could
occur within an electrical equipment.

C-area plots supersed C-lines or constant energy curves since these older tools only represent a single set of input parameters for an arc-flash event. In the majority of cases, the
single set of input parameters comes from typical IEEE 1584-2018 data. Unfortunately, the typical parameters from [B1][B11] may not encapsulate worst-case conditions. They are
an excellent starting point where data is unavailable, but variations in such need to be considered.

An example of C-area plot application in LV equipment is provided next, in order to visualize the benefits of using a C-area plots.

Example 1: LV Swithgear
The following images show an example of the variations present in a low-voltage switchgear. The left image shows the front-view schematic of the equipment dimensions. As can
be clearly seen, there are multiple variations in the enclosure dimensions. The variations also include the depth of the compartments even though the three-dimensional data is
not shown.

The image on the right above shows a range of potential gaps between conductors in the equipment. After reading [B11], the following variations were determined for this
equipment:

To observe the effect of the variation of each of the input parameters, the following images show an step-by-step process of applying the variation individually starting with the
electrode configuration VCB for 6.0 cal/cm2.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 26 of 91

Next, the variation in the short-circuit current can be applied. Notice that this variation can be automatically determined by using the option “Update Ibf to Bus” from the method
page of the arc-flash study case. The maximum total bolted short-circuit current at the bus was determined to be 20 kA. The minimum total bolted fault current was determined
to be 4 kA. Note that it is very important to consider the “Decay” method when determining the minimum bolted fault current. This will help ensure that the lower boundary of
the arc current is only the current which flows through the protective devices (at its minimum value).

Next we can apply the voltage and gap variations. The maximum gap applied to generate the C-area plot is 41.6 mm and the minimum gap length considered is 22.4 mm. A typical
± 10% voltage variation (i.e. 0.432 to 0.528 kV).

Next, a second electrode configuration needs to be included. In particular, LV equipment include both VCB and VCBB electrode configurations. The VCB electrode configuration
cannot be neglected since this configuration would produce the lower boundary (left-hand side points) arc current solutions. Adding VCBB results in the following combinations in
the C-area plots:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 27 of 91

The dimensions variations are also added. Only a negative 10% reduction in the incident energy is considered. Typically, LV incident energy is determined between 18 t0 24 in. The
typical value of working distance for a LV switchgear according to IEEE 1584 is 24 inch. The lower end of the working distance considered here (asumming that the electrical
worker could encroach the working distance by a few inch) is 21 in. Since the dimensions are the last variations to be considered, the C-area boundary points can be encapsulated
by boundary lines.

The C-area plot is shown next along with the main LV switchgear breaker LVSST curve. As can be observed in the TCC image below, the C-area plot for Bus C @ 6.0 cal/cm2
overlaps the short time region of the protective device. This means that a fault anywhere downstream from M_PB may result in an incident energy release considerably higher
than 6.0 cal/cm2.

Example 2: MV Swithgear
The second example which can be derived from the example provide in [B11] is for a medium-voltage switchgear. The input parameters and variations are provided in the
following table.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 28 of 91

In this example, we can compare what a C-line based on IEEE 1584-2002 would reveal vs. what a C-area plot based on IEEE 1584-2018 reveals about the system protective device
settings.

The C-line and C-area aim at providing a constant incident energy reference for an arc-flash on the main switchgear circuit breaker compartment “Main CBA”. The next image
shows a TCC for the MV protection system with a C-line derived using the typical input parameters from IEEE 1584.

The following image shows the final differences between the C-line derived based on IEEE 1584-2002 and the C-area plot derived based on the variability presented in the
previous table.

As can be observed, with multiple electrode configurations considered and with dimensions in the remaining parameters, an arc-flash event on Main CB A would produce incident
energy significantly higher than 8.0 cal/cm2. Using the C-line (from 2002 or 2018) alone makes the selected fuse size seem appropriate to limit the incident to the desired value.
For this particular example, a revised fuse size selection can significantly improve the incident energy for a fault on the line-side of Main CB A. The following TCC shows how this
could be possible.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 29 of 91

To summarize, C-area plots account for variations in input parameters which need to be accounted for when performing system protection and coordination. The C-area curve use
will significantly reduce the number of arc-flash scenarios during the formal arc-flash hazard analysis stage. In the LV example, we can observe the significant effect of the
enclosure dimensions and gap range. In the MV example, it can be concluded that the C-lines based on a single set of input parameters can be inadequate to account for possible
arc-flash event combinations.

C-area Plot Application Limitations

Just like with the C-line curves, C-area plots have limitations. The limitations are listed here:

l It is recommended to apply the C-area plots to radial-systems. Even though they provide an excellent reference for the amount of incident energy, C-area plots alone may
not capture the complexities of arc current flows in looped or multiple source systems. Yet, they should provide an excellent initial overcurrent protective device setting
selection in looped and multi-source systems. It may be possible to scale the incident energy C-area plots according to the bolted fault current contribution of each source
in a multi-source system; however, more investigation, research and development on this will be available in a future release of the tool.
l It is recommended to always use the decay method when establishing the minimum bolted fault current levels. It may be necessary to revise the minimum bolted fault
current in some cases based on the minimum through fault arc current expected on the source protective device. The decay method should capture this as long as the
appropriate options are enabled in the method tab of the arc-flash study case.
l C-area plots are not plotted when the input parameters fall outside the range of the IEEE 1584-2018 model. C-area plots are designed exclusively for the IEEE 1584-2018
method, but will be available for other methods in a future release of the program.
l C-area plots are displayed in the STAR Auto evaluation bus section in ETAP 19.5.0, but they are not included in evaluation for arc-flash conditions yet.

Determination of Individual Arcing Current Contributions

Once the bolted short-circuit current is calculated by the Short-Circuit Analysis Module, the arcing current is determined using the equations listed in IEEE 1584-2002 or 2018 (See
the previous section.) The following steps are taken to calculate the individual arcing current contributions:

1. The total bus bolted short-circuit current is used to calculate the total bus arcing current.

2. The individual arcing currents are determined by distributing the arcing current proportionally between all the contributing sources (branches, motor loads, sources, etc.).

3. The arcing current contribution ends up being proportional to the calculated bolted short-circuit contribution.

The following diagram illustrates the process:

The total bolted fault current is equal to 33 kA. The total arcing current is equal to 31.36 kA. In this case, the arcing current distribution is as follows:

Arcing Current Distribution (2002 method shown as example)

PD Bolted SC (kA) % of Total Bolted (kA) Total Arcing Current (kA)
CB12 15.13 45.85 14.38
CB23 0.623 1.89 0.59
CB4 16.72 50.67 15.89
Cable 4 0.489 1.48 0.46

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 30 of 91

Only the current magnitudes are considered for the arc flash calculation.

Note: For buses with nominal voltage greater than 15.0 kV, the arcing current contributions are the same as the bolted fault current.

The arcing currents or bolted fault currents can be displayed on the one-line diagram. To display the calculated arcing currents on the one-line diagram, simply open the Arc Flash
display options editor and select to show the arcing current values (denoted by Ia-Arcing currents) as shown in the image below.

The image above shows the displayed arcing current values based on the fault current decay method being selected to execute the calculation. ETAP has three different methods
to determine the arcing current contributions. The methods are the ½ Cycle method, 1.5 to 4 Cycle method and the Fault Current Decay method.

Half Cycle Current Method

This method utilizes the ½ cycle (subtransient) bolted fault current (Ibf”) to determine the arcing current contributions (Ia”). Typically this method yields conservative results for
fast operating protective devices (i.e. devices which operate in their instantaneous region). This is the case with most low voltage systems. The arcing current determined from
either IEEE 1584 equations or directly taken as the bolted fault current (Lee method) is assumed to be constant throughout the duration of the arc fault.

1.5 to Four Cycle Current Method

This method utilizes the 1½ to 4 cycle (transient) bolted fault current (Ibf’) to determine the arcing current contributions (Ia’). Typically this method yields more accurate results
for protective devices with longer operating time (i.e. devices which operate in their inverse overcurrent region). This is the case with medium voltage systems. The arcing current
determined from either IEEE 1584 equations or directly taken as the bolted fault current (Lee method) is assumed to be constant throughout the duration of the arc fault.

Fault Current Decay Method

This method is very different from the previous two arcing current calculation methods. The program uses a combination of the subtransient, transient and steady-state short-
circuit networks to determine the arcing current values which would flow throughout the arc fault duration. The program is taking into consideration the decay in asynchronous
and synchronous machine short-circuit current contributions.

The program will determine first the subtransient bolted fault current (Ibf”). It will also determine the transient bolted fault current (Ibf’) and finally the steady-state bolted fault
current (Ibf). ETAP manipulates these three values to determine the equivalent Ia”, Ia’ and Ia values which flow in the actual arc fault event.

In low voltage systems, the change from Ia” to Ia’ to Ia is not very high and thus the ½ cycle method and the fault current decay methods may yield very similar results for the
majority of systems. However, in medium voltage systems with a lot of asynchronous (induction) motor contributions and also with large generators contributions, the decay from
Ia” to Ia may be significant. This significant decay in current allows you to model a slower operation of protective devices which in turn may significantly increase the operating
time of protective devices.

Also, another benefit of the fault current decay method is its removal of arc fault contributions from motors. This allows the estimation of a more accurate amount of incident
energy release. This may have a significant impact for systems which have a large number of motor loads.

The subtransient and transient fault currents are obtained using the typical ½ cycle and 4 cycle networks as described in Chapter Short-Circuit Analysis (Short-circuit calculation
methods). The steady-state short-circuit currents are obtained typically at 30 cycles (this is the default value, but this can be user-defined). The following rules apply to the
determination of the steady-state arc fault currents:

1. No asynchronous motor contribution is considered pass the steady-state short-circuit time.

2. The synchronous generator contribution will be determined from its steady-state reactance (Xd) if the generator has no decrement curve information available.

3. The synchronous generator contribution will be determined from its individual decrement curve if the option “Determine from Decrement Curve” is selected from the Arc
Flash page of the short-circuit study case editor. Only the AC decay component is considered (no DC decay). The program will determine the equivalent current
contribution from the generator at the steady-state time specified in the study case. Of course, the contribution of the generator to the fault is determined taking into
consideration the impedance of the system in between the fault and the generator terminal bus. This means that the closer the faulted buses are to the generator terminal
bus, the bigger the decay in current contribution will be and the closer the current will be to the one specified in the decrement curve.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 31 of 91

4. The program will determine the synchronous generator steady-state arc fault current contribution as a function of the generator full load ampere rating (Gen FLA) if the
option “Limit Gen Ibf to” is selected from the Arc Flash page of the study case. This feature allows you to specify what will be the generator steady-state contribution for a
fault at the generator terminals. This feature mimics the forced excitation capability of certain generators to sustain a fault current level for a few seconds to allow the
operation of overcurrent protective devices. Please note that you may accomplish the same by using the decrement curve feature as long as the decrement curve has been
configured to show the forced excitation steady-state current value (Imp/Model page Compound Exc. Feature). In a sense, the “Limit Ibf to” feature is a quicker way to
specify the generator compound excitation contribution.

The following image shows the decrement curve for a generator with a steady-state fault current value of 371.9 amps or (100% FLA). This corresponds to a decrement curve
option and the value of Xd = 100%.

The study case option that you would have to configure to obtain the generator steady-state current contribution would be as shown below:

The steady-state current value is the only value obtained from the decrement curve. The steady-state time in this case has been set to 103 cycles. The steady-state arcing current
contribution is about 377 Amps.

The next image shows the same generator decrement curve, but this time with a forced excitation and a sustained steady-state short-circuit current of 2.5*Gen FLA:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 32 of 91

In the image above the grey color curve represents the compound excitation curve. This forces the current to a steady-state arcing current value close to 938 A instead of the 377
A (previous case) as shown below:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 33 of 91

The next images show that we can get similar generator steady-state arcing current contributions if we use the global option “Limit Gen Ibf to” instead of configuring the
compound excitation through the decrement curve:

No excitation applied

Please note that the Ia contribution from the generator is 938 Amps (same as previous case). Please note that the “Limit Gen Ibf to” option is a global option and it sets all
generator contributions to the same forced current value whereas the decrement curve option applies to individual generators. Of course this may not be too much of a problem
since similar generator sizes and models are often used in generator farms/plants.

IMPORTANT: The fault current decay method is not a full transient solution (continuous fault current calculation). It only determines three fault current values (subtransient,
transient and steady-state). The fault clearing time and the incident energy are determined by integration of these fault current values as described in the next section
(Determination of the FCT). The purpose of this method is to allow closer simulation to more complex power system; however, the full transient behavior is not modeled yet and is
left for future releases of the program. This method will yield good approximations for calculating the decay of energy in most power systems.

1-Phase Methodology
Since there is no available methodology described in the guidelines for handling 1-Phase system arcs, ETAP uses the 3-Phase IEEE 1584 (both 2002 and 2018) equations and
applies it to 1-Phase systems. All the IEEE1584 equations are aimed at escalation into 3-Phase faults. In general, applying the 3-Phase equations for 1-Phase systems should be
conservative. The intended use of this method in ETAP is to provide engineers a way to estimate the energy for 1-Phase installations.

IEEE 1584 2002 states that the arc flash calculation equations were developed based on the assumption that the faults will escalate to 3-Phase fault. However, the results

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 34 of 91

obtained from the empirical method equations should be conservative for 1-Phase systems.

Note that the voltage limit of the IEEE 1584 empirical method is 0.208 kV. 3-Phase or 1-Phase systems with voltage values lower than 0.208 kV (phase to phase or phase to
neutral) will not be evaluated by ETAP.

It may not be necessary to perform an arc flash hazard calculation if the single-phase system is fed from transformers smaller than 125 kVA, or of the voltage is less than 0.208 kV
(based on IEEE 1584-2002). This statement has been widely used but has been revised in IEEE 1584-2018. For information on the application of this guideline using the IEEE 1584-
2018 method please refer to the study case method page section.

The subtransient bolted fault current value is used to determine the arcing current and incident energy for 1-phase systems. Also there are some assumptions to the types of
systems which are faulted under the 1-phase system name:

l Any system connected below a phase adapter

l Any system connected to a 1-phase UPS
l Any system connected below a panel (including 3-phase panels)

Please note that in previous versions of ETAP the 3-phase UPS used to be part of the group of systems which would be handled under the 1-phase arc flash option. This is no
longer the case as version 11.0.0.

The study case selection must be configured to fault these components.

The only selection which can be made is to include in the arc flash analysis any of the items on the info page of the short-circuit study case. The image below shows the selection
process under the 1-Ph/Panel/1-Ph UPS Subsystem section.

1-Phase system calculation assumptions:

1. All components below the 1-phase system are considered to be ungrounded (for more conservative results since the grounding configuration could not be determined for
certain types of 1-phase systems)

2. The arcing current is determined using the half cycle (subtransient) bolted fault current. The fault current decay is not considered in this part of the system.

3. All buses and panels connected are faulted together. There is no capability to select individual fault locations.

4. No motor contributions are considered for 1-phase motor loads. All motor loads are considered not to make any fault current contributions.

Incident Energy Evaluation for 3-Wire Systems fed from 1-Phase Center-Tap Transformers
The fault currents for 3-wire systems fed from center-tap transformers may be significantly different depending on the type of construction of the transformer. Please refer to
section “Center-Tap Transformer Impedance Model for 1-Phase Short-Circuit” of chapter 15 “Short-Circuit Analysis” for more information on the fault current calculation for 1-
phase center-tap transformers.

Because of this potential fault current variation, (and starting in ETAP 16.1.0), the arc flash calculation considers both the L1/L2 (1-pole) and LL (2-pole) arc fault conditions and
reports the worst-case incident energy for the location (i.e. the higher of the two incident energy calculations). The following assumptions are made for the calculation of incident
energy in 3-wire systems fed from center-tap transformers:

1. The arc fault initiates as a either an L1/L2 fault or an LL fault and remains in that mode until the protective device trips or the maximum fault clearing time is reached. It is
possible that an arc fault in a three-wire system may end up arcing across all three wires at different times; however, the published calculation models do not support this
analysis mode.

2. As mentioned in this chapter, the incident energy for 1-Phase systems is calculated using the IEEE 1584-2002 equations which were derived based on 3-Phase arc faults.
The results are expected to be conservative. Correction factors may be used to reduce this conservatism. Please refer to section 18.8.18 “Arcing Current & Incident Energy
Correction Factors” for more details.

3. The source protective device directly connected to the bus is evaluated using the fault current determined to produce the worst-case incident energy for the bus it feeds. If
this is not acceptable, a bus can be placed on the line-side of the source protective device to evaluate its incident energy.

4. For LV center-tap transformers with secondary voltage ratings of LL = 240 and L1=L2=120 Volts, the arc flash program may use the IEEE 1584-2002 method for the 240 V 2-
pole fault and the theoretically derived “Ralph Lee” method for the 120 Volt 1-pole arc fault.

5. For LV center-tap transformers with secondary voltage ratings of LL = 480 and L1=L2=240 Volts, the arc flash program is likely to use the IEEE 1584-2002 method for both 1-
pole and 2-pole arc faults as long as the bolted fault currents are within the valid range of the model (0.7 to 106 kA).

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 35 of 91

6. The arc flash is assumed to sustain up to the time the upstream protective device operates based on the overcurrent condition. Note that in previous versions of NFPA 70E
and in IEEE 1584-2002 there is mention that arc flash events may not sustain if fed from 125 kVA, 208 Volt systems. 1-phase center-tap transformers rated below 125 kVA
are very common in distribution systems with ratings of 25, 50, 67, 100, 125, kVA and higher. The combination of arc fault current and fault clearing times may produce
high incident energy results and this may be even more pronounced in the 1-pole circuits. Engineering judgement should be used to determine how applicable the
calculation methods described in this chapter are for this LV center-tap 3-wire systems.

The following image shows an example for a 3-wire system fed from a 150 kVA core type center-tap transformer with primary voltage rating of 7.2 kV and secondary rating of 480-
240 Volts.

In this example, the fault on the L1/L2 1-pole 240 Volt circuit would cause a higher incident energy than that of the LL 2-pole 480 Volt circuit because of the combination of arc
current, system voltage and arc fault clearing time. The arc flash program in this case reports the higher of the two calculated incident energy values. Note that in this case, it is
assummed that the 240 Volt circuit can sustain the fault up to 0.7 seconds (which is the time it takes the upstream fuse “fuse1” to trip and extinguish the fault).

Determination of the Fault Clearing Time (FCT)

The fault clearing time (FCT) is one of the major factors which affect the calculation of the incident energy. The FCT is the time required to clear the fault (arc to get extinguished
by an opening protective device). This time is determined from the time current characteristic curves (TCCs) or the definite times of each protective device that is considered to be
a source protective device (source PD).

ETAP classifies protective devices (PDs) as two types. The first and most important are the source PDs. These are the devices that energize the faulted location (bus, enclosure,
load terminal, etc., etc.), and once disconnected, completely isolate the system from any power source. The other type of protective device is a Load PD. These are the PDs which
carry power to the loads or subsystems connected to a faulted bus, but do not provide power from a source (i.e., synchronous generator or power grid).

ETAP takes a conservative approach when determining the fault clearing time (FCT). If there are several parallel source PDs feeding the bus, it will select the longest FCT (or the
time at which the last source PD opens). If there is multiple source PDs in series on the same branch, it will take the shortest opening time of such PDs. The FCT is then used to
calculate the incident energy for the bus and load PDs.

The process of obtaining the fault clearing time is dependent on the method selected to determine the results. For 3-phase and 1-phase calculation methods with the ½ and 1.5 to
4 cycle methods, the process is relatively simple. The program determines the arcing current contribution passing through each source PD and based on its TCC settings, the
program automatically determines the estimated fault clearing time of each PD. For these methods, a single current is obtained and plotted on a TCC to determine the trip time or
total clearing time (fuses). Image 1 shows the process for a simple radial system:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 36 of 91

The arcing fault current obtained using the half cycle method is 14.8 kA. This value is held constant over the duration of the arc fault. The fault clearing times for CB22 and CB23
are taken from the curve at the highest possible value as shown in the image.

The same process as shown in the previous image would apply if you were using the 1.5 to 4 cycle fault current method except that the current magnitude would be slightly
smaller.

The process of obtaining the fault clearing time is more complicated for the fault current decay method. As mentioned in the previous section, the fault current decay method
calculates three arcing current values. These values represent a changing short-circuit current value. In order to determine the response of the source protective device the
program needs to account for the inverse overcurrent effect of protective devices. This means that the higher the current the faster the travel time or melting point of a fuse will
be reached. This requires integration over the three current values which are calculated by ETAP using the equation given below:

IEEE Std C37.112-1996 equation (3)

T0 is the operating time of the overcurrent device. The function t(I) represents the fault clearing times.

In ETAP T0 can represent the trip time of an overcurrent relay or the total clearing time of a fuse. The same equation is used for all time-inverse overcurrent protective devices.
The following plot illustrates the concept used by the fault current decay method.

As can be seen in the image above, the subtransient fault current is held constant for 4 cycles, the transient current is held constant between 5 cycles and the steady-state current
time (typically 30 cycles). The final steady-state arcing current is held constant until the fault is cleared. The image below illustrates this concept. Of course in this image, the initial
fault current values are not high enough to cause the overcurrent device to operate.

The fault clearing time obtained from equation 3 will most likely predict a clearing time which is shorter than the longest possible clearing time.

The determination of the fault clearing time is bound by several special rules and assumptions for different types of protective devices. Also the program can determine the fault
clearing time if it can find it within a specified range or electrical distance from the fault location.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 37 of 91

The following applies to the process of determining the FCT at a fault location:

l ETAP determines the FCT for a faulted bus by searching up to 50 branch levels away from the faulted bus. The program will search for source PDs as far away from the fault
location as specified in the option “Bus Levels Away To Find Source PD”. This option can be configured from the project preferences window under the Arc Flash section.

The default value of the “Bus Levels Away To Find Source PD” entry is ten (10). The maximum level is fifty (50). It is recommended that this entry be left as default, unless
the protection for the faulted location is located more than 10 branch levels away.

Reducing this number speeds up the calculation because less data (which is likely unnecessary) is collected. If you know that the protection for all the buses can be found
within five or less bus levels away, then reducing the number may cut the calculation time significantly. The following image illustrates the concept of the bus levels away
search for source protective devices.

The protective devices circled in red color are considered part of the protective devices for a fault at the location indicated above.

l If ETAP cannot determine the FCT for any of the connected source protective devices which are capable of de-energizing the fault, then it displays a warning message on
the one-line diagram and reports “FCT not determined”.

l Protective devices which are considered as Load PDs are not considered in the determination of the FCT for the bus; however they are considered when you decide to
analyze arc faults at the load terminals. Load PDs are not considered for determining the bus FCT since such devices cannot isolate the fault at the bus. ETAP considers the
Load PD contribution and decay in motor current according to ANSI and IEC Standards. For example, in the Image below PDs CB16 to CB18 are not considered in the
determination of the FCT, but their contributions are considered in the determination of the incident energy for a fault at the bus “Bus11” as shown below.

l Protective devices need to have their proper TCC curves selected from the ETAP Library to be considered in the determination of the FCT. The reason for this requirement is
to limit human error when entering settings into a protective device editor directly. Also the analysis is far more accurate if you use the actual TCC curves.

l If a medium or high voltage Circuit Breaker is used to clear the fault, then it must be interlocked to a relay which has the proper current transformer connections and has
been selected from the Star relay library. If any of these elements is missing, then ETAP will not find the FCT for this device. Other examples of this situation include Low
Voltage Breakers which are shunt tripped by relays. The same is true for switches and contactors operated by relays.

l According to IEEE 1584-2002, overcurrent relays cannot operate faster than one cycle. This has been done to keep conservative results according to IEEE 1584-2002
guidelines. This rule is applied even if the manufacturer TCC shows no delay for this instantaneous part of the relay or if the instantaneous response is between zero and 1
cycle. Typical operating times for overcurrent relays should be at least 10 msec. However, IEEE 1584-2018 has revised this statement and basically has left the relay
minimum operating time to be defined by the manufacturer. This means that if you run arc-flash analysis using ETAP 19.0.0 with the new IEEE 1584-2018 method, that you
may see shorter than 16 ms relay operating times as specified by the relay time overcurrent curve or instantaneous delay setting.

l Based on the implementation of IEEE 1584-2002, the fuse total clearing time cannot be less than 0.010 sec. This has been configured per IEEE 1584-2002 guidelines. If the
fuse does not have a total clearing time curve (i.e., only average time), the program applies a 10% additional time from the average melt time determined from the
manufacturer fuse curve plus 0.004 seconds to that time. The implementation for fuse total clearing time and average melting time only has not changed for IEEE 1584-

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 38 of 91

2018.

l The determined FCT may be a combination of several steps involved before the device can actually open and clear the arc fault. For example for a HVCB may have a rating
interrupting time of three cycles. The Arc Flash Module knows this and will combine this with the actual relay trip time plus any other possible delay(s). For LVCB, the
following times are added on top of the time determined from a relay.

a
Table 9: Relay Operated Low Voltage Circuit Breaker Opening Time
Circuit Breaker Rating Opening Time Opening Time
and Type at 60 Hz at 50 Hz
(Cycles/Seconds) (Cycles/Seconds)
Molded Case (<1000 V) 3.0 / 0.05 3.0 / 0.06
(Integral Trip)
Insulated Case (<1000 V) 3.0 / 0.05 3.0 / 0.06
(Integral Trip or relay
operated)
Power CB (<1000) (Integral 3.0 / 0.05 3.0 / 0.06
Trip or relay operated)
a
None of the values listed in this table include the external trip time.

The process described here for LVCB opening times when operated by external relays applies to IEEE 1584-2002 only. However for IEEE 1584-2018, the opening time of the
breakers is user-definable through the Tools\Options (preferences)\Arc Flash & Star\ group of options. The user can enter the desired opening time for each type of LV CB as
defined in table 9 above. The editor location where this change can be made is shown below:

l The search algorithm has certain limitations besides the number of levels away from the fault location. The image below shows the protective devices along paths which
energize the faulted bus. There are two multiple source level contribution zones. The first zone is highlighted in a red color. The second multiple source level zone is
highlighted in a green color.

Please note that every multiple source PD level is created every time two different source contributions are meshed together. This occurs at two locations. The first one is
the three-winding transformer “T2”. The second time is the bus “Bus19” (where two different utility contributions are connected).

By default, the program can see most of the source protective devices in the first and second multiple source contribution levels (zones); however, there are systems in
which the sources PDs are located further away in higher levels of multiple source contributions.

The following image defines higher levels of multiple source PD zones. The highest level of meshed source contributions is level four. Multiple utility sources energize this
location.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 39 of 91

The image above may be an unrealistic representation of a power system, but it helps to illustrate the concept of the multiple source PD levels. In a real system, the
individual sources could be wind turbines, PV arrays or synchronous generators. Whatever the case may be, every time a source contribution is meshed, the program will
require a higher a level number.

An option is available to control the collection of source protective devices. This entry can be used to configure ETAP to gradually increase the collection to higher multiple
source levels. This setting can be accessed through the Tools\Options (Preferences):

Multiple Source Contribution Levels = 2.0

A value of less than 2 should not be used. The limit of this entry is technically almost the same as the “Bus Levels Away To Find Source PD”. However, it is recommended
not to set this entry to a value higher than 4 unless it is really needed. As can be seen in the image above, the data collection is already extremely large once the program
collects information past the second level.

l You may also use the User-Defined Source PD from the Bus Arc Flash page or enclosure editor to efficiently determine the FCT. You may select the ID of the source PD that
should be used for the determination of the FCT (Bus Arc Flash page). You must also check the option “User-Defined Source PD (Bus Editor)” from the Arc Flash page of the
SC Study Case. ETAP will automatically determine the arcing current passing through this protective device for a fault at the specified bus. Based on this arcing current, the
program finds the FCT and uses it to calculate the bus and load PD incident energy. The following illustration shows the mechanism of the user-defined source PD:

For the above system, Relay1 takes the longer time to trip in the event of a fault at Bus1. Once you have selected the source PD, you can execute the arc flash calculation.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 40 of 91

l A contactor placed along a source branch can clear the fault if it is interlocked with a properly configured relay. The Relay trip time and the dropout time of the contactor
constitute the total fault clearing time.

l Switches can also be used as fault clearing source PDs, only if they are interlocked with a properly configured relay.

l Tie-Protective Devices placed in series cannot be considered to clear the fault for the same bus level. Only those PDs that lay at least one branch or bus level away can be
considered by the program to be able to clear the fault at a source PD. Please see Image below:

l ETAP is capable of modeling recloser operation for arc flash. The FCT used for reclosers is taken to be the total time the device remains closed on the fault for each TCC
operation in the sequence. For example, if the controller sequence is specified as 3 operations on the first TCC, then the total fault clearing time would be three times the
st
time for the 1 operation on the TCC as shown in the image below:

l To further emphisize a previous dicussion on fuse cleaeting time, when the fuse has only average melt time curve, then

A) If Fuse has only average melt time curve, then

If fuse has Average Melt Time Curve, then FCT = Time from Curve + 10% of Time from Curve + 0.004 seconds

B) If Fuse has average melt time curve or both total and minimum clearing time curves, then

If Arcing Current is to the right of the Total Clearing Time or Average Melt Time then FCT = 0.01 seconds.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 41 of 91

FCT determination for Fuse with Average Melt Time Curve Only

This modification has been done based on proposed changes in IEEE 1584b and it remains the same for IEEE 1584-2018.

l Fuse Clearing Time Tolerance: This ini entry specifies the positive percent tolerance applied clearing times obtained from fuse Time current curves. The range of the percent
tolerance entry is 0% to 90% and by default is set to 0%. Listed below is a description of how the final fault clearing time is calculated when enabling this entry.

a. For Curves with both melting and clearing time curves the FCT is determined as described below:
l FCT= FCT (from TCC) + %Tolerance* FCT (from TCC)
b. For fuses with only melting curves the tolerance is applied as described below:
l FCT1= FCT (from TCC) + %Tolerance *(FCT)
l Final FCT= FCT1 + 10% of FCT1 + 0.004seconds

l Relay Minimum Trip Time: This ini entry specifies a minimum relay tripping time for cases where the sum of the relay tripping time and protective device opening time is
less than 0.01 milliseconds. If this case is encountered ETAP then returns the FCT based on the value specified in the ini entry. The default for this entry is 1cycle and has a
range of 0.001 to 100 cycles.

l Lockout Relay Delay Time: This entry is used to model lockout delays for relays when determining the relay tripping time. When enabled this entry will add an additional
delay to the tripping time obtained from the relays Tim current curve where the final tripping time reported is the sum of the two times. By default this entry is set to 0
seconds and has a range from 0 to 0.5 sec. This ini is not be considered for reclosers or inline-relays.

l Overcurrent Relay Trip Time Tolerance: This ini entry specifies the positive percent tolerance applied to the relay tripping time obtained from the time current curves. The
range of the percent tolerance entry is 0% to 90% and by default is set to 0%. The final relay trip time is calculated based on the tolerance value entered in this field. For
example, if Relay Trip time is 0.1 seconds from TCC and tolerance is +10% , the final tripping time is 0.11 seconds (0.1 sec + 0.01 sec= 0.11 sec).

Troubleshooting “FCT not Determined” Problems

There are several reasons why the Arc Flash Program may not determine the fault clearing time for a fault at a particular bus, source protective device or load. The following are
the most common issues which can cause this message to be generated by the program:

1. There are no source protective devices properly configured to protect the arc fault location: If you have not added the protective devices which actually de-energize the
equipment in the event of a fault, the program may display this error message. In the image below, the utility connection does not have a protective device, and if there is a
fault on the line side of the medium voltage breakers, there is no physical protective device which can clear the fault. In this case, you will see the “FCT not determined”
message displayed on the one-line diagram, reports and arc flash labels.

2. The relay interlocks, current transformers (CTs) are missing or there is no data selected from the library: Overcurrent, directional, differential and overload relay
protective devices require circuit breakers to clear the fault. ETAP can determine automatically which relay will trip and in which order, but it needs you to specify which
breaker is interlocked to the relay (which breaker will be tripped by the relay selected by ETAP). The “FCT not determined” message will be displayed as well if you did not
select the protective device from the library. This applies to LVCB, Relays, Fuses, etc.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 42 of 91

3. Arcing current is too low and source protective device does not trip: The arcing current could be much smaller in magnitude than the available bolted short-circuit current
for some equipment (especially if the equipment is less than 1.0 kV). According to IEEE 1584 equations, the arcing current may be less than the short-circuit current for
systems up to 15 kV. Because of this phenomenon, the protective devices may not trip at all under an arc fault (i.e., arcing current is below the long time pickup). ETAP
includes the arcing current variation automatically to further reduce the calculated current. If ETAP detects that the source protective device does not trip, then it will
display the “FCT not determined” message. The following image shows you how you can verify this:

In the case of a fault at “Bus30”, the arcing current is too low on the primary side of Transformer “T9”. To determine the arcing current on the primary of T9, take the ratio
of the SC contribution over the total SC current and multiply the total arcing current by this ratio.

(34.33 kA/35.3 kA) * 24.27 kA = 23.59 kA

Then convert to the primary base kV.

23.58 kA * (0.48kV/13.2kV) = 0.857 kA

At this time all that is left to determine is if indeed the calculated arcing current on the primary is too low for “Relay28” to trip. You can confirm this by plotting the relay on
a Star view TCC. In the TCC shown below, the red arrow indicates the arcing current value at the beginning of the fault. This clearly shows that the relay does not trip.

Sometimes the protective device will still trip, but it will do so in a very long time since it is using the 51(overcurrent protection section of the relay). In this case, ETAP may
2
calculate a very high incident energy value. If the cal/cm exceeds the limit of Category 4 (based on NFPA 70E), then it will flag it on the one-line diagram by displaying the
message “Exceeds Max. PPE Arc Rating”. This is the case at Bus14 in the image above.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 43 of 91

4. The Source Protective Device is outside the Search Branch Level Number: In order to reduce the calculation speed and computer system requirements, certain limits are
set by ETAP. The limitation consists of reducing the number of levels required in the search of the source protective device. The source protective devices are of course
used to determine the Fault Clearing Time.

The number of levels away can be changed by modifying the entry in the Tools\Options (Preferences): Bus Levels Away to Find Source PD = 10 (default). The maximum is
50.

5. The source protective device is completely outside the search area of the program: For some very special cases, the Arc Flash Program will not be able to determine the
Fault Clearing Time since the source protective device cannot be located. This means that the system does not have protection within the searchable area of the system.
The searchable area of the program is limited by the number of meshed source fault current contributions. And the number of bus levels away (please see previous item).
The search area for multiple source systems can be increased by modifying the following entry under the Tools\Options (Preferences) section: Multiple Source Contribution
Levels = 2 (default).

This entry can be theoretically extended to as many levels as the Bus Levels Away to Find Source PD entry (50). However, it is recommended to extend this option only as
needed to 3, 4 or 5 (i.e. to gradually increase depending on the system complexity). Using a very high number for both of these options can cause performance issues (slow
down) with the arc flash calculation. In some cases, the system memory requirements can be more than what can be handled for a 32-bit computer system application.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 44 of 91

Determination of Incident Energy

After the fault clearing times have been determined, the next step is to determine the incident energy for the fault location. ETAP is capable of determining the incident energy
for a fault at any location in the equipment by simply specifying a fault at the bus. The locations are categorized as follows:

1. Fault at the main bus

2. Fault on the source protective devices
3. Fault on load protective devices (typically the same as the bus fault, but different in some special cases).
4. Fault on load terminals connected directly to the faulted bus or connected through equipment cables

The process of determining the incident energy is simple. The program will use equations [D.7.3(c)] (empirical method) or [D.7.4] (theoretical method) depending on the bus
nominal voltage and bolted fault current value.

The empirical method is used for the range of parameters specified by IEEE 1584 2002. The Lee method is used for any system with voltage or bolted fault current outside the
range of the empirical method.

The IEEE 1584 and NFPA 70E 2009 guidelines do not address how complex electrical system with multiple sources should be handled. These guidelines only indicate that the
incident energy can be determined based on the fault clearing time of the first upstream protective device which de-energizes the fault. This methodology is simple enough for
radial systems; however, there is no mention on how to handle looped or meshed systems with multiple source protective devices energizing the fault location.

ETAP has two methods of handling the calculation of the incident energy for power systems which have more than one energizing source protective device. The first method
(existing method before ETAP 7.0.0) takes the total bus arcing current and determines the energy using the fault clearing time of the last protective device to de-energize the
fault. For most power systems having multiple sources, it is likely that the operating time of each source is similar and thus it is acceptable to use the entire arcing current up to
the final fault clearing time.

The second method was added to ETAP 7.0.0 to handle those situations for which the first method is not acceptable. Mainly the cases there multiple sources have very different
trip times. The new method is called “Subtraction of Incident Energy for Multiple Source Systems”. There is an ETAP Options (Preferences) setting which needs to be set to
“True” in order to activate this method. The following image shows the entry and its location in the preferences editor:

For example, we can analyze a multiple source system and place an arc fault at Bus “5BM”. Bus 5Bm is fed from two different utility connections with source protective devices
(HVCBs) “22” and “12”. Each breaker operates at different fault clearing times.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 45 of 91

The difference in the operating times is caused by the different relay time dial settings as shown in the following TCC:

The time difference averages about 2 to 3 seconds between the relay operations. In this case RelayA1 operates first (at approximately 1 second) and its arcing current
contribution is removed at this time. This constitutes almost 33% of the energy contribution to the fault location. The total incident energy calculated with the removal of CB 12’s
2
contribution is nearly 80 cal/cm which is well above the maximum value described for PPE in NFPA 70E 2009. By comparison if we were to run the same calculation without using
the incident energy subtraction method, the incident energy results would be as shown in the images below:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 46 of 91

2 2
The incident energy removed between 1 and 3 seconds (33% of the total fault current) amount to about 20 cal/cm . The new result is nearly104 cal/cm .

The previous calculations were executed using the ½ cycle method with/out applying with incident energy subtraction for the multiple sources. We can also use the fault current
decay method to perform the same calculation. Please note that the asynchronous machine contribution to the fault was nearly 2.0 kA and it comes from substation “SUB 5B”.
This contribution constitutes the only AC decay component of the fault since the source contributions from CB 22 and 12 come from utility connections and such are always
assumed to be constant.

The result obtained using the fault current decay method with the incident energy subtraction option enabled is shown below:

2
The decay from the asynchronous loads in substation SUB5B is also a significant decrease in the energy calculation. The calculated energy is now down to nearly 68.9 cal/cm . For
this type of system, the fault current decay method yields the least conservative results, however, its results should be the most accurate of all the methods.

The fault current decay method produces many intermediate results. The intermediate results are arranged according to the stage at which they occur. These intermediate values
are usually denoted as E1, E2, E3, FCT1, FCT2, FCT3, etc. The following table lists these intermediate values and provides a description of the physical events they represent.
These parameters are displayed in the Arc Flash Result Analyzer and in the Arc Flash Analysis Reports. For the previous example we have the following parameters generated:

Parameter Description Physical meaning

Incident energy
accumulated over the
first 4 cycles. It is
obtained using the
subtransient fault
current contributions
E1 (Ia”) from every source
in the system.

Duration of the first No protective device operates during this stage. The FCT1 value is set to 4 cycles.
FCT1
stage
Total subtransient
Total Ia”
arcing current
Total subtransient Used to estimate Ia”.
Total Ibf”
bolted fault current
Incident energy
accumulated between 4
cycles and 30 cycles. It
is obtained using the
transient fault current
contributions (Ia’) from
E2
every source in the
system. In our example
the reduction in energy
in this stage comes
from the reduced
motor contribution.
Duration of the second Typically 26 cycles if the steady-state time is set to 30 cycles. In our example only the
FCT2

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 47 of 91

stage. motor contribution is completely removed at the steady-state time.

Total transient arcing
Ia’
current
Total transient bolted Used to estimate Ia’.
Ibf’
fault current
Incident energy
accumulated between
30 cycles and the final
fault clearing time. In
our example E3 is
actually the sum of two
individual stages. The
E3 motor contribution has
completely decayed in
this stage as can be
seen in the image.

Duration of the third In our example FCT3 is actually composed of two individual stage durations. The first
stage stage is set between 30 cycles to 1 second and the second stage time is set between 1
FCT3
sec and 3 seconds. The difference between these two stages is that the current from CB
12 is removed as the protective device operates
Total steady-state The program always displays the total arcing currents for any stage; however, internally it
arcing current may reduce the current for any stage as each source protective device is de-energized.
Ia
This is the case for Ia for stage E3. It experiences the reduction because of motor decay
and because of CB 12’s operation.
Total steady-state Used to estimate Ia.
Ibf
bolted fault current
This is the sum of FCT1, In our example the final FCT is determined as (FCT1 = 4 cycles) + (FCT2= 26 cycles) +
FCT2 & FCT3 and it (FCT3 = 150 cycles) = (Total Fault Duration = 180 cycles).
Final FCT
represents the total arc
fault duration.
This is the sum of E1, E2 In our example the Total Incident energy = (E1=1.9) + (E2=11.5) + (E3=55.5) ≈ 69 cal/cm .
2

& E3 and it represents Any stage can be split into intermediate smaller stages, but such are not reported by the
Total Incident the total incident program. In our example this is the case of stage E3 which is internally split into two
Energy energy released smaller stages which are not reported for simplicity.
throughout the arc fault
duration.

For a description of all the calculation results displayed in the AF Result Analyzer and AF analysis reports, please refer to the AF Result Analyzer section of this chapter.

Source/Load PD Arc Fault Calculations

The previous examples described the calculation results for a fault at the Bus location. The same methodology applies if the fault is located on the main protective device which
energizes the bus or if it happens on load protective devices connected to the bus. The difference in the calculation results are summarized below:

1. In the majority of cases the results of faults on load protective devices are the same as those for those on the bus. Only for certain cases in differential protection
applications, the program may yield different results for the load PDs (if the Pd is inside or outside the differential protection zone as defined by the location of the current
transformers in the circuit).

2. The fault location for source PDs is almost treated as a completely different fault location. The results for a fault at the source PDs are in most cases much different than the
results for a fault at the bus.

The following image illustrates how ETAP calculates and displays the results at these locations.

TThe previous image shows that the program calculates independently the AF results at the source PD, Load Pd, Bus and Load terminals by simply specifying a fault only on the
bus. The results show that the most dangerous area is the source PD arc fault and that the least dangerous location is the load terminal box arc fault.

Load PD Load Side Arc Fault

This section provides information on the operation of the load protective device load-side arc fault evaluation. It also summarizes the rules and application information on this
feature. Make sure to read all the application notes prior to enabling the application of this feature.

The load protective device load side arc fault feature allows the calculation of the incident energy at an additional location by assuming that there is isolation between the load

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 48 of 91

breaker and the fault location (perhaps a lower cubicle such as a cable connection). The load PD should be completely isolated by sheet metal barriers which would prevent the
arc from extending from the lower cubicle and perhaps damage the breaker and render it incapable of clearing the fault.

The diagram below indicates the arc fault locations that can be calculated by the arc flash program for all three-phase buses.

Note that CB8 is considered as the source protective device that energizes the MV switchgear. CB19 happens to be a load breaker which energizes transformer T4. The load PD
load side arc fault is shown just below CB19.

The load side of CB 19 can be considered to be a separate compartment which is by physical construction considered separate from the compartment which houses CB19. In the
event of an arc fault in the load side compartment (i.e. cable connection compartment), ETAP arc flash will consider CB19 to a candidate protective device to de-energize the fault.

Note that the determination of the isolation between compartments needs to be done under engineering supervision and should be determined based on manufacturer advice.

To enable ETAP arc flash load PD load side arc flash calculation; two requirements must be met:

1. Check the option “Load PD” under the Enclosure Isolation section of the Bus Rating page

2. Enable the option “Calculate Load PD Load Side Arc Flash” from the Tools\Options(preferences) editor as shown in the image below.

After configuring the previous two options and performing the arc flash analysis, the results can be observed on the one-line diagram by configuring the display options “Load PD
(Load Side)” as shown below:

A separate set of results will be displayed next to the load PD which indicates the result.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 49 of 91

In the same fashion, a load PD load Side Arc Fault can be introduced into the equipment by placing the arc flash sequence of operation fault insertion icon right “on top” of the
load PD. The following image shows the process of inserting the arc fault graphically on the load PD.

The Load PD Load Side Arc Fault results may also be viewed through the reports and arc flash result analyzer.

Load PD Load Side Arc Fault Application Notes

This section provides a summary of the items which need to be considered prior to using this feature. Engineering judgment and analysis have to be made about the construction
and enclosure isolation of the equipment before applying this feature.

1. Up to ETAP 12.6.5 the arc flash program always set the load PD arc flash results to be equal to those of a line-side arc fault (equivalent to a bus arc fault). In ETAP 14.0.0
with the addition of the load PD load side arc fault, the engineer must consider if there is enough of a barrier or isolation between the enclosures. This isolation or barrier
should be enough to assure that the arc fault does not propagate to the LD PD enclosure and thus potentially causing failure of its operation during the arc fault. If it is
considered that this isolation is enough to prevent the arc fault to extend to the load PD enclosure then this option could be used.

2. This feature is meant to be a time saving tool that would allow the engineer to obtain an arc flash analysis for this isolated location (i.e. cable connector compartment). In
previous versions, placing a node or bus at the load PD Load Side would produce the same results. However, once the feature is active, now the program will only provide
the load PD load side results and no longer provide the load PD Line side results for the load PD. Caution must be exercised when using this feature as the selection of the
arc flash labels (for the load PD enclosure and the isolated cable connection enclosure) would require a “two step” process. The load PD Line Side (same as bus) would only
be available for the load PD if the load PD Load Side option is disabled.

3. The Load PD Load Side arc flash calculation is only available for 3-Phase AF calculation methods. The feature is not available under 1-phase arc flash calculations.

It is recommended that when printing labels to make sure that only load PD line Side (Bus Side) labels be placed on the enclosures which contain the load PD and that only load-
PD load Side labels are placed on this lower cable connection enclosures if they are properly isolated.

Load Terminal Arc Fault Calculation

ETAP Arc Flash gives you the flexibility to analyze hundreds of possible arc fault locations within the same equipment without the need to add additional buses. This simple “One
Click and Fault” operation makes the hazard analysis far more efficient by reducing the setup time of the one-line diagrams, by not having to use a large number of buses to
represent every possible arc fault location. This feature works seamlessly with the existing load equipment cable feature in ETAP.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 50 of 91

In a power system, there could be hundreds of different arc fault locations within a large motor control center or switchgear lineup. With this feature, the Arc Flash program
produces detailed analysis reports for every faulted location and it can automatically generate AF labels for every incoming main circuit breaker cubicle, load circuit breaker or for
every load terminal point.

The Arc Flash program can simulate arc faults at the load terminals of the following devices:

1. Induction Motors
2. Synchronous motors
3. Static Loads
4. MOVs
5. Capacitors

The following image illustrates the locations for which ETAP calculates the incident energy. The program will calculate the incident energy at all of the locations shown below as
long as the main bus (LV-MCC) is faulted and the entries have been configured in the ETAP options (Preferences) editor.

The load terminal arc fault simulation can be configured from the Options (Preferences) Editor by setting the option “Calculate Load Terminal Arc Flash” = True.

Calculate Load Terminal Arc Flash

This entry specifies if the Arc Flash Program will calculate the incident energy in the event of an arc fault at the load terminals. The default value is set to “False” and it means that
the load terminal arc fault is not considered. If you set this entry to True, then the program determines the incident energy results for arc faults at the load terminals.

Load Terminal Arc Fault Equipment Type

This entry specifies what type of equipment to use to determine the arcing current for an arc fault at the motor terminals. The default is Panelboard = 0. The remaining options
are Cable Bus = 1, Open Air = 2, MCC = 3, Switchgear, Switchboard, Switchrack = 4. The values of the Gap and distance X-factor parameters used are typical values according to the
equipment voltage.

The reason that the panelboard has been set to default for modeling the load terminal faults is that the program is trying to simulate an arc fault in a small enclosure like a
terminal box. The enclosures used by the IEEE 1584 test group to develop the equations for panelboards were the smallest in size of all the enclosures tested and thus they are
the best fit.

The values of the Gaps and X factor used by the program to simulate the load terminal arc fault are listed in the following table:

Table 10: Default values for Gaps between Conductors and X factors for Load Terminal Faults
Gap Default X factor
Equipment type*
Value (mm) Value
0.208 – 1.0 kV Open Air 40 2.000
0.208 – 1.0 kV Cable Bus 13 2.000
0.208 – 1.0 kV MCC 25 1.641
0.208 – 1.0 kV Other 13 2.000
0.208 – 1.0 kV Panelboard 25 1.641
0.208 – 1.0 kV Switchgear 32 1.473
0.208 – 1.0 kV Switchboard 32 1.473
0.208 – 1.0 kV Switchrack 32 1.473
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Open Air 102 2.000
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Cable Bus 13 2.000
>1.0 – 5.0 kV MCC 102 0.973
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Other 13 2.000
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Panelboard 102 0.973
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Switchgear 102 0.973
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Switchboard 102 0.973
>1.0 – 5.0 kV Switchrack 102 0.973
>5.0 – 15 kV Open Air 152.4 2.000
>5.0 – 15 kV Cable Bus 13 2.000
>5.0 – 15 kV MCC 152.4 0.973
>5.0 – 15 kV Other 13 2.000
>5.0 – 15 kV Panelboard 152.4 0.973
>5.0 – 15 kV Switchgear 152.4 0.973
>5.0 – 15 kV Switchboard 152.4 0.973

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 51 of 91

>5.0 – 15 kV Switchrack 152.4 0.973

>15.1 - 36 kV N/A N/A N/A

The program can generate detailed report for every faulted load terminal or load protective device as shown in the image below:

The program can automatically generate load terminal and load protective device arc flash labels once the options have been configured.

Load CB Label Load Terminal Label

Note: In ETAP 18.0 the one line diagram results for load terminal, source, and load PD’s arc faults has been enhanced to display the working distance used for the arc flash
analysis.

Applying the Maximum FCT Option for the Incident Energy

The option to consider the fault clearing time as a maximum value was derived from IEEE1584 guidelines. The wording in section 4.6 Step 5 of IEEE 1584 b-2011 states:

“When a manufacturer’s time current curve shows a band, or range, the longest time should be used. If the time is longer than 2 seconds, consider how long a person is likely to
remain in the location of the arc flash. It is likely that a person exposed to an arc flash will move away quickly if it physically possible, and 2 seconds is usually a reasonable
maximum time for calculations.”

The option to limit the fault clearing time to a typical value of 2.0 seconds is accomplished from the study case (Please see the study case section of this chapter for more
information).

This section describes the special logic required for some special conditions. The option can be applied under two different circumstances:

1. The actual fault clearing time was determined for the fault location; however, it is longer than the maximum value specified (i.e. 2.0 sec). In this case the program returns
the incident energy at the maximum FCT specified and produces a warning for the location. The warning can be observed in the arc flash result analyzer.

2. The actual fault clearing time was not determined at all. In this case, the program returns an “FCT not determined” warning message and no incident energy is calculated.
The program does this for all locations under which it found impossible to determine a clearing time.

Any result which returns an FCT not determined warning should be investigated in detail and analysis as to why the program fails to find the FCT should be done. The program still
allows the energy to be estimated at a bus and load PD by using the user-defined fault clearing and the fixed FCT methods (please refer to the study case section for the Clearing
Time page). However, the same option is not possible for source protective devices (i.e. for an arc fault on the line side of a main protective device).

One solution can be to add a node in the line side of the protective device. This solution would work but then again it will require the additional node. Because of this the
following option under the ETAP Tools\Options (Preferences)\Arc Flash section can be used:

Force “FCT not Determined” to use Limit Max FCT = False (default).

This option allows the arc flash program to use the maximum fault clearing time to calculate the incident energy of all the locations for which the program failed to find an FCT
(i.e. FCT not determined). The default is “False” which means the locations will be reported as FCT not determined. Setting the option to “True” would calculate and report the
incident energy using the maximum fault clearing time specified in the study case.

Note: If this option is enabled (set to True) along with the Maximum FCT limit option (from the AFC FCT page of the short-circuit study case, then no “FCT not determined”
message would be generate at all. All locations for which the program could not calculate an actual FCT would return incident energy values determined using the maximum FCT.

It is recommended that the FCT be determined for all locations even if the maximum FCT option is used. The following images illustrate the behavior for some cases when the FCT
is not determined and when the FCT is determined but limited to the max value.

Case 1: FCT is determined for all locations but it exceeds the max FCT
This case is simple. The program determines that the operating time of the protective devices upstream is longer than the maximum time (i.e. 2.0 sec). The image below shows
the results without the “Limit Maximum FCT = 2.0 sec” option selection in the study case. The FCT for the bus is found to be 3.803 seconds and the FCT for the line-side fault on
the main source PD is 6.0 seconds.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 52 of 91

Once the study case is enabled with this option, the incident energy results at all locations are determined based on the maximum FCT time. This only occurs since the FCT was
determined for all locations. The FCT has been limited at all locations with an FCT higher than 2.0 seconds (bus and source PD).

Case 2: FCT not determined for all locations

In this case the program cannot find the FCT for the Bus and the Source PD fault locations.

In this case since there is no FCT at all, the fault location at the bus can be user-defined to 2.0 seconds (using the user-defined FCT or Fixed FCT options). However, the source PD
still is has no incident energy result.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 53 of 91

If the option Force “FCT not Determined” to use Limit Max FCT = True, then the program will use the maximum FCT time to determine the incident energy for the source PD. The
image below shows the results:

Case 3: FCT not determined just for the source PD

In this case the source PD is the only location which returns FCT not determined warnings. The image below shows this case. Please note that the Bus fault location has an FCT less
than 2.0 seconds.

If the option Force “FCT not Determined” to use Limit Max FCT = True, then the program will use the maximum FCT time to determine the incident energy for the source PD. The
image below shows the results:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 54 of 91

Differential Relay Handling for AF

ETAP allows you to model different types of differential relays like bus, line and transformer differentials. The program allows you to determine the incident energy which could
be released for an “internal” arc fault (inside the differential protection zone) while at the same time; the program still considers the locations which may be outside (or external
to the differential relay) protection zone. The following image illustrates a bus differential relay.

Differential Relay Setup & Troubleshooting

The differential relay must be configured before it can be used for Arc Flash analysis. The following items need to be considered for properly configuring the differential relay to
trip on internal faults, but not on external faults.

1. The Current Transformer polarities must be pointing away from the element which they protect. For example, if the relay is a bus differential, then all CT polarity markings
must be pointing away from the protected bus.

Bus Differential CT Polarity

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 55 of 91

Transformer Differential CT Polarity Configuration

2. All the CTs must be connected to the differential relay and all the energizing (source PD) circuit breakers must be interlocked to the device as well.

3. The differential relay operating time must be specified. The default value is zero seconds. However, it is recommended that you enter a value between 10 to 30 msec. This
value should be obtained from the relay manufacturer documentation and it should be applied in a conservative fashion. Differential relay operating time may change
depending on the severity of the fault. The operating time of a differential relay may be a lot higher for unbalanced faults. The longest possible operating time should be
used.

4. The total fault clearing time for a differential relay will be the sum of the Operating time plus the breaker time. In the case of three cycle breakers, the FCT = 0.020 + (3/60)
= 0.070 sec.

5. The selection of Percentage or High Impedance from the Differential Type drop list does not make any difference in the way the program determines if an arc fault is
internal or external to the differential relay. This field will be utilized in future versions of the arc flash program as the internal operation of the differential relay is modeled.

6. The Current Transformer (CT) turn ratio does not affect the operation of the differential relay, but of course you should enter the turn ratios as configured in the actual
device.

7. The calculation of the incident energy for the source protective devices internal to the differential protection zone is dependent on the fault clearing time of external
upstream protective devices. See the image below:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 56 of 91

8. Differential relay internal protection zones may be overlapped. That is a protective device like a circuit breaker can reside within the protection zone of two differential
relays.

9. Make sure the current transformers (CT) components are in service. This can be done by enabling the display option PT & CT > “ID” in the One-Line, this will display the
grayed out CT ID for components which are “Out of Service”.

10. Another possible problem is the “Current Summer” option. Please make sure this option is unchecked under the “Input” tab of the relay editor window.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 57 of 91

11. It is important to consider the physical placement of protective devices within an enclosure. In other words, protective devices which do not reside within the same enclosure,
should be associated with different buses/enclosures. For example, in the figure below, CB61 and Fuse12 are placed on the same connector (in series). The enclosure editor
automatically places both protective devices in the same enclosure. The figure illustrating the enclosure editor clearly shows that the enclosure indicates that both PDs are in the
same enclosure.

To ensure that each device is placed in their own enclosure to reflect real-life equipment conditions, simply add or place a bus or bus and impedance. The additional bus has
additional enclosures and Fuse12 can reside on its own separate location. The figure below illustrates the changes suggested.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 58 of 91

The presence of differential protection zones makes this requirement to be more important since protective devices in and out of the differential zone experience different
fault clearing response time.

Maintenance Mode Switch

ETAP gives you the ability to simulate the operation of maintenance mode switches. Newer solid state trip units are being equipped by the manufacturer with special maintenance
mode switches which allow the override of the normal settings to use instead very fast operation settings with very low pickup values. The purpose of these trip units is to
override normal coordination settings while energized work is being performed in order to minimize the fault clearing time.

The arc-flash program can easily be configured to simulate the incident energy which could be released under maintenance or non-maintenance conditions. In order to do this,
the maintenance mode must be enabled in the ETAP LVSST trip unit library as shown in the image below:

Next, you must select the device from the library for the each low voltage circuit breaker which has the Maintenance Mode capability. The images below show the incident energy
results when 1) The maintenance mode check box is not selected (top) 2) when the maintenance mode check box is selected (bottom):

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 59 of 91

Current Limiting Fuse Handling

Current limiting fuses (CLF) are a great way of mitigating the arc flash energy. ETAP provides a method of handling current limiting fuses for arc flash calculations. A current
limiting device by definition; limits the current and also trips the arc faults very fast. This version of ETAP allows to take credit for the fast operating time of fuses operating in their
current limiting range.

The current limiting fuse operation in ETAP is accomplished by using three methods.

1. Peak Let-Through Curves

2. Bottom of the Curve Method
3. IEEE 1584 2002 Section 5.6 Equations / IEEE 1584-2018 Annex H equations (which are the same as those of the 2002 version)

Peak Let-Through Curve Method

This method allows the program to determine the current limiting operation of the fuse by comparing the arcing current passing through the fuse against the peak let-through
curves.

The logic used by the program when this option is applied is described below. The following image shows the curve points used to determine the CLF operation.

Peak Let-thru curves for a CLF

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 60 of 91

The following definitions are applicable:

Let I Point A be the starting point at which the fuse can be considered to operate as CLF

Let Ia”-Fuse be the arcing current which would flow through the CLF

Logic:

If I Point A ≤ Ia”-Fuse ≤ 2* I Point A, then the fuse fault clearing time is set to ½ cycle.

If Ia”-Fuse > 2* I Point A, then the fault clearing time is set to ¼ cycle

Note1: The implementation of the current-limiting fuses for IEEE 1584-2018 allows for one additional capability which is to user-define the values of the clearing time of the fuse.
This can be accomplished from the Tools\Options (Preferences)\Arc-Flash group of options as shown below:

The unit of the clearing time for both regions is cycles. The default values are ½ cycle and ¼ cycle respectively for region 1 and region 2.

If the arcing current passing through the fuse is below point A, then the TCC curves of the fuse are used to determine the fault clearing time of the fuse. Please note that the
bottom of the curve method is not used in this case since it is only used when the peak let-through curves for the fuse are not available. It is considered that the peak let-through
curves are a more accurate method to determine CLF operation and the bottom of the curve method is only used when the peak let-through curve is not present.

Note: This method does not offer any reduction in the arcing current passing through the fuse. It only offers reduction in the fault clearing time. The incident energy results
coming from the CLF will be slightly higher because there is no reduction in the current.

Bottom of the Curve Method

This method can be used if there are no peak let-thru curves defined for the element. The value of the arc fault current passing through the fuse is compared against the fuse TCC
current value at 0.01 seconds. The following image shows a CLF fuse TCC with the value of the arcing current at the 0.01 second time.

CLF TCC showing the values of Ia” passing through the fuse

The following definitions are applicable:

Let I Bottom-Curve be the point at the bottom of the curve at 0.01 sec.

Let Ia”-Fuse be the arcing current which would flow through the CLF

Logic:

If I Bottom-Curve ≤ Ia”-Fuse ≤ 2* I , then the fuse fault clearing time is set to ½ cycle.
Bottom-Curve

If Ia”-Fuse > 2* I Bottom-Curve, then the fault clearing time is set to ¼ cycle

The following conditions must be met for this method to be applied:

l The CLF has no peak let-thru curves

l The Study case option “Use bottom of the CLF TCC (if peak let-through not available)” is enabled.

If the arcing current passing through the fuse is lower than the TCC curve value at 0.01 second then the value from the TCC (total clearing time or average melt time) is used
directly as the fault clearing time of the fuse.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 61 of 91

Note: This method does not offer any reduction in the arcing current passing through the fuse. It only offers reduction in the fault clearing time. The incident energy results
coming from the CLF will be slightly higher because there is no reduction in the current.

Note: The fuse clearing times are also user-definable as previously described when running the IEEE 1584-2018 method.

IEEE 1584 2002 Section 5.6 Equations

This method uses the IEEE 1584 equations. This method does not determine the fault clearing time or the arcing current reduction because of the CLF operation. The equations
provide directly the incident energy results for a fault downstream from the fuse. This method is very limited. It can only be used for systems with particular configurations.

The IEEE 1584 CLF equations are only applied under the following conditions:

1. The system is radial. Multiple source systems are not allowed.

2. The system voltage must be 600 Volts or less.
3. The fuse class must be L & RK1 only.
4. The working distance must be 18 inch or higher
5. The bolted fault current values at the fault location downstream from the fuse must be within the range of the equations provided by IEEE 1584.

If any of the previous conditions are not met, then the program will not use the equations. By default the program will attempt to use the peak let-through curves for class L &
RK1 first. If they are not available, then the fuse TCCs will be used to determine the fuse fault clearing time. The following image shows a radial system with some motor loads
connected.

The IEEE 1584 equations do not have any provisions or do not account for fault current contributions from motor loads downstream from the fuse. To determine this energy, the
program determines the portion of the current which comes from the motor loads and adjusts the energy from the motor loads based on the portion of the energy from the
source.

ETAP does not know the fault clearing time (equations do not predict this) and thus the energy from the motors is calculated based on the ratio of the motor contribution and the
total fault current.

The following equations are used to determine the additional energy from the motor current:

Let:

Ibfuse be the current passing through the fuse

Ibftotal be the total fault current at the point of the fault
Efinal be the final incident energy including the motor contribution

Note: For IEEE 1584-2018, the program only applies the IEEE equations if the electrode configuration is set to VCB and VOA. This is because Annex H of this version of the standard
has added additional explanation/clarification on the application of these equations.

Overall Logic for Current Limiting Fuse Operation

The following diagram describes the logic used to determine the fault clearing time for current limiting fuses. This logic has been designed to transition between methods if curves
are not available or if the parameters are not applicable based on the selected method.

The following logic flow diagram describes how the program determines the CLF operating time based on the options selected in the Clearing Time page of the Arc Flash study
case.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 62 of 91

Modeling Zone Selective Interlock (ZSI) and Light Detecting Relays

The ETAP Arc Flash program has a couple of different methods which can be used to model the incident energy mitigation benefits of zone interlock protection and light detecting
relays. The simulation of these mitigation methods can be accomplished by using one of the following functions:

1. User-defined FCT (Fault Clearing Time)

2. Fixed FCT
3. By adding ZSI to the respective low-voltage circuit breakers, creating the ZSI wiring and enabling the “Consider ZSI” option from the arc-flash study case “Clearing Time”
page.

Modeling the zone selective interlock protection for a zone as described in the image below would require communication between each trip unit so that the first upstream
device can interrupt with any delays introduced for selective coordination purposes.

The circuit breakers on Bus-Level 1 and Bus-Level2 would be restrained is located at in the Bus-Level 3 zone. Effectively, the fault clearing time for a fault at each location would
become a definite time which can be set to a couple of cycles (the manufacturer should indicate what is the communication time and the actual breaker operating time). The
combination of both times should be used as the definite operating time or fault clearing time (FCT).

Using the User-Defined FCT Method

The definite time can be defined at each bus by entering the user-defined time and then selecting to use the user-defined FCT option from the arc flash FCT page. The images
below illustrate this process.

Bus Arc Flash Page: User Defined FCT AF Study Case Clearing Time Tab: User Defined from Bus Editor

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 63 of 91

Using the Fixed FCT Method

The definite time can be defined at each bus by entering the user-defined time and then checking the fixed FCT option. This will accomplish the same operation as the previously
described method, except that other locations can still be set for automatic determination of the fault clearing time. The image below shows the selections which must be made:

Bus Arc Flash Page: Fixed FCT AF Study Case Clearing Time Tab: Auto Select Source PD

The Fixed FCT method is preferable in most cases. The light detecting relays can be modeled using the same techniques as described above. Both light detecting relays and ZSIP
schemes will be modeled as direct components in the one-line diagram in future versions of the program. For now their incident energy mitigation effect can be easily modeled
using the techniques described in this section.

The image below shows the results with a 3 cycle fault clearing time for a fault at each of the buses. As can be seen the incident energy has been calculated based on the definite
time. No automatic selection of source protective devices has been done.

Note: The results for the an arc fault on the line side of the main circuit breakers “CB Zone 3” and “CB Zone 2” should be determined by adding a node in between the cable and
the breaker and also fixing the FCT at the node with the required fault clearing time.

Please note that when these methods are used, it means that the arc fault current is enough to trip the devices in its instantaneous operation and that the current magnitude is
higher than the short-time pickup of the devices. The proper magnitude of the arcing current should be checked against the device settings to make sure the ZSIP operates as
designed.

Using the “Consider ZSI” Option from AF Clearing Time Page (preferred option)
Starting with ETAP 19.5.0, a new option to model ZSI has been added to the arc-flash program. The “Consider ZSI” option activates the ZSI and ZSI wiring scheme for LV circuit

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 64 of 91

breakers which include this capability. This option provides a quick example of how this capability is used in arc-flash simulations. The following image shows a low-voltage
switchgear with two breakers which will be configured with the ZSI options.

The following image shows the TCC settings for both breakers. Notice that no ZSI capabilities have been enabled. The instantaneous setting for the main breaker “M_PB” has been
disabled to allow for selective coordination for faults below the load breakers (e.g. fault downstream from “MC_FD1”).

The following image shows the the ZSI options being enabled in breakers “M_PB” and MC_FD1”. Note that the ZSI wiring is not displayed graphically but is indicated via the wiring
options.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 65 of 91

The following image shows the restrain signal wiring diagram.

The following image shows the new TCC settings after enabling the ZSI capabilities. Notice the ZSI curves are included. M_PB ZSI short time delay is 0.250 which allows for
coordination. The instantaneous protection of M_PB has also been enabled since the restrain signal from MC-FD1 prevents it from tripping on instantaneous.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 66 of 91

The result in incident energy mitigation results before and after adding ZSI are shown below:

Before Enabling ZSI: Note that the incident energy at BusC is 12 cal/cm2 or higher. The lack of instantaneous protection because if the intentional coordination delay causes a
0.33 sec opening time for the breaker to de-energize a bus arc-flash.

After Enabling ZSI: Note that the incident energy at BusC is 2.325 cal/cm2. The addition of ZSi along with the instantaneous protection for M_PB has significantly reduced the
opening time for the breaker to de-energize a bus arc-flash (down to 0.05 sec).

The last image in this section shows the arc-flash sequence of events for a fault at “Bus10”. The restrain signal from MC_FD1 towards M_PB allows the 0.250 sec short-time ZSI
delay.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 67 of 91

Effect of Arc Resistant Switchgear in Arc Flash

The effect of arc-resistant switchgear (arc-proof) in arc flash calculations cannot be determined because all the models available assume direct exposure to the arc flash incident
energy. No barrier or closed door test models have been used to determine if the equipment has been properly sized.

The energy calculated by ETAP is the energy stored in the electrical circuit. That energy is a function of time, fault current and voltage. An Arc-Resistant Switchgear reduces the
amount of energy to which the person is exposed to. However, it does not reduce the electrical energy stored in the circuit.

The actual energy, to which the person is exposed to, needs to be obtained from the manufacturer. ETAP results can be used to determine if the kA cycle rating of the switchgear
is appropriate for the energy, which can be generated by the electrical system.

In conclusion, it is recommended to run arc flash analysis in the system to determine how much energy can be released by the electrical system. The calculated energy should be
compared against the rated value provided by the manufacturer. As mentioned before, this rating is typically given in kA cycles (combination of arcing current in kA and clearing
time in cycles).

Main Protective Device Isolation

This feature allows the arc flash program to consider that the main source protective devices may not be adequately isolated from the bus and may fail to operate or be capable
of de-energizing the arc fault before it escalates into a line-side arc fault.

The following wording was added in IEEE1584(b):

“It is important to realize that in evaluating the incident energy at an arcing fault location in the system, the protective device upstream from the point of the fault must be
considered. An integral “main” overcurrent protective device may be considered in the calculation if it is adequately isolated from the bus to prevent escalation to a line-side fault.
When the integral main overcurrent protective device is not adequately isolated from the bus, the upstream protective device must be considered as protecting the main and bus.”

Note: ETAP considers by default that panelboards and MCCs are equipment types where the main protective device isolation may be an issue. This was the original wording of the
modification in IEEE 1584(b). This is the reason why ETAP has left those two types of equipment with possible main PD isolation conditions. However, each equipment should be
evaluated for this condition and if it is determined that the main protective devices is properly isolated then the global or individual settings can be modified to indicate the
proper isolation from the bus and load side arc faults.

The following sections describe how the Main PD Isolation can be modified.

Main Protective Device is not Isolated: Individual (Bus Editor)

The following study case configurations will only look at each individual bus editors and check for the check-box option “Main PD” under the Rating tab of the Bus Editor:

Depending on the selection in the bus editor, the program will consider the protective device to be isolated or not when selecting the source protective device.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 68 of 91

Main Protective Device is not Isolated: Global Typical IEEE 1584

If the option in the study case Clearing Time page is to consider “Global Typical values” then the settings are taken from the Arc Flash Analysis Data editor (Project\Settings\Arc-
flash\Arc Flash Analysis Data). The main protective device isolations are fixed for buses based on voltage range and equipment type.

Main Protective Device is not Isolated: Global User-Defined

If the study case is configured to the global user-defined options, then the settings for the device main PD isolation are taken from the User-Defined values under Arc Flash
Analysis Data, accessible via Project Settings. The main protective device isolations can be customized for buses based on voltage range and equipment type.

The following rules and assumptions have been applied for this feature:

1. The main protective device isolation option only affects the results for a bus or load protective device arc fault (directly connected). It also affects load terminal arc fault
calculations if the load is directly connected (since the results for the directly connected load terminals are set the same as those of the connected bus). This option does
not affect load terminal arc fault calculations if an equipment cable has been assigned (i.e. there is an electrical distance between the cable and the main breaker)

2. If the Main PD is not isolated, then the program will not consider the first level (directly connected) source PDs as possible devices which can clear the fault.

3. Since the effect on the results can be considerable, there are some flags displayed in the arc flash result analyzer (AFRA). These flags indicate which locations were affected
by the main PD isolation assumption. The following table summarizes the flags which appear in the AFRA.

Main Protective Device Isolation Flags

AFRA Flag Conditions for setting the Main PD Isolation Flags
This flag is set to blank for a bus, load PD or load terminal (directly connected load) arc flash result
for the following conditions:
“Blank”
· The Main PD Isolation feature is not enabled (study case)
· The load has equipment cable
This flag is set for a bus, load PD or load terminal (directly connected load) arc flash result for the
following conditions:
“Main PD is Isolated”
· The Main PD Isolation feature is enabled (study case)
· The device Main Source PD is not Isolated
This flag is set for a bus, load PD or load terminal (directly connected load) arc flash result for the
following conditions:
“Main PD is not Isolated” · The Main PD Isolation feature is enabled (study case)
· The device Main Source PD is not Isolated
· The Isolation of the main PD does not affect the determination of the final FCT.
This flag is set for a bus, load PD or load terminal (directly connected load) arc flash result for the
following conditions:
“Main PD Isolation affects
· The Main PD Isolation feature is enabled (study case)
FCT”
· The device Main Source PD is not Isolated
· The Isolation of the main PD affects the determination of the final FCT.

The following images illustrate the concept of main protective device isolation. The electrical panel and corresponding one-line diagram representation are shown below. The
main breaker is not isolated from the load breakers and if the cover is removed, exposure to the load and line side of the main breaker is possible. The AF results for the bus
shown on the one-line do not consider the effect of main PD isolation.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 69 of 91

If the main PD isolation option is enabled and the panels are configured to consider this option, then the results for the bus arc flash results no longer consider the directly
connected main PDs “UPSTREAM CB” and “Panel 1B” as capable of limitng the energy at the panels. In this case, the source PD for Panel 1B becomes the “UPSTREAM CB” and the
source PD for the Main Swbrd becomes the “Primary Side Fuse”. The arc flash results for two panels after considering the main PD isolation option are displayed in the following
image:

Without the main PD isolation option, the results of the line side arc fault of the source protective devices had to be used for the bus as well. This feature is just one more way to
guarantee that the most conservative solution or arc flash scenario is considered for the calculation.

Running Device Duty before Arc Flash Analysis

The main objective of this feature is to determine if the bolted short-circuit current exceeds the device’s short-circuit ratings. If this occurs, it may be possible for the device to fail
at interrupting the arc fault.

The simulation cannot predict of the device will operate properly or not under arc flash current levels. ETAP assumes that all devices still operate as long as their trip units or
overcurrent protection indicates that they should; however, the program generates a list of alerts which are displayed in the alert view window and in the arc flash result analyzer.

It is recommended to always perform a full short-circuit device duty evaluation using the regular device duty calculation. The intention of running this additional device duty
calculation ahead of the arc flash analysis is to provide a backup check on the short-circuit ratings of each device connected to a faulted location.

Note: The practical application of this option should be only done under the scenarios which tend to yield the highest bolted fault current values. It is also recommended to apply

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 70 of 91

all impedance tolerances as negative in order to produce higher fault currents.

The arc flash program applies this option using the following logic:

1. When the checkbox “Run Device Duty Calculation before Arc Flash” is checked, the program runs a device duty calculation before arc flash.

2. If the option “Apply Pos. Tolerance and Max. Temp. for ANSI Min. Short-Circuit & Arc Flash” is checked on the Adjustments tab of the short-circuit study case editor, then
the “Run Device Duty before Arc Flash” option will be hidden and disabled. This is done to prevent running device duty calculation with non-conservative fault currents.
This option should be unchecked from the adjustments page before being able to run the device duty calculation.

3. The device duty evaluation is performed in the same manner as if it were performed separately (by clicking on the first icon on the short-circuit toolbar). The device duty
evaluation can be used with ½ cycle, 1.5 to 4 cycle, 1-Phase, and IEC arc flash methods. If the decay method is enabled, then the “Run Device Duty before Arc Flash” option
will be hidden and disabled.

4. The device duty alerts can be accessed through the alert view window. The alert view window will show both the arc flash and device duty alerts.

5. The arc flash result analyzer is capable of displaying the device duty alerts. Select the “Device Duty Alerts” filter (Filter Results by section) and click on the Device Duty Alert
field in the Results section (lower right hand side corner of the AFRA).

The following flow diagram describes the overall logic of this feature by means of a flow chart diagram.

The following images show the Alert View window and the Arc Flash Result Analyzer with device duty alerts. The Alert View window can be accessed from the Arc Flash toolbar.
To access the device duty alerts from the AFRA, select the settings as displayed in the AFRA image below.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 71 of 91

Logic for Determining the System Grounding (IEEE 1584-2002 only)

The arc flash calculation can automatically determine the grounding configuration of the faulted buses if this option is selected from the arc flash page of the Short-Circuit Study
Case editor. IEEE 1584-2002 indicates that the factor K2 (used for the calculation of the incident energy) is zero for ungrounded or low/high resistance grounded systems and -
0.113 for grounded systems (solidly grounded). The incident energy is higher when the system is determined to be ungrounded.

In other words: High, Low, Delta and Open-Wye systems are all considered to be ungrounded configurations according to the rules described in section 5.3 or IEEE1584 2002. Only
solidly grounded systems will be considered as grounded.

ETAP uses the following rules to determine if an element is grounded or ungrounded:

l If there is any device like a transformer or voltage source (generator or power grid) that is solidly grounded, then the bus will be considered grounded.

l If the system only has low/high resistance grounding connections, then it is considered ungrounded unless there is at least one path that is solidly grounded. (See the
figure below.)

l If the system is wye-open or delta connected, then the Arc Flash module will determine this bus to be ungrounded.

Important! Note: The motor grounding connection cannot be considered as the only solidly grounded source for a bus. Only transformer or voltage sources are considered as
solid grounding points.

There may be some situations under which ETAP determines that the bus is ungrounded, but it may actually be connected to a solidly grounded transformer. This situation may
happen around transformers that are solidly grounded on one side and resistor or reactor grounded on the other side.

Calculating Incident Energy for PDs

ETAP Arc Flash calculates the incident energy once the arcing current, the FCT and the system grounding configurations have been determined. The module yields the incident
energy results for the bus and individual protective devices.

The main goal of the Arc Flash module is to provide you with flexibility to determine the correct calculation of the incident energy. Even for individual cubicles (PDs), the module
will assume the worst-case scenario.

The worst possible arc fault at a PD occurs at the input side of the PD (line side or side facing the feeder). In this case, the PD itself cannot clear the fault, and it must be cleared by

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 72 of 91

a typically slower operating feeder PD upstream in the system.

For example, the figure below indicates the worst-case fault.

The upstream breaker will clear the fault in this case. The current used to determine the incident energy for the PD will be either the maximum through fault current or the total
bus fault current depending on the selection on the Arc Flash page of the Short-Circuit Study Case.

If there are multiple sources, the module will take the longest device operating time as the FCT used to calculate the incident energy.

The energy of source protective devices is calculated based on the first upstream device that can clear the fault. If multiple source PDs are connected to the faulted bus, ETAP will
use the longest opening time of from the different source PDs, to calculate the energy. Load PD incident energy is always determined based on the calculated bus FCT.

Calculating Incident Energy for Tie-PDs

Implementation based on the IEEE 1584-2002 Method (ETAP 18.1.1. and prior)
Tie protective devices require special handling for most calculation situations. In arc flash a tie-pd requires special handling because of the equipment type. The equipment type is
specified in the Bus Rating Page - Type section. The special handling is required when the equipment type specified is different for each bus across a tie-pd.

The arc flash program checks tie-pds and determines if their connected buses have different equipment types. If this is the case then a flag is set. The flag or warning indicates
that there faulted buses with tie protective devices which have different equipment types across.

The program is designed to report the highest incident energy for a fault across either side of the tie-pd. This can be observed in the image above. The image on the left shows the
arc flash results for the tie-pd “CB14” to be the same as those for the buses on either side. This is because the equipment type is the same for both sides. The image on the right
shows the incident energy for the tie-pd to be the same as that of Bus8 (the highest value). This is because the equipment type (MCC – 50 mm) causes a higher incident energy
release.

Note: It is recommended to have the same equipment type across tie protective devices. Specifying different equipment types may yield different arc flash results for faults on
either side (especially if only one side is faulted).

The result for CB14 may be different if only one of the buses was faulted (in the case of image on the right) and the equipment types are different.

The need to use the tie-pd may arise when the connecting cable or impedance between the two different pieces of equipment is small. However, for arc flash analysis
representing the small cable impedance will indicate to which equipment the protective device belongs. This is what cannot be easily determined if the impedance is neglected
and the equipment types are different.

The program will provide some warning conditions when this condition is present. A warning flag for this condition can be displayed in the Arc Flash Result Analyzer by accessing
the “Tie-PD Bus Types” field from the “Results” section. The following image shows how to access this field:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 73 of 91

Please note that the flag indicates that the equipment types are different across the protective device “CB14”. Please see all the highlighted fields in the image above.

Implementation Based on IEEE 1584-2018

The handling of tie-PDS when running arc-flash with the IEEE 1584-2018 method is similar to that of the IEEE 1584-2002 method when there are no enclosures defined. With the
introduction of the enclosures in ETAP 19.0.0, there is no longer a problem with indicating actual parameters for the location which contains the tie-PD.

The idea is now much simpler, first the tie-PD should be defined under one bus. Once the tie-PD enclosure has been created for a bus, the same tie-PD cannot be added to
another enclosure. Since the tie-PD is only associated and defined with one enclosure, there is no ambiguity related to its input settings.

Just like when there is no enclosures defined, a sequence-of-operation can be placed on the tie-PD. The sequence of operation will now follow the enclosure settings instead of
using the “From Bus” settings as is the case in ETAP 18.1.1 or when there are no enclosures defined.

Incident Energy Level Determination

2
The incident energy level is determined by comparing the calculated incident energy in cal/cm against the ranges specified in the “Incident Energy Levels” editor. The selection
depends on the option selected in the “Parameters” page of the arc flash study case editor.

ETAP gives the option of defining your own incident energy levels. You can define up to 10 levels, but in the majority of the cases it proves impractical to define more than three
levels.

The Incident Energy Levels editor can be accessed from the Project menu by pointing to Settings – Arc Flash and selecting the option as displayed below:

The Incident Energy Levels editor appears as follows:

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 74 of 91

The incident energy levels window has the following sections:

1. Standard: which includes the four pre-defined PPE requirements as described in NFPA 70E 2000, 2004, and 2009 and a user-definable set of descriptions (NFPA 70E
2012~2021).

2. PPE (Personal Protective Equipment): where you can specify the personal protective equipment list for each level.

3. Disclaimer section: Where you can enter text that can be used as a disclaimer about the Arc Flash Analysis results that are printed on a label

NFPA 70E-2000 Incident Energy Levels

These ranges are listed on Table 3-2.9.3 of NFPA 70E-2000.

Incident Energy Levels based on NFPA 70E 2000

Incident Energy Level
Exposure cal/cm2
0 < cal/cm <1.2
2
0
5 > cal/cm2³ 1.2 1
8 > cal/cm2³ 5 2
25> cal/cm2³ 8 3
40 > cal/cm2³ 25 4
cal/cm2> 40 N/A

NFPA 70E-2004 Incident Energy Levels

These ranges are listed on Table 130.7 (c)(11) of NFPA 70E –2004.

Incident Energy Levels based on NFPA 70E 2004

Incident Energy Level
Exposure cal/cm2
0 < cal/cm <2.0
2
0
4 > cal/cm2³ 2.0 1
8 > cal/cm2³ 4 2
25> cal/cm2³ 8 3
40 > cal/cm2³ 25 4
cal/cm2> 40 N/A

NFPA 70E-2009 Incident Energy Levels

These ranges are listed on Table 130.7 (c)(11) of NFPA 70E –2009.

Incident Energy Levels based on NFPA 70E 2009

Incident Energy Level
Exposure cal/cm2
0 < cal/cm <1.2
2
0
4 > cal/cm2³ 1.2 1
8 > cal/cm2³ 4 2
25> cal/cm2³ 8 3
40 > cal/cm2³ 25 4
cal/cm2> 40 N/A

User-Defined Incident Energy Levels

The User-Defined levels are interpreted by the Arc Flash module as described in the following table:

User Defined Incident Energy Levels

Level Range (example) Defaults

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 75 of 91

0 0 < cal/cm2<C0 2
1 C1 > cal/cm2³ C0 4
2 C2 > cal/cm2³ C1 8
3 C3> cal/cm2³ C2 25
4 C4 > cal/cm2³ C3 40
5 C5 > cal/cm2³ C4 100
6 C6> cal/cm2³ C5 120
7 C7> cal/cm2³ C6 0
8 C8> cal/cm2³ C7 0
9 C9> cal/cm2³ C8 0

The level ranges are always from low values to higher values. For example, this means that the level 4 value cannot be equal to or higher than the value in level 3. This is true for
all the levels.

th th
If any level (6, 7, 8, and 9) is left as zero, the module ignores it and uses the 5 level for any value higher than the maximum value in the 5 level. This will also apply if level 6 is
the last one and 7, 8, and 9 are left as zero. You cannot skip a level.

The incident energy levels editor has the following properties and behavior:

a. The NFPA 70E 2000, NFPA 70E 2004 and NFPA 70E 2009 Incident energy ranges are not customizable and follow the definitions published by NFPA 70E Standards. The only
items that can be customized are the list of PPE equipment (requirements) for each level. This is an old design which has been used in previous versions of the program.
b. If you select the User-Defined Values option, then the Level ID fields become editable and you can define a name for the each level, which can be composed of up to 12
alphanumeric characters (i.e., a Level0 or Level1, etc.).
2
c. If you select the User-Defined Values option, the Incident Energy range fields become editable you may type the different limits in cal/cm .
d. You have the option to type in some text for a disclaimer statement. This disclaimer statement may appear in some selected label templates. This field holds up to 250
alphanumeric characters.
e. You have the ability to create a user-defined text field, which may be used to type in custom information (such as engineering company name and address). This
information is included in certain label templates or is stored in the output report database. This field holds up to 125 alphanumeric characters.
f. You may navigate using the scroll arrows allows you browse the different PPE descriptions for each level.
g. There are four sets of PPE descriptions. One for each of the options “NFPA 70E 2000” (5 descriptions), “NFPA 70E 2004” (5 descriptions), “NFPA 70E 2009” (5 descriptions),
and one for the “User-Defined/AF Analysis” (10 descriptions. The description fields hold up to 250 alphanumeric characters.

The PPE Requirements window has some default descriptions based on the simplified Two-Category Level PPE system published in Table F-1 of NFPA 70E 2000 and Annex H of
NFPA 70E 2004 and 2009.

Note: The following descriptions are provided only as examples of PPE requirement descriptions as described by NFPA 70E Standards. These descriptions are not
recommendations made by ETAP on how to protect personnel from arc flash or shock hazards. Please exercise caution in applying these descriptions and follow all the remaining
recommendations made in the PPE matrix tables provided in NFPA 70E 2000, 2004, and 2009.

In previous versions of ETAP the incident energy levels were defined as incident energy categories. For the purpose of keeping older projects or versions compatible, the word
category is maintained and still used for the 2000, 2004 and 2009 sets of energy levels.

Note: Starting with NFPA 70E 2012, that a new set of PPE descriptions specifically designed to be used with for arc flash analysis has been approved and added. It is important to
understand that the energy levels or “categories” as they used to be called in previous versions are nothing more than a method of sorting incident energy results and do not
imply that the table method from NFPA 70e is being used. These ranges have been used in the past versions of ETAP as a method of rationalizing or analyzing the incident energy
found at different locations in the system. It was convenient to use the incident energy breakdown from the table method of NFPA 70E as a starting range to sort or present the
incident energy results.

Also, the PPE requirements in the past have been defaulted using the simplified two level clothing system of annex H (2000 ~ 2009). This PPE description is the closest set of PPE
requirements which can be adapted to an arc flash analysis study. In fact, the new annex H.3 in NFPA 70E 2012 is similar in the way the incident energy levels have been created
except that the breakdown between Level 1 and Level 2 is done at 12 cal/cm2 instead of at 8. Clarifications added to NFPA 70E 2012 in annex H.3 can help the user in the selection
of PPE based on arc flash analysis results.

Furthermore, in ETAP 14.0.0 a new set of PPE description has been added. Annex H.3(b) from NFPA 70E 2015 is incorporated as an option in the “Incident Energy Levels” PPE
description section.

Default PPE Descriptions based NFPA 70E 2000, 2004 & 2009 and for User-Defined

Level Default
NFPA 70E 2000 Category0 Non-melting or untreated natural fiber long-
(Table F-1 Simplified , Two- sleeve shirt and long pants
Category Flame Resistant Category1 FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum ATPV of 5) worn
Clothing System) over an untreated cotton T-shirt with FR pants
(minimum ATPV of 8)
Category2 FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum ATPV of 5) worn
over untreated cotton T-shirt with FR pants
(minimum ATPV of 8)
Category3 Double-layer FR flash jacket and FR bib overalls
worn over either FR coveralls (minimum ATPV of
5) or FR long-sleeve shirt and FR pants (min
ATPV of 5), worn over untreated natural fiber
long-sleeve shirt and pants, worn over an
untreated cotton T-shirt.
Category4 Double-layer FR flash jacket and FR bib overalls
worn over either FR coveralls (minimum ATPV of
5) or FR long-sleeve shirt and FR pants (min
ATPV of 5), worn over untreated natural fiber
long-sleeve shirt and pants, worn over an
untreated cotton T-shirt.

NFPA 70E 2004 Category0 Non-melting or untreated natural fiber long-

(Annex H Simplified, Two- sleeve shirt and long pants.
Category, Flame Resistant Category1 FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum arc rating of 4)
(FR) Clothing System) worn over untreated cotton t-shirt with FR pants
(minimum arc rating of 8).
Category2 FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum arc rating of 4)
worn over untreated cotton t-shirt with FR pants

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 76 of 91

(minimum arc rating of 8)

Category3 Multilayer FR flash jacket and FR bib overalls
(minimum arc rating of 4) or FR long-sleeve shirt
and FR pants (minimum arc rating of 4) worn
over untreated natural fiber long-sleeve shirt
and pants, worn over an untreated cotton t-
shirt.
Category4 Multilayer FR flash jacket and FR bib overalls
(minimum arc rating of 4) or FR long-sleeve shirt
and FR pants (minimum arc rating of 4) worn
over untreated natural fiber long-sleeve shirt
and pants, worn over an untreated cotton t-
shirt.

NFPA 70E 2009 Category 0 Non-melting or untreated natural fiber long-

(Annex H Simplified, Two- sleeve shirt, long pants, safety glasses, hearing
Category, Flame Resistant protection, and leather gloves
(FR) Clothing System) Category 1 FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum arc rating of 4),
worn over untreated cotton T-shirt with FR
pants (minimum arc rating of 8) or FR coveralls
(minimum arc rating of 8)
Category 2 FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum arc rating of 4),
worn over untreated cotton T-shirt with FR
pants (minimum arc rating of 8) or FR coveralls
(minimum arc rating of 8)
Category 3 A total clothing system consisting of FR shirt and
pants and/or FR coveralls and/or arc flash coat
and pants (clothing system minimum arc rating
of 4)
Category 4 A total clothing system consisting of FR shirt and
pants and/or FR coveralls and/or arc flash coat
and pants (clothing system minimum arc rating
of 4)

User-defined Cat A Non-melting or untreated natural fiber long-

(You can define your own sleeve shirt and long pants.
incident energy limits and PPE Cat B FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum arc rating of 4)
descriptions; however NFPA worn over untreated cotton t-shirt with FR pants
only provides PPE (minimum arc rating of 8)
descriptions up to 40 Cat C FR long-sleeve shirt (minimum arc rating of 4)
worn over untreated cotton t-shirt with FR pants
cal/cm2 )
(minimum arc rating of 8)
Cat D Multilayer FR flash jacket and FR bib overalls
(minimum arc rating of 4) or FR long-sleeve shirt
and FR pants (minimum arc rating of 4) worn
over untreated natural fiber long-sleeve shirt
and pants, worn over an untreated cotton t-
shirt.
Cat E Multilayer FR flash jacket and FR bib overalls
(minimum arc rating of 4) or FR long-sleeve shirt
and FR pants (minimum arc rating of 4) worn
over untreated natural fiber long-sleeve shirt
and pants, worn over an untreated cotton t-
shirt.
Cat F “None available based on NFPA 70E”
Cat G “None available based on NFPA 70E”
Cat H “None available based on NFPA 70E”
Cat I “None available based on NFPA 70E”
Cat J “None available based on NFPA 70E”

Annex H.3(b) Level A ≤ Non-melting or untreated natural fiber for long

2 sleeve shirt and pants/coverall, Face shield for
NFPA 70E 2012 1.2 cal/cm
projectile protection, Safety glasses, Hearing
protection and Leather gloves.
Level B ≥ Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt and arc-rated pants
1.2 to 12 or arc-rated coverall and/or arc flash suit, Arc-
2 rated face shield, Arc rated jacket, Hard hat, FR
cal/cm
hard hat liner, Safety glasses, Hearing
protection, Leather gloves and Leather work
shoes.
Level C > Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt and arc-rated pants,
2 Arc-rated arc flash suit hood, Arc-rated gloves,
12 cal/cm
Arc-rated jacket, Hard hat, FR hard hat liner,
Safety glasses, Hearing protection, Arc-rated
gloves, Leather work shoes.
Level3 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level4 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level5 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level6 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level7 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level8 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level9 “Not defined in annex H.3”

Annex H.3(b) Level A ≤ Protective clothing, non-melting (in accordance

2 with ASTM F 1506) or untreated natural fiber for
NFPA 70E 2015 1.2 cal/cm
long sleeve shirt and pants/coverall, Face shield
for projectile protection, Safety glasses, Hearing
protection and Heavy-duty leather gloves.
Level B ≥ Arc-rated clothing and equipment with an arc
1.2 to 12 rating equal to or greater than the determined
incident energy. Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt and

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 77 of 91

2 arc-rated pants or arc-rated coverall or arc flash

cal/cm
suit, Arc-rated face shield, Arc-rated arc flash
suit hood, Arc-rated jacket, Hard hat, Arc-rated
hard hat liner, Safety glasses, Hearing
protection, Heavy duty leather gloves and
Leather footwear.
Level C > Arc-rated clothing and equipment with an arc
2 rating equal to or greater than the determined
12 cal/cm
incident energy. Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt and
arc-rated pants or arc-rated coverall and/or arc
flash suit, Arc-rated arc flash suit hood, Arc-
rated jacket, Hard hat, Arc-rated hard hat liner,
Safety glasses, Hearing protection, Arc-rated
leather gloves and Leather footwear.
Level3 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level4 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level5 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level6 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level7 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level8 “Not defined in annex H.3”
Level9 “Not defined in annex H.3”

Table 130.5(G) Level A ≤ Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt and arc-rated pants

2 or arc-rated coverall and/or arc flash suit, Arc-
NFPA 70E 2021 12 cal/cm
rated face shield, Arc-rated jacket, Hard hat,
Arc-rated hard hat liner, Safety glasses, Hearing
protection, Leather gloves and Leather
footwear.
Level B ≥ Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt and arc-rated pants,
12 to 40 Arc-rated arc flash suit hood, Arc-rated gloves,
2 Arc-rated jacket, Hard hat, FR hard hat liner,
cal/cm
Safety glasses, Hearing protection, Arc-rated
gloves with Leather footwear.
Level3 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”
Level4 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”
Level5 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”
Level6 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”
Level7 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”
Level8 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”
Level9 “Not defined in Table 130.5(G)”

Annex H.2 Level A ≤ Arc-rated long-sleeve shirt with Arc-rated pants

2 (minimum arc rating of 8) or Arc-rated coveralls
NFPA 70E 2021 8 cal/cm
(minimum arc rating of 8).
Level B ≥ Changes in equipment settings or system
8 to 40 configuration will invalidate the calculated
2 values and PPE requirements which may result
cal/cm
in a hazardous condition.
Level3 “Not defined in Annex H.2”
Level4 “Not defined in Annex H.2”
Level5 “Not defined in Annex H.2”
Level6 “Not defined in Annex H.2”
Level7 “Not defined in Annex H.2”
Level8 “Not defined in Annex H.2”
Level9 “Not defined in Annex H.2”

Note: The default values can be fully customized by simply typing in the new description in the PPE Requirements Levels for PPE description fields for each set of categories.

PPE Approval
The PPE requirements must be approved prior to printing any reports or printing arc flash labels. For this reason, starting with ETAP11, an approval checkbox has been added to
raise the awareness towards the review and approval of the PPE which will be reported.

The PPE requirements can be approved from the PPE Requirements editor by clicking on the “Approve PPE” button. The following message window appears:

Logic for PPE Approval:

l Once the PPE Requirements have been approved, the message window closes, and the PPE requirements become display only (read-only). This is done to prevent further
changes or undesired PPE requirements once the approval has been done. If modifications are needed then the PPE approval box should be unchecked.
l If the PPE requirements have not been approved, the arc flash calculation will not write them into the output reports or label databases.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 78 of 91

Additional PPE Notifications

The new warning message appears as a reminder to use the latest version of the NFPA 70E available from the study case. The following is the logic for the warning message

l If an arc flash calculation is executed with the PPE requirements set to something other than the latest, then the following window will appear.

l This message will not affect the logic of the PPE Requirements. It is only a notification alert. Setting the NFPA PPE Requirements to the latest version will not prompt the
window.

Arcing Current & Incident Energy Correction Factors (IEEE 1584-2002 only)
The arc current and incident energy correction factors can be used to account for the effect of equipment configurations not included in IEEE 1584-2002. The configurations
included in both IEEE and NFPA 70E standards are VCB (vertical conductors in a box) and VOA (vertical conductors in open air). With the help of correction factors a higher/lower
arc current and incident energy can be simulated for configurations like VCBB, HCB and HOA.

The following table illustrates the configurations which can be applied in ETAP 14.0.0. The selections have to be made from the Bus Rating page.

Selection of Equipment Type and Conductor Configurations from Bus Rating Page:
Conductor Conductor
Configuration Equipment Type
Orientation Termination
Other, MCC, Switchgear,
VCB Switchboard, Switchrack, Vertical Open Tips
Panelboard, Cable Bus
Other, MCC, Switchgear,
Insulating
VCBB Switchboard, Switchrack, Vertical
Barrier
Panelboard, Cable Bus
VOA Open Air Vertical Open Tips*
Other, MCC, Switchgear,
HCB Switchboard, Switchrack, Horizontal Open Tips*
Panelboard, Cable Bus
HOA Open Air Horizontal Open Tips*

Note: The program still handles the selection of Insulating Barrier for the conductor termination as VOA or HCB and HOA (i.e. VOAB, HCBB & HOAB are not included in ETAP). If
any of these configurations is present, then use different correction factors for VOA, HCBB & HOAB.

As an example, the image below shows how a HCB configuration would be selected from the bus rating page.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 79 of 91

The correction factors for each of the configurations described above are applied by means of special ETAPS.ini entries. The entries can be placed in the scenarios or in the
ETAPS.ini; however it is recommended to apply them by means of the ETAPS.ini (global options applied whenever ETAP is opened).

The arc current correction factor entry should be placed under the [AppVariables] section of the ETAPS.ini file:

UserDefinedIarcCfFactor= 1.0|1.0|1.0|1.0|1.0
UserDefinedIarcCfFactorMV= 1.0|1.0|1.0|1.0|1.0

The incident energy correction factor entry should be placed under the [AppVariables] section of the ETAPS.ini file:

UserDefinedCfFactor= 1.5| 1.5| 1.5| 1.5|1.5

UserDefinedCfFactorMV= 1.0| 1.0|1.0|1.0|1.0

The order of the correction factors for both arc current and incident energy is VCB, VCBB, VOA, HCB & HOA.

Furthermore, it can be observed that there are a total of four entries. This allows the flexibility of specifying different correction factors for low voltage and medium voltage
systems. The breakdown for MV is when the bus nominal voltage is > 1.0 kV. The two entries whose description includes “MV” identify the medium voltage correction factor
entries. The remaining two entries identify the low voltage correction factors.

The entries are displayed with default correction factors (same as defaults in IEEE 1584-2002). Note that the correction factors used will affect all the calculations in ETAP arc flash
as long as the entries are placed through the ETAPS.INI file. ETAP must be closed and re-opened for the correction factors to take effect. This means that the correction factors will
be used in the “Bus Editor Arc Flash Calculations”, will be used in the Arc Flash Incident Energy TCC plots, and also will be used in any global or individual calculation.

The correction factors are displayed as output values in the arc flash result analyzer (AFRA). To see the correction factors used, open the AFRA and select the result fields as shown
in the image below:

Selection of the Arc Current and Incident Energy Correction Factors (IEEE 1584-2002 only)
Any correction factor needs to be applied with especial engineering assumptions that are outside the scope of the current arc flash standards available as of 2015. There is no
guideline on how to select these correction factors other than a few IEEE papers and white papers published on the subject of how to handle additional equipment configurations
in arc flash incident energy calculations.

A list of “some” of the IEEE papers which deal with the subject are given below:

l “Effect of Electrode Orientation in Arc Flash Testing” – IEEE 40th IAS Meeting – 2005 pp 459-465

l “Effect of Insulating Barriers in Arc Flash Testing” IEEE PCIC- 2006 Paper PCIC-2006-06

l “Impact of Arc Flash Events with Outward Convective Flows on Worker Protection Strategies”, Paper No. ESW2010-11

It is recommended that the users exercise caution and consider the effect of the correction factors before applying them.

From “Effect of Insulating Barrier in Arc Flash Testing” we can gather that the VCBB configuration arcing current in average would be higher than its VCB counterpart by about
20%. The testing in this paper was done in low voltage systems with about 235 tests at 0.208, 0.250, 0.480 and 0.6 kV.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 80 of 91

From the same tests it was observed that the incident energy increased about 31% for all tests (all voltage levels combined). However, the higher voltage tests at 0.480 kV showed
an increase of 49% and at 0.6 kV the increase in incident energy was measured as 86%.

From “Impact of Arc Flash Events with Outward Convective Flows on Worker Protection Strategies” a correction factor of 2.0 is recommended for low voltage VCBB configurations
and a correction factor or 3.0 is recommended for low voltage HCB type equipment. The arc current in HCB configurations was estimated to be lower than that of VCB
configurations by about 15%. With arc current variation included, the HCB current could be as low as 70% of the 100% VCB arc current.

None of the papers above include medium voltage tests (>1000 V). However, in medium voltage systems the variation on arc current is a much smaller factor and it can be
considered to not have a significant effect. Perhaps in MV systems it may be advisable to use a 5% correction factor for HCB and HOA configurations. No correction factor may be
needed for VCBB.

Based on the information above the following could be used as an initial set of correction factors which should lead to a more conservative set of incident energy results:

UserDefinedIarcCfFactor= 1.0|1.2|1.0|0.7~0.85|1.1~1.2
UserDefinedIarcCfFactorMV= 1.0|1.0|1.0|0.95|1.0~1.05

UserDefinedCfFactor= 1.5| 2.0| 1.5| 3.0~4.5|2.5~3.0

UserDefinedCfFactorMV= 1.0| 2.0|1.0|3.0~4.5|2.5~3.0

Where the order is VCB, VCBB, VOA, HCB, & HOA

Note1:
The HCB Iarc correction factors in LV, the value could range between 0.7~0.85. The correction factor for LV & MV HCB could be between 3.0~4.5.

Note 2:
The incident current correction factors for HOA are assumed to be similar to those of HCB; however slightly lower incident energy correction factors are suggested because of the
open air configuration. Do note that the VOA equation is used as reference for VOA so the correction factor for current is higher than 1.0.

Important: The correction factors recommended above are to be used as an initial value. Actual values should be applied based on the best engineering judgment and based on
the interpretation of the research work on additional test configurations presented in the reference technical papers. The correction factors presented here are only initial values
but should yield more conservative results than just simply assuming all equipment is configured VCB and VOA configurations.

Application Notes on Arc Current and Incident Energy Correction Factors (IEEE 1584-2002 only)
This section discusses some important information on how ETAP arc flash applies the corrections factors which can be entered into the program.

Individual Enclosure / Location

ETAP arc flash assumes that all enclosures have the same conductor / electrode orientation and termination. Once the orientation and termination are selected from the bus
“rating” page, then the program determines the results for all location (source and load PDs) based on the same configuration. This may not be the case in actual equipment and
ETAP is working add individual location configurations in a future release.

Load Terminal Arc Flash Analysis

For load terminals, ETAP uses only VCB or VOA correction factors (i.e. if user specifies then as different from what was recommended in IEEE 1584-2002). In the future, ETAP will
add specific locations, orientation and termination to each load terminal as well.

For now ETAP only uses either VCB or VOA as defined from Tools\Options (Preferences) \ Arc Flash \ Load Terminal Arc Fault Equipment Type.

Arc Flash Analysis Look-up Table

ETAP only uses default correction factors and configurations as described in IEEE 1584-2002 in the calculations presented in the “Arc Flash Analysis Look-up Table” report. In other
words, the correction factors for current or incident energy are not used to generate this table. These factors may be used in this table in a future release of the program.

TCC Incident Energy Curves

ETAP only uses the correction factors in the TCC incident energy curves if they were entered into the ETAPS.ini file and ETAP is closed and re-opened with those entries in place. If
the entries are placed in the “Preferences/Ini File” section of the Scenario Wizard, then the correction factors are applied only to the simulation executed from this tool.

Calculation Warnings for IEEE 1584-2018

The following table summarizes the warnings which the program produces related to the limits on the range of the input parameters of the IEEE 1584 2018 model. A flag or set of
flags are printed to the “Calc Method Limits” field in the Arc Flash analyzer.

Under some conditions the calculation is halted. Under some others, the calculation continues using the parameter rage extension. Analysis was performed by ETAP Arc-Flash
designers to determine if the calculation could be extended or halted. The following information presents some special conditions where ETAP Arc-Flash either proceeds with the

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 81 of 91

IEEE 1584-2018 method, switches to alternative methods or actually halts the calculation.

1. If V is greater than 0.6 kV and the fault current is larger than 65kA:
a. For 65 kA < Ibf ≤ 120 kA:
ETAP proceeds with the calculation using the IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message which indicates the condition “Ibf >65 kA”.
b. When Ibf > 120 kA, ETAP AF switches to Lee method and the AFRA still lists the same warning message “Ibf > 65 kA”
2. If the voltage is greater than 0.6kV and Ibf is less than 0.2kA
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message to indicate the condition “Ibf < 0.2kA”.
3. If V is ≤ 0.6 kV and Ibf < 0.5kA
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy based on IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message to indicate the condition “Ibf < 0.5kA”.
4. If V ≤ 0.6 kV and Ibf > 106 kA:
a. When 106 kA < Ibf ≤ 200 kA:
ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 and provides a warning message “Ibf > 106 kA”.
b. Ibf > 200 kA:
ETAP switches to Lee method and the AFRA lists the following Warning “Ibf > 106 kA”
5. If V is greater than 15 kV,
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the Lee Method and provides a warning message “Voc > 15kV"
6. If Voc is less than 0.208 kV,
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584 - 2018 method and provides a warning message “Voc < 0.208kV”
7. If Voc > 0.6 kV and the Gap > 254 mm:
a. When 254 mm < Gap ≤ 2000 mm:
ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message “Gap > 254 mm”.
b. If the Gap > 2000 mm:
ETAP switches to Lee method and the AFRA lists the following Warning “Gap > 254 mm”
8. If Voc ≤ 0.6 kV and Gap > 3 in (77 mm):
a. When 77 mm < Gap ≤ 305 mm:
ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 method provides a warning message “Gap > 77 mm”.
b. If Gap > 305 mm:
ETAP switches to Lee method and the AFRA lists the following Warning “Gap > 77 mm”
9. If Voc ≤ 0.6 kV and Gap < 0.25 in (6 mm),
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message “Gap < 6mm”
10. If Voc > 0.6 kV and Gap < 0.75 in (19 mm),
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message “Gap < 19mm”
11. If the box width (mm) is less than 4*Gap (mm) :
a. ETAP AF calculates the incident energy using the IEEE 1584-2018 method and provides a warning message “Width < 4*Gap”

The warning messages are displayed in the arc flash result analyzer as shown below.

The field “Calc. Method Limits” contains the warning condition flags.

Capacitor Stored Energy Hazard Evaluation

This section provides information on the methodology used by ETAP arc-flash to evaluate the different hazards associated with capacitor stored energy. This section focuses on
thermal incident energy, arc blast and shock hazards. The arc-flash hazards are evaluated according to Annex R of NFPA 70E 2021. The safe discharge voltage and discharge time
evaluation are performed according to the NFPA 70E and other standards as well.

There are two configurations under which the capacitor hazards are evaluated. The first is when the capacitor is disconnected from its power supply, but it is fully charged. This
condition is evaluated based on the capacitor's stored energy. Under this configuration, the program provides results for arc-flash thermal and blast hazards along with the
capacitor discharge time and voltage for shock protection. The second configuration is when the capacitor is connected to its power supply and is fully energized. Its stored

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 82 of 91

energy is evaluated as part of the total arc-flash energy. Under the second configuration, the capacitor energy is evaluated for arc-flash incident energy and its energy is
accounted for at locations away from the capacitor itself (i.e. its energy can discharge into arc faults in nearby locations).

The arc-flash program provides results for the capacitor stored energy hazards when a load terminal enclosure has been defined. Evaluation of the capacitor stored energy
hazards can be performed as well on an individual basis from the capacitor editor. The rating page of the capacitor editor contains a link to a capacitor hazard evaluation
calculator.

The following sections provide information on how the capacitor stored energy hazards are evaluated. For more details on the equations, please refer to Annex R of NFPA 70E
2021.

Arc-Flash Incident Energy and Arc-Flash Boundary

The capacitor stored energy is relatively small when compared to the total energy delivered by transformers, generators, inverters, utility sources, etc., etc. It is also non-
continuous and decaying. The energy in the capacitor dissipates relatively fast in the event of an arc-flash because of the relatively small resistance of the arc. However, large
capacitor banks can hold significant energy to generate arc-flash hazards. As of ETAP 20, ETAP arc-flash has not included this energy as part of the total incident energy calculated
for arc-flash in a bus, source PD line side, load PD load side or load terminal. However, starting with ETAP 20.5 ETAP arc-flash will consider the thermal hazards of capacitors as
part of the arc-flash evaluation in two different ways.

Capacitor is Disconnected from its Source and is fully Energized

Under this condition, the capacitor stored energy is determined according to equation R.8.2 of NFPA 70E 2021. For open-air configurations, the incident energy and arc-flash
boundary are determined using R.9.1b and R.9.2a. The incident energy and arc-flash boundary for enclosed configurations are determined using equations R.9.2b and R.9.2c.
Please refer to NFPA 70E 2021 Annex R for details on the equations.

Capacitor is Connected to its Source and is fully Energized

Under this condition, the capacitor stored energy is determined according to equation R.8.2 of NFPA 70E 2021. For open-air configurations, the incident energy is determined
using equation R.9.1b. The incident energy for enclosed configurations is determined using equation R.9.2b. The arc-flash boundary is not determined using NFPA 70E equations
R.9.2a and R.9.2c. Instead, the arc-flash boundary is determined as part of the overall incident energy calculation within the context of the selected method (IEEE 1584-2018 or
ArcFault).
The equations for calculating the incident energy and arc-flash boundary mentioned before are:

Hearing Protection Boundary

An arc-flash event may produce arc-blast hazards. Capacitor current can discharge very rapidly and under such conditions, there could be a shockwave which can cause harm to a
person in the vicinity of the capacitor. The hearing protection boundary or ear rupture boundary is determined according to equation R.10.1a. It is determined based on the total
stored capacitor energy. The units for Rear is cm. The unit for E is Joules.

Lung Protection Boundary

The lungs can be damaged by the quick capacitor discharge current and its accompanying shockwave. The lungs can be damaged with pressure waves of more than 200
kilopascals (29 psi). Equation R.10.1b is used to determine the lung protection boundary. This boundary is also determined based on the total stored capacitor energy. The units
for Rlung is cm. The unit for E is Joules.

Capacitor Discharge Time and Voltage

The capacitor discharge time and voltage are evaluated according to section N R.12. of NFPA 70E 2021. Other standards are used as well as described in section 18.17.3. Equation
R.12.3a and R.12.3b are used to determine the discharge time constant τ and discharge time Td accordingly. Vd is the safe discharge voltage which varies according to the
standard requirements and Vp is the peak capacitor voltage. R and C are the discharge resistance and the capacitance of the portion of the capacitor bank being discharged.

Capacitor Stored Energy in the Overall Arc-Flash Incident Energy

Starting with ETAP 20.5, the capacitor stored energy is considered as part of the arc-flash incident energy calculation. The IEEE 1584-2018 and ArcFault calculations can account
for the capacitor stored energy when the option to consider the capacitor stored energy is selected from the method page of the arc-flash study case. The image below shows the
option.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 83 of 91

To calculate the capacitor discharge time and stored energy arc-flash hazards, it is necessary to define the capacitor load terminal enclosure (i.e. the enclosures must be defined
for the equipment). The following system can be used as an example. There are distributed capacitors at buses “Bus 1-Level Away” and “Bus 2-Level Away”. Enclosures have been
defined for Bus “Swgr. A”. The results show the incident energy without the option to consider the capacitor energy unselected.

The following image shows the results of the same system with the option to consider the capacitor energy enabled. As can be observed the incident energy difference is about
0.272 cal/cm2 for a total of 15 Mvar of capacitor banks distributed on all buses.

The enclosure editor for capacitor Cap1 has been defined as shown in the images below. Both the Configuration and Parameters tabs are shown with the input parameters.

As mentioned before, since the enclosure editor has been defined for the capacitor as a “load Terminal” type, then the program also calculates the capacitor stored energy
hazards. The following image shows a Datablock which contains the discharge energy results for capacitor “Cap1”. The results include the incident energy, arc-flash boundary,
hearing and lung protection boundaries, etc., etc.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 84 of 91

Bus Levels Away to Search for Capacitors

The arc-flash program only considers capacitors within a search zone which is specified by an entry in the Options\Preferences\Arc Flash section. The name of the entry is “Levels
Away to search for Capacitor”. Its default value is equal to 3 levels away. The maximum value is 50 levels away. The Options (Preferences) setting is highlighted in the image
below.

Please note that 1-Phase capacitors within the search zone mentioned above will not be considered. This will be added in a future release of ETAP.

The following image shows an example of the search zone when the entry is set to its minimum value of 1 level away. Notice that the incident energy is 5.412 cal/cm2 since the
search zone only includes Cap1 and Cap2.

If the Levels Away to Search for Capacitors entry is increased to 2, then capacitor “Cap3” is included in the search zone. The incident energy then increases to 5.503 cal/cm2.

The determination of the energy contributed by the capacitors is conservative since the program assumes that the entire energy of the capacitor is discharged towards the fault
location. In real life, this may not be the case, in particular for capacitors located at further electrical distance locations. The impedance between the capacitor and the fault
location will limit the energy flow into the faulted location.

Note: When determining the number of levels away for capacitors if the capacitor has an equipment cable this will not increase the number of levels away from the fault location.
For example in the Figure above for a fault on “Swgr A” if “Cap3” were to have an equipment cable this capacitor is still considered to be 2 levels away from “Swgr A”. In other
words, if “Cap3” were to have an equipment cable this does not mean it is now three levels away from bus “Swgr A”. Additionally the effect of the stored energy of nearby
capacitors will not considered if the fault location is analyzed using the IEEE 1584 CLF equations.

The contribution of these three capacitors could be estimated by simply opening the capacitor energy hazard evaluation calculator. The following image shows the calculator
when launched from the Cap1 rating page.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 85 of 91

Notice that the incident energy is 0.091 cal/cm2. Since there are three capacitor banks within the 2-level search zone, the total incident energy contribution of the capacitors is
approximately three times this value or 0.273 cal/cm2. This is in agreement with the value calculated by the global arc-flash calculation.

Reporting of Capacitor Stored Energy Hazard Evaluation Result Reporting

The capacitor stored energy hazard evaluation results are reported in several formats. The formats include one-line diagram datablocks, arc-flash results analyzers, crystal reports,
labels and excel reports. The reporting of the results is very flexible. This section shows some of the reporting capabilities for these results.

Datablocks
The capacitor stored energy hazard evaluation results can be displayed on the one-line diagram by means of Datablocks. The Datablock contains “result” type fields which when
selected in a Datablock template allow the display of the results on the OLD. The following image shows some of these fields.

The Datablock results for the Datablock template shown above are provided in the following image.

Note the Datablock results for the capacitor energy hazard evaluation may also be populated from the result analyzer.

Arc-Flash Result Analyzer

The results of the capacitor energy hazard evaluation are also in the analyzer. To show the results, enable the display of the load terminal results and select the corresponding
fields as shown in the image below.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 86 of 91

The arc-flash result analyzer provides the following fields.

Table 1 – Capacitor Energy Hazard Evaluation Result Fields in the Arc-Flash Result Analyzer (AFRA)

Units
Field Description
English Metric
Cap. Peak Voltage Capacitor peak voltage determined based on capacitor kV kV
connection
Cap. Discharge Method The method used to discharge the capacitor. Discharge N/A N/A
resistance across all capacitors in one phase or discharge
resistor across each individual capacitor within a bank
Discharge R Discharge resistance kohm kohm
Cap. Discharge Time Capacitor discharge time in minutes and seconds Min-sec Min-sec
Capacitor E Total capacitor stored energy kJ kJ
HPB Hearing (ear rupture) protection boundary in feet and inch ft-in m
LPB Lung (collapse) protection boundary in feet and inch ft-in m
Cap. Discharge I.E. Arc-Flash Incident energy determined based on total cal/cm2 cal/cm2
capacitor stored energy
Cap. Discharge AFB Arc-Flash Boundary based on total capacitor stored energy ft-in m

The results from the AFRA can be exported to MS Excel or be sent to Datablocks by simply pressing the Update Datablock button within the AFRA.

Capacitor Hazards Labels

Warning or hazard labels can be created for capacitor evaluation results. The process of creating labels is explained in detail in section 18.11 of this chapter. To generate standard
or custom capacitor hazard labels all that is needed is to highlight the results, select the type of label (standard or custom), select the template, and generate the labels.

For more information on capacitor hazard labels please refer to section 18.17.4. The following images illustrate the process of creating labels from the arc-flash results. The first
image shows the AFRA with the selected results.

The next image shows what happens when you select the custom label option.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 87 of 91

The following image shows the selection of the template for generating the capacitor hazard labels.

The following image shows the selected template after it is loaded in MS Word (custom label template).

The following image shows the results of performing a “Finish & Merge” operation from the mailings options in MS Word.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 88 of 91

Arc Flash Plots

This section shows the calculation methodology for each available plot, the scope of the study, general warnings, etc. The plot view is shown in the figure below:

The plots are based on IEEE 1584-2018 standard and the voltage range between 0.208kV to 15 kV, respectively. The program gives a warning message and does not generate plots
beyond this specified range.

The incident energy plots for the arc duration are calculated based on the transient bolted fault current decaying over time resulting in the accumulation of incident energy as a
function of transient current and time, respectively. This approach provides closer results of incident energy while accounting for the decay of current based on the behavior of
the generator. IEEE 1584-2018 standard is based on symmetrical bolted fault current and accounting for current decay is mentioned in section 6.4. However, details to perform
the analysis are not provided, and therefore implementation details are up to each supplier.

Incident Energy vs Working Distance

This plot provides a quick determination of the incident energy vs working distance and arc duration. The working distance and clearing time range are user-defined. This feature
eliminates several simulations in ETAP to obtain similar results. Another benefit of this plot is that it provides incident energy results for multiple working distances. For example,
while modeling remote racking conditions or any other situation the electrical worker is changing working distance with relevance to the assigned work, this section of the plot
helps to give a spectrum of incident energy for a working distance range and FCT.
The following image below shows an example of the plot and its range.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 89 of 91

In this example, there are 5 sets of time based on the entered FCT range starting from 0.2 seconds to 2 seconds with a 0.5 second step increase. The X-axis also includes the
working distance incrementing from 18 inches to 36 inches with a 1-inch step interval to get the corresponding incident energy for the given FCT range. The tooltip option
highlights a calculated IE for a sample WD and FCT, respectively.

Incident Energy vs AFB and EC

This section of the plot view shows the calculation of arc flash boundary with respect to different levels of incident energy and corresponding Electrode Configurations (EC). The
actual equipment can have multiple electrode configurations and calculating arc flash boundary with multiple configurations can be time-consuming. This plot provides the ability
to define Energy Boundaries (EBs) up to 6 values of incident energy to calculate boundary distance to wear certain personal protective equipment (PPE) levels. The plot displays
the calculated arc flash boundary for all 5 available Ecs and for a range of different Incident energy level threshold values to determine the appropriate personal protective
equipment (PPE). The Plot view of the Incident Energy vs AFB (Arc Flash Boundary) and Electrode Configuration (EC) is shown below:

The above example calculates AFB for each IE value and Electrode configuration entry then displays the AFB for the specified range of IE levels. The sample tooltip shows AFB =
11.6 inches for an HCB at IE = 40 cal/cm² respectively.

Fault Current vs Time

This section of the plot view displays a spectrum of fault current calculated based on the transient characteristics of a synchronous machine. This method is validated with ETAP
and determines the RMS value of Ibf(t) after the fault initiation. From the application point of view, a user can get a clear and accurate value of incident energy using this transient
fault current compared to the symmetrical Ibf calculated at half-cycle using the IEEE 1584-2018 standard. The behavior of this transient current in the event of an arc fault is
available in section 6.4 of the standard but there is no mention to follow a specific methodology. The Ibf(t) can be closely computed using the equations mentioned in section
12.3.3.1 from IEEE std 242 (The Buff Book) or section A3 of IEEE C37.013 or IEC-61363-1 standard. This simulation can help determine the magnitude of current at each cycle of
the FCT visually which can be a good reference to choose the right protective device for determining the incident energy using ETAP.

The decay of the fault current vs time option shows three different plots based on the input data entered in the plot view tab for the current and arc duration. The image below
shows the short-circuit calculation of Ibf(t), Iarc (t) and Iarc- fixed for the given arc duration.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 90 of 91

The calculation of the total asymmetrical transient Ibf(t) is based on the IEC-61363 calculation. The total Ibf(t) is the sum of the generator’s AC symmetrical and DC decay based on
the time constants and reactance values calculated in the standard (For more details, refer to the Chapter 15 Transient Short-Circuit Calculation section). The import option from
the plot view tab is used to directly import the Ibf(t) from ETAP for a given faulted bus. Ibf(t) for this feature is based on the RMS value after the fault is initiated but not the peak
kA and it is calculated from equations (2) and (9) of the IEC-61363-1 standard.

The parameters to compute the transient current are entered in the image below. The description of each Transient current parameter is available in the AC Arc Flash Calculator
(Plot Settings Tab) section respectively.

The calculation of Iarc(t) is based on Ibf(t) for a given FCT range (sec). The Total Iarc (fixed) is calculated based on the symmetrical Ibf at t =0. In other words, the Iarc in the results
section of the 1584-2018 power calculator will give the same result as the plot for Ibf at t =0 sec.

Incident Energy vs Arc Duration

This plot displays the calculated incident energy based on transient fault current and fixed symmetrical Ibf (Half Cycle) from the IEEEE 1584-2018 standard. The plots calculate the
increase in the energy accumulation and determine the right choice of PPE based on the calculated incident energy from both options IE - Fixed Initial Ibf and IE - decaying Ibf
respectively. The energy accumulation is based on the following equation below

The calculation of incident energy is based on the arc currents calculated from the previous section. The following image shows the calculation sample and the process,
respectively.

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024
Calculation Methods - Arc Flash Page 91 of 91

The Total Transient IE(t) is calculated based on Ibf(t) obtained from transient current parameters input of the plot view. Once the Iarc(t) is calculated, the incident energy uses
other parameters entered in the input section of the power calculator such as electrode configuration, working distance, enclosure dimensions, etc. The total IE (fixed initial) is
based on Iarc-Fixed results and uses the same parameters for energy calculation.

Arc Flash Analysis

AC Arc Flash Mode
Bus Editor
Study Case Editor
Display Options
Running Arc Flash Analysis
Arc Flash Sequence of Operation
Calculation Methodology
Required Data
Alerts
Arc Flash Report
Arc Flash Result Analyzer
Enclosure Editor
AC Arc Flash Calculator
DGUV-I 203-077 AF Calculator
Arc-Flash Auto Evaluation
Capacitor Energy Hazards Calculator
Bibliography

mk:@MSITStore:C:\ETAP%202102\Etaps.chm::/Calculation_Methodology.htm 08/05/2024