IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO.

4, JULY/AUGUST 2020 3297

Arc Flash Pressure and Door Ejection Measurement

Hugh Hoagland , Senior Member, IEEE, Claude Maurice, Andrew Haines, and André Maurice

Abstract—The effects of arc blast pressures have been theorized
for about years, but the direct effect on workers has been less stud-
ied. A search of the literature gives no satisfactory quantification
for hazard assessment [1]. Most articles to date with any worker
focus have measured or predicted noise levels for auditory damage,
but there is still no consensus standard or unified method to predict
the pressure or thermoacoustic blast created by an arc. In a 2016
article, on the effect of copper and steel vapor, the authors also
looked at the speed of an ejected door; however, that article did not
address additional buildup of pressure should the door be affixed,
as real doors are [1]. This article presents the results of affixing
the door with both light and heavy gauge hardware as suggested in
Crawford–Clark–Doughty [2]. These represent two different levels
of shear strength to assess the effect of allowing pressure to build on
the face of the door. Additionally, an impact plate and a load cell are
used to measure the actual force from the ejected door to estimate
the effect on a human worker. More work will need to be done
to develop an arc blast assessment model, but the measurements
obtained by these experiments may lead toward a productive means
to develop one. Although the authors know of only one fatality [2]
and a few injuries from arc blast, it is important to understand if,
and when, severe injuries could occur. And with the removal of the
40 cal/cm2 limit to arc flash exposure in the 2018 NFPA 70E—since
the committee correctly understood that incident energy has no
correlation to arc blast [3]—it is also important to determine where
a limit might be needed for worker safety, and what fault current
and containment size could be dangerous until most equipment is
arc resistant.
Index Terms—Arc blast, arc blast pressure, arc flash hazard
assessment and work practices, arc flash pressure wave, door
ejection from arc blast, door ejection from arc flash, physical
method to measure arc blast.
I. INTRODUCTION
UR experiment was designed to offer practical guidance
O on work practices and safety standards. Arc flash has
been gaining recognition, but arc blast is little understood as
far as worker hazard is concerned. The 2021 NFPA 70E still
incorrectly cites the 67 000X expansion of copper as one of
the primary causes of arc blast, contrary to published literature.
Manuscript received January 28, 2019; revised August 14, 2019; accepted
November 6, 2019. Date of publication May 11, 2020; date of current version
July 1, 2020. Paper 2019-ESafC-0066.R1, presented at the 2019 IEEE IAS
Electrical Safety Workshop, Jacksonville, FL, USA, Mar. 4–Mar. 8, 2019, and
approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICA-
TIONS by the Electrical Safety Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications
Society. (Corresponding author: Hugh Hoagland.)
Hugh Hoagland is with ArcWear.com, Louisville, KY 40223 USA (e-mail:
hugh@arcwear.com).
Claude Maurice, Andrew Haines, and André Maurice are with Kinectrics,
Toronto, ON M8Z5G5, Canada (e-mail: claude.maurice@kinectrics.com;
andrew.haines@kinectrics.com; andre.maurice@kinectrics.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online
at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2020.2994183
OSHA 1910.269, ASTM arc flash test standards, NFPA 70E,
and IEEE 1584 [4] incident energy predictions have accelerated
the understanding of arc flash thermal effects. However, the
arc blast pressure hazard has not received the same level of
study. IEEE 1584 did not include arc blast pressure in their
hazard assessment model because published papers had limited
practical application other than in equipment design which led
to arc resistant switchgear and motor control centers (MCCs).
Another reason IEEE 1584 did not address arc blast pressure
was that anecdotally there were very few serious injuries. Ralph
Lee’s seminal paper introducing arc blast pressure as a potential
worker hazard [5] used a “peak power pressure model” which
the author’s previous paper found overpredictive [1]. The Lee
paper was valuable in raising the question about the hazard, but
this model did not receive standard acceptance because of the
dissonance between its calculated values and experience.
II. DOOR EJECTION MODEL
Crawford–Clark–Doughty [2] proposed an equation to predict
pressure rise due to faults. Their article provides insight into the
arc blast behavior from two cited sources of work on switchgear
from which they derived the following formula [2]:
2N U It
P = (1)
V
where
P pressure in atmospheric gauge,
t duration of arc in seconds,
N number of arcs,
U voltage drop per arc in kV,
I arc current in kA,
V volume of enclosure in m3 [2].
A comparison of calculated pressures using this formula to
measure pressure during our experiments is presented as follows.
Crawford–Clark–Doughty also offered an equation for burst-
ing pressure on a door with specific pins.
0.015SN [(20t) − 1.0]
P = (2)
AB
where
P covers bursting pressure in lb/in2 ,
S shear strength of box material in lb/in2 ,
t box wall thickness in inches,
N number of cover fastening screws,
A length of cover plate in inches,
B width of cover plate in inches.

0093-9994 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3298
Equation (2) is only valid for 0.25 in-20 UNC carbon steel
screws, which are commonly used in this application [2].
These tests work toward that missing piece to predict the
energy delivered from door ejection to a worker.
III. EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
In a previous article [1], the effect of arc blast pressure on
doors not affixed to an enclosure was studied to measure the
effect of an ejected door on a worker. One critique of that
study was that door displacement without any attachment to the
enclosure is not realistic to measure the effect on a worker of an
ejected door. For this investigation, several potential methods to
affix the door were evaluated that would allow pressure to build
before ejection. Two different shear strength pins (a bolt and
a screw) were chosen as discussed below. Three fault current
levels were chosen to expand the previous experiment’s scope
and to evaluate door force transferred to a load cell via an impact
plate. A filler box was incorporated to see the effect of reducing
the interior volume of the box to simulate electrical components
present in electrical equipment.
Since work using pressure sensors has failed to characterize
the arc blast pressure in a usable manner, we considered a
physical measurement option to correlate sensor data and offer
this article to further understanding of the behavior. We sought
practical application to enhance training and to assist in hazard
assessment with a straightforward approach.
A. General Test Description
The enclosure represents a motor control cabinet with a vol-
ume of 0.131 m3 (Fig. 3).
Main enclosure: 6-mm thick welded carbon steel enclosure,
with open front for the removable panel. Approximately 500 mm
(20 in) cube (0.131 m3 ). 25 mm (1”) heavy gauge square tube
welded all around the open front served as a door frame.
Horizontal electrode: entry from the back, 19 mm (3/4 in)
copper, 50 mm (2 in) gap extending 75 mm (3 in) into the box,
center height.
Transducers for pressure measurement: Two 100-psi trans-
ducers were installed in the box, one mounted near the front
opening top panel and the other on the side wall. Both transduc-
ers tracked within 1 PSI throughout the experiments.
Filler box: A 2.778-mm (12 ga.) thick steel panel welded,
overall dimensions 0.35 × 0.35 × 0.25 m (0.031 m3 ),
(14” × 14” × 10”). The arc was generated in the space behind the
filler box. The filler box represents, collectively, various metal
panels and parts that would be in the direct path or vicinity of
the arc. These parts (circuit breaker, contactors, relays, wiring,
etc.) reduce the volume of the box but also would absorb some
of the energy in the first few cycles and deflect thermal energy
(obstruction from arc location at the back of the enclosure to
the front panel). The energy absorbed by the enclosure and
metal/plastic parts may be significant in lower fault current
levels, and in the first few cycles when the initial blast pressure
may rupture the door.
Front cover: 2.778-mm (12 gauge) steel panel with folded
edge on all sides to reinforce panel and provide a good fit to
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2020
the enclosure square tube frame. Two holes were drilled on
each side of the panel into the enclosure frame to accept the
shear pins. Area = 0.258 m2 (400 in2 ), Mass of panel = 8 kg
(17.5 lbs).
The authors believe that to measure the effect on a worker from
an ejected door without affixing the door to the enclosure such
as by bolting or hinging (as performed in [1]) is not realistic, two
different shear strength pins (a bolt and a screw) were chosen
to affix the door. Metal vaporization has been found to be of
little effect on the initial arc blast pressure wave [1]. Three fault
current levels were chosen to expand the previous experiment’s
scope and to evaluate door ejection force to a load cell via an
impact plate.
Electrical parameters: The testing was performed on a single
phase set up at 2400-V potential difference between the phase
and ground. The electrodes were set up in an ejected format
and were ¾ in stainless steel electrodes for minimizing the
smoke. See previous article for the effect of electrodes in this
configuration [1].
B. Experiment #1 Clamped Door Measuring Pressure
The purpose of this experiment was to measure the internal
pressure generated with an arc in an enclosure to establish a
basis for comparison and check against pressure equations from
other articles. See [1] for setup. For these tests, a steel panel was
used in place of a hinged door. The panel was firmly clamped to
prevent being ejected and to minimize pressure leakage.
A variation of this experiment was to perform some arc
tests with a firmly clamped panel but with a reduced volume
of the main enclosure to simulate insertion of an MCC bucket.
The reduced volume is attained by installing a metal box inside
the enclosure (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3). The lower volume tests in
Table I are the tests with the insert.
The results of the clamped door are displayed in Table I.
When a larger enclosure is filled with various components,
the overall volume of air is reduced, which should yield a higher
pressure.
The panel was mounted to the front of the arc enclosure as
shown in Figs. 1, 3, and 4 (see also [1]). C-clamps were used
to secure the panel in place. The work focused on lower fault
levels such as 4 and 8 kA for one cycle. One test was done with a
duration of three cycles to observe the pressure relationship with
time (predicted to be 3X) but due to the difficulty in obtaining a
good seal, these results show only a 2X increase in pressure.
The results were used to calculate the peak force on the panel.
The measured pressure (P1) at the top of the enclosure agreed
with previous work performed and followed the linear relation-
ship to energy input, but the pressure was lower than predicted by
the simple equation from the Crawford paper. When a filler box
was placed inside the enclosure, reducing the enclosure volume
by 25%, the increase in pressure was minimal compared to the
full volume.
Four of the variables used to calculate the pressure in an
enclosure (1) are related to the total energy released by the arc.
The equation can be used to quickly estimate the pressure based
on forecasted parameters (in hazard analysis, for example).
HOAGLAND et al.: ARC FLASH PRESSURE AND DOOR EJECTION MEASUREMENT
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF RESULTS WITH CLAMPED COVER
The results of the equation predict higher pressure than the
authors measured experimentally. One cause of overestimating
the pressure is the use of rms values for arc voltage and current;
it is an error to use the rms values and total duration for this
equation. In laboratory settings or when postfault analysis can
be done using actual waveforms, a more accurate value can be
obtained by determining the energy released in the enclosure.
This is done by calculating the instantaneous power (Pt) and
obtaining the arc energy as shown in (2) and (3).
p (t) = v (t) ∗ i (t)
 t
e (t) = p (t) ∗ dt.
0 2.1 kg. Given that carbon steel has a specific heat of 0.49 kJ/(kg
Thus, we used a modified Crawford equation as discussed in
the previous article [1].
P = 2 ∗ E/V
where
P is pressure in atmosphere gauge,
E is total energy released in the enclosure (including all phases)
in MJ (megajoules).
V is volume of enclosures in cubic meters.
The Crawford equation is simple and the authors did not
intend for it to account for the other factors that influence the
relationship between released arc energy and pressure in an
enclosure. The modified equation (4) is an adjustment over
the original equation presented in the Crawford paper when
the actual energy can be determined in post analysis. With this
adjustment, the predicted pressure is still much higher than the
measured values.
Other factors may cause the lower pressure as follows:
1) Limitation in the pressure transducer response time.
2) Placement in the enclosure.
3) Instrumentation limitations.
4) Pressure loss due to leakage at the door interface.
5) Percentage of arc energy radiated and lost to enclosure,
from vaporizing the electrode material, from light, and
from sound. The process of converting arc energy to pres-
sure is not a lossless process and more complex equations
are needed to more fully predict an accurate value.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3299
C. Experiment 2: Clamped Door With Filler Box and
Reduced Volume
The error in calculated pressure by not accounting for internal
content is evident in the tests with the filler box. The placement
of the metal box is shown in Fig. 1. The box was placed at
the front near the front panel, leaving open space near the arc.
Although the volume was reduced by 25%, there was very little
increase in pressure. It is speculated that there was loss of total
energy due to the metal panel being placed in front of the arc.
(3) This would have changed the energy balance.
For example, the face of the inner box directly in the path
(4) of the arc measured 0.093 m3 (14” × 10”) with a mass of
K), it would take approximately 1 kJ of energy for every degree
rise in the steel panel. After the test, the arc facing panel of the
inner box was found to be very warm (an increase of 10–15 °C).
(5)
This account for approximately 1/3 of the energy released by
the arc and supports the measurement and reasoning as to why
the predicted increased pressure was not observed.
D. Experiment #3 Door Restraint
To restrain the front panel and delay the point where the panel
is propelled forward, shear pins were used. A shear joint was
selected for ease of installation and repeatability. A shear joint
has the applied load at right angles to the fastener axis and when
sufficient opposing force is applied between the two materials
the fastener or pin will deform and eventually cut. In actual MCC
cabinets, there may be a variety of different types of fasteners
such as machine screws and rivets. Some may be in shear while
others may be in tensile loading.
Three conditions of door restraint were used: 1) no restraining,
2) light gauge screws, 3) heavy gauge bolts. In these experiments,
the panel was to be explosively propelled outward when the shear
point of the restraint was reached.
Selection of shear pins: Based on results of experiment 1, the
peak force on the door was used to select shear pins. Shear pins
were a means to allow pressure to build up prior to release. Two
different capacities of shear pins were selected to hold the door
back and release in a predictable manner and within the range
of the test parameters. If the shear pin was too strong, the entire
3300 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2020

front panel might buckle and deform before the shear pins broke.
A third condition was performing the test with no shear pins.
It is also known that very high fault levels such as those above
20 kA will destroy a standard MCC door and cabinet. At high
fault levels and longer durations, the effect is so destructive that
the results are much harder to analyze. The experiment at lower
levels helps to separate the mechanical from the thermal effects
and to draw attention to the potential hazard from relatively low
and short duration faults for which some MCC cabinets or panel
boards are not adequately designed.
Because of availability and ease of use, standard machine
screws were used as shear pins. Unlike tensile and yield
strengths, there are no published shear strength values or require- Fig. 1. Enclosure for Testing.
ments for machine screws. As an empirical guide, shear strengths
of carbon steel fasteners may be assumed to be approximately
60% of their specified minimum tensile strengths. The screw
and shear strength details, respectively, are provided at the sites
as follows:
http://www.fasnetdirect.com/refguide/
Machinescrewthreads.pdf
http://www.portlandbolt.com/technical/faqs/bolt-shear-
strength-considerations/
Holes were drilled into the side of the door’s folded edge
to align with the holes in the frame. The screws fit snugly
into the holes to restrict movement prior to shear. To have a
more predictable and repeatable shear point, the machine screws
were not tightened in place. This would create a frictional force
between the joint members and the shear force would have to Fig. 2. Setup with door and impact plate covered with AR fabric.
overcome this friction, which could be more than the shear
strength of the fastener itself.
Shear pins used:
#1: #10-32NF steel machine screw: Tensile 1200 lbs, shear
720 lbs (60%), instantaneous peak force to shear #10–32 pins:
720 × 4 = 2880 lbs (12.8 kN).
#2: ¼-20 NC steel machine screw: Tensile 1900 lbs, shear
1140 lbs (60%), instantaneous peak force to shear #1/4-20 pins:
1140 × 4 = 4560 lbs (20.3 kN).
Four shear pins were used for each test, two on each side. Test
results of peak force on the door and shear of the pins correlated
very well in the tests performed.
Impact plate: An impact plate with a load cell was placed at
450 mm (∼18”) to record the impact force of the door.
A rigid frame with back bracing was constructed to mount a
load cell and impact plate. The load cell had a full-scale limit Fig. 3. Box with door and impact plate in place.
of 4500 kg (10 000 lbs.). The load cell was connected to the
excitation bridge amplifier and the analog output was recorded
on a waveform recorder along with arc voltage, current, and plate. A small hole was drilled on the side of the arc enclosure to
pressure transducer readings. have visual confirmation of arc initiation. The number of frames
The impact plate was the same size and weight as the front was counted to determine the point at which the pin sheared,
panel and positioned 450 mm (18”) from the front panel at the and the panel started to move forward. A photo of the setup with
same elevation. A photo of the frame and impact plate is shown cameras and covered load cell impact plate is shown in Fig. 5.
in Figs. 2 and 3. For the test, the panel was covered with a The following values were determined from the acquired data:
thin paraaramid blanket to prevent the ejected arc plasma from 1) Time from arc initiation to movement of the front panel
energizing or developing a charge on the plate and load cell. (from HS camera) in ms.
Trajectory of panel: The path followed by the front panel was 2) Time from arc initiation to impact on the load cell in ms.
observed by a high-speed camera at 1000 fps. The camera was 3) Arc current in A rms.
positioned to see the edge of the arc enclosure and the impact 4) Arc voltage in V rms.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
HOAGLAND et al.: ARC FLASH PRESSURE AND DOOR EJECTION MEASUREMENT
Fig. 4. Door attachment points pretest.
Fig. 5. Full setup with HS cameras.
5) Duration of arc in ms.
6) Peak pressure inside the enclosure (psi).
7) Peak impact force (kg).
The following values were calculated:
1) Arc energy by sum of instantaneous power in kJ.
2) Peak force applied to the door from load cell in kN.
3) Travel time of the door, ms (T initial movement to T
impact).
4) Average speed of the door, m/s (distance/travel time).
It was observed that in some tests the shear of the pins occurred
nearly simultaneously, resulting in a level, even ejecting of the
door. The door traveled to the impact plate in a straight line and
impacted the load cell squarely. This resulted in a higher peak
impact force.
In other tests, the pins on one side sheared before the other side
and the door was released on an angle. In these cases, the door hit
the impact plate on one side first and several milliseconds later
on the other, resulting in a much lower peak impact force. For
this analysis, only the first impact was evaluated; the duration
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3301
of the secondary impacts and oscillations was not considered in
the impact energy.
A summary of the data is shown below. All of the following
tests were performed with an enclosure volume of 0.131 m3 (no
filler box).
E. Observations From Data
With unrestrained panel (no shear pins), the following condi-
tions hold:
1) The panel started to move in 7 ms (less than ½ cycle).
2) At 43 ms, the panel reached the impact plate located
0.45 m away (18”).
3) Longer duration fault (three cycles) did not contribute
energy to move the panel at a higher speed.
4) In a 7 kA, one cycle fault, average speed measured was
12.7 m/s (28.4 mph), resulting in an impact force of ap-
proximately 2400 kg-force (5300 lbf) over a 0.45 m2 area.
With the panel restrained with shear pin #1 (four #10-32
screws), the following conditions hold:
1) The panel was withheld for an additional 3 ms compared
to an unrestrained panel (10–11 ms).
2) Hardware sheared and panel started to move within one
cycle.
3) At 7 kA, three cycle, the longer duration fault did not
contribute energy to move the panel at higher speed.
4) At higher fault level (15 and 19 kA), the energy delivered
from one cycle was much higher. The panel did not start
to move sooner but the travel time to the impact zone was
shorter. The higher speed resulted in a higher impact force.
5) At 19.2 kA, one cycle fault, average speed measured
over 32 m/s (70 mph), resulting in an impact force of
approximately 4650 kg force (10,000 lbf) over a 0.45 m2
area.
With the panel restrained with shear pin #2 (four #1/4-20
screws), the following conditions hold:
1) At 8 kA, one cycle, the panel was restrained, pins did not
shear. Panel deformed and pressure released around the
door.
2) At 10 kA, one cycle, the panel held in place for 16 ms, then
the pin sheared, and the panel was ejected at an average
speed of over 17 m/s.
At 20.9 kA, one cycle, the panel held in place for 11 ms, then
the pin sheared, and the panel was ejected at an average speed of
over 32 m/s (70 mph). The peak impact force recorded was lower
than with the smaller pin. Examination of the HS video shows
the door was not square on impact in the three tests performed.
The door angle varied between 20° and 45° (zero being flat door
impact).
There are many factors that can be considered to quantify the
force of an impact by an object as follows:
Speed (m/s).
Size and weight.
Shape.
Contact area.
Point of application.
Plane of application.
3302 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2020

TABLE II
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR PINS

Notes for Table 2:

1
Movement of panel was determined by HS video record.
2
Time to impact was determined from waveform, arc initiation to signal from load cell.
3
Peak impact force was determined from load cell signal. Load cell was on rigid frame with impact plate same size and mass as ejected door.
4
Average speed was calculated from Δ time from when panel started to move to reaching the impact load cell at a distance of 0.46 m (18 in). Speed just prior to impact
may be higher.
5
The impact angle was estimated from the HS video. The impact angle of the moving panel with reference to the stationary panel will change the impact surface area,
zone and how quickly the panel comes to a rest. The Impulse force is less severe if the time to bring the panel to a rest is extended. An impact angle of less than 5 degrees
was considered “flat” and delivered the highest impact force.

Fig. 6. 110 kg mannequin (with water in base).

When the arc blast was initiated, the door was propelled
outward on the occasions that the pressure exceeded the shear
strength of the bolts or screws. The door impacted the plate
and the load cell measured the impact force on the impact plate
in the location of 0.45 m (18 in) from the door (common NFPA
70E and IEEE 1584 working distance for arc flash calculations).
The displacement of the door was also measured using two
high-speed cameras at the time interval of the recording. The
instantaneous speed and acceleration of the door was calculated
to allow a comparison from the arc initiation time to the load cell
impact time. This was used for confirmation and to offer further
data to our previous study [1]. The arc duration was set to one
and three electrical cycles to observe the effect of the arcing vs.
the arcing with time. The results are in Table II.
F. Experiment #4 Ejected Door With Mannequin
The third set of experiments replaced the fixed impact plate
and load cell with a mannequin. The lifelike mannequin selected
is a weighted training body form (commercially available as
Century Bob) as shown in Fig. 6. The base was filled with
approximately 110 kg (∼250 lb) of water. The mannequin was
adjusted to a height to have the chest at the same height as the
door.
Fig. 7. Weighted mannequin placed in front of arc enclosure with door.
The purpose of the mannequin was to provide the visual
impact of the severity of a typical panel being ejected toward a
worker in front of a panel. Three fault levels were used, nominal
5, 8, 16 kA with only one cycle of fault current. The enclosure
panel was restrained with #1 shear pins (#10-32 NF machine
screws).
The mannequin was dressed in common FR PPE and eye
protection as shown in Fig. 7. The data from the mannequin were
shown in the presentation at the conference and the following
comments are observational from this testing.
Comments on Mannequin Testing:
1) With fault currents of 4 and 7 kA (well under 10 kA) and
duration of one and three cycles, sufficient energy can be
released to create pressures of over 100 kPA (15 psi) inside
the enclosure tested.
2) An 8-kg door can be ejected in less than ½ cycle with as
little as 4 kA, one cycle in the test apparatus used. The
door can travel at speeds of over 10 m/s and have impact
force of thousands of kgf.
3) Mounting hardware such as door hinges and latches found
on nonarc resistant MCC cabinets and panel boards would

Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
HOAGLAND et al.: ARC FLASH PRESSURE AND DOOR EJECTION MEASUREMENT
offer some resistance to the pressure at low levels. Unless
the pressure caused by the fault energy is below the capac-
ity of the panel and hardware, the panel may be ejected
and the resultant impact may be more severe.
4) The short duration of one to three cycles clearing time is
the likely period where the mechanical damage to the panel
board and potential physical injury to an exposed worker
will occur. Arc flash PPE provides thermal protection but
is not designed to prevent the trauma of an ejected metal
door or metal parts traveling at 10–20 m/sec.
5) When a filler box is used to reduce the internal enclosure
volume, the resultant pressure was not proportionately
higher. Many reasons can be considered to explain this.
Components inside the enclosure absorb energy and may
restrict the arc length resulting is less arc energy being
released as compared to an empty enclosure. The instan-
taneous pressure may not be equal within the enclosure,
so the placement of the transducer may not measure the
average or highest pressure. The type of material and its
placement inside the enclosure will also have an effect.
Designing equipment with metals and plastics, which
absorb energy, will change the energy balance and can
reduce risk of an impact when in the direct path of the arc.
6) In hazard assessment, the arc flash protection boundary
could consider the possibility of the impact hazard from
ejected doors in some older style MCC’s, panel boards,
and even switchgear.
To address the question of the potential hazards from nonarc-
proof LV MCC cabinets, additional work should be done and
included in hazard assessment standards.
1) Testing with real MCC cabinets. Since the geometry and
hardware significantly affect the results that would be
used to make field installation recommendations, the most
accurate work would need to be done with different cabinet
types and manufacturers.
IV. DISCUSSION
In the previous article, the authors suggested that an arc blast
could be divided into “three time intervals. The first event is
an instantaneous shock (acoustical) wave that travels at the
speed of sound outwards from the arc. The second event is
what occurs in the first and second cycle. The third interval
is what occurs from the third cycle up to the clearing time of
the circuit breaker or fuse. The three time intervals have a very
different energy level and effect on an enclosure, door, and health
risk to personnel.” [1] This new article sought to measure the
full effect of door ejection so that medical professionals, safety
personnel, and standards committees may begin to evaluate risks
of older equipment and added value of new designs which could
make electrical equipment safer for operators. In this article,
the authors demonstrated that when the fault level is sufficiently
high, one cycle is sufficient in this equipment configuration to
eject the door of a switchgear or MCC. While there may be little
thermal hazard if the fault is cleared quickly, the ejected door can
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3303
be a dangerous projectile. If the fault continues, we still assert
that the thermal effects of the arc blast will be the main hazard.
We want to be clear that many MCCs and other equipment
may have other venting mechanisms and may not be represented
by this setup. If there is an open back into a larger compartment
around a shared buss, the predicted scenario may not occur.
Readers should be careful in attempting to imply hazard from
the Clark–Crawford–Doughty equation, but this may be closer
than other rough equations like the Lee Blast Equation. The idea
that holding the containment is worse than allowing the door to
fly without a constraining force like a bolt or hinge is proven
by this article and must be considered. However, the contention
of the previous article that the risk from arc blast is greatly
diminished when the containment is breached (by venting or by
an open door) is still true, and arc blast pressure needs more study
to quantify when the arc blast pressure hazard crosses into the
dangerous level from blast pressure alone. Hazard to a worker
is very unlikely from an open-door blast and a closed door does
prevent some or all the thermal energy from reaching a worker.
Opportunities for further investigation:
1) Explore higher fault currents with and without doors
present for effect on workers.
2) Explore the point at which even an open door could pose
an arc blast hazard.
3) Explore hinge and clasp designs or greater number of bolts
in design.
4) Explore the effect of doors on arc flash thermal protection
as the worker can be ejected from the working distance.
5) What would be the direct effect on a human body with
this level or impact? Our plastic mannequin sustained no
cuts or breaks, but would this be true of a worker? Would
the injury be bruises, broken ribs, or other bones or could
there be a collapsed lung? While the anecdotal evidence
known to the authors does not support this conclusion, it
should be explored.
6) Explore the effect if all bolts are not in place on door
ejection.
7) Does this work give any possible means to explore vent-
ing existing equipment with plastic inserts in cut-outs to
reduce risk of door ejection? Obviously, modifications
would need to be evaluated by engineering and certifi-
cation bodies, but could this suggest? justify? A retrofit to
equipment if found that the blast is too dangerous?
8) A reviewer suggested that there could be a possibility that
a VCB configuration (Vertically Configured Bus) vs. the
HCB (Horizontally Configured Bus) configuration these
tests used could have a lessened pressure toward the door
ejection. The authors feel this could have an effect on
pressure as with longer arcing times and with higher
voltages, because the HCB configuration would allow the
arc length to lengthen but in the short time tests explored
here, this effect was minimized.
Design engineers should be aware that the test box was an
idealized MCC box; real designs may have insulating backs
which would fail before the door, so results could be different
with some designs. Designs which have venting could also
3304
perform differently. Additionally, the test arc used was an ejected
arc and other electrode configurations could have a lesser effect
by lessening the direct arcing pressure.
This preliminary work with the inserted filler box (to approxi-
mate a motor starter), indicating that this insert may not increase
pressure due to the likely shortening of the arc (by interference),
may not hold true with some designs. This was idealized and
could also be an opportunity for further investigation on real
equipment.
V. CONCLUSION
Walilko [6] indicated that Olympic boxers’ “punch force aver-
aged 3427 (standard deviation (SD) 811) N, hand velocity 9.14
(SD 2.06) m/s, and effective punch mass 2.9 (SD 2.0) kg. Punch
force was higher for the heavier weight classes, due primarily to
a higher effective mass of the punch.” Comparatively, this door
was worse. The kN impact calculated in the spreadsheet reveals
that
Our door
Punch force: 20kN to over 50 kN
Panel velocity: 12 to 25 m/s
Door mass: 8kg
Boxer
Punch force: 3.4kN
Hand velocity: 2.06 m/s
Punch mass: 2kg.
Winner by knockout in first round is our door! While this
may not make hazard assessment for pressure wave easier, it
does reveal that high fault current is the most critical factor.
Clearing time may also result in higher internal pressure until
the door begins to move or venting occurs.
Work Practice Implications
Standing to the side of equipment is critical. Standing in front
of equipment, especially three-phase equipment which has no
venting, can be dangerous, if not life-threatening.
Why do we not have many fatalities? Most likely it is due to
several factors:
1) Equipment having doors with a lower shear force on one
side, allowing them to swing open.
2) Workers are typically trained to stand to the side of equip-
ment for operation.
3) Much of the equipment has venting or higher volumes
inside the equipment than what was tested.
4) Frequently arc lengths are shorter in high current equip-
ment, releasing less energy than in these experiments.
What Should Be Done?
1) Hazard assessment based on a reliable equation.
2) Change in the NEC to require equipment commonly with
potential pressure issues, such as 480 V (if the fault current
is over a certain level) with risk or internal failure to be
designed and installed in such a way that workers can stand
to the side or use remote operation.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2020
3) Other works have shown that latch failure very often
occurred in less than ½ cycle. If so, an arc (peak) power
model from the collaboration test results could be useful
in developing better predictions at all ac voltages. With
more research, this could be applied to risk assessment
processes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are thankful to Kinectrics High Current Lab for
their help in conducting the experiments.
REFERENCES
[1] E. H. Hoagland, C. Maurice, A. Haines, and A. Maurice, “Arc flash
pressure measurement by the physical method, effect of metal vapor
on arc blast,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1576–1582,
Mar./Apr. 2017.
[2] K. Crawford, D. Clark, and R. Doughty, “Motor terminal box explo-
sions due to faults,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 72–81,
Jan./Feb. 1993.
[3] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA 70E, Quincy, MA,
USA: NFPA, 2018.
[4] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Calculations 1581–2018, IEEE
Standard 1584.
[5] R. H. Lee, “Pressures developed by arcs,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.
IA-23, no. 4, pp. 760–764, Jul./Aug. 1987.
[6] T. J. Walilko, D. C. Viano, and C. A. Bir, “Biomechanics of the head
for olympic boxer punches to the face,” Brit. J. Sports Med., vol. 39,
pp. 710–719, 2005.
[7] M. Drouet and F. Nadeau, “Pressure waves due to arcing faults in a substa-
tion,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-98, no. 5, pp. 1632–1635,
Sep. 1979.
[8] R. D. Hill, “Channel heating in return-stroke lightning,” J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 637–645, 1971.
[9] T. E. Neal and R. F. Parry, “Shrapnel, pressure, and noise,” IEEE Ind. Appl.
Soc. Mag., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 49–53, May/Jun. 2005.
[10] R. A. Jones et al., “Staged tests increase awareness of arc-flash hazards in
electrical equipment,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 659–667,
Mar./Apr. 2000.
[11] N. Teera-achariyakul and J. Hokierti, “Internal pressure assessment of
outdoor compact substation,” in Proc. 7th Int. Power Eng. Conf., Nov./Dec.
2005, pp. 1–4.
[12] G. Friberg and G. J. Pietsch, “Calculation of pressure rise due to arcing
faults,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 365–370, Apr. 1999.
[13] P. Chévrier, M. Barrault, and C. Fiévet, “Hydrodynamic model for electri-
cal arc modelling,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1824–1829,
Oct. 1996.
[14] J. E. Bowen, M. W. Wactor, G. H. Miller, and M. Capelli-Schellpfeffer,
“Catch the wave,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 59–67,
Jul./Aug. 2004.
[15] X. Zhang, G. Pietsch, J. Zhang, and E. Gockenbach, “Fundamental inves-
tigation on the thermal transfer coefficient due to arc faults,” IEEE Trans.
Plasma Sci., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1038–1045, Jun. 2006.
[16] H. Hoagland, C. Maurice, A. Haines, and A. Maurice, “ARC
flash pressure door ejection measurement,” in Proc. IEEE IAS
Elect. Saf. Workshop, Jacksonville, FL USA, 2019, pp. 1–12, doi:
10.1109/ESW41045.2019.9024719.
Hugh Hoagland (Senior Member, IEEE) received the B.A. degree from Ken-
tucky Wesleyan College, Owensboro, KY, USA, in 1983, and the 2 years of
postbaccalaureate and graduate degree in premedicine and chemistry from the
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
He is an Organic Chemist and began arc testing, in 1994, with LG&E Energy,
Louisville, KY, USA. He is currently a President with ArcWear and e-Hazard,
Louisville.
Mr. Hoagland is an Author of several IEEE papers and an Associate Editor
for the IEEE Electrical Safety Committee. He sits on ASTM, NFPA, and
IEC committees on arc flash testing and flash fire testing, and does arc flash
consulting.
HOAGLAND et al.: ARC FLASH PRESSURE AND DOOR EJECTION MEASUREMENT
Claude Maurice received the B.A.Sc. degree in industrial technology from
Bemidji State University, Bemidji, MN, USA, in 2002.
He was a certified Engineering Technologist—Electronics with DeVry Insti-
tute of Technology, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 1978. He is a Former Lab Manager
with Kinectrics’ High Current Laboratory, Toronto, ON, Canada. With more
than 25 years in the test laboratory, he has personally performed thousands of
short-circuit and equipment fault tests and managed the arc testing program.
Mr. Maurice is a member of ASTM F18, where he is a Taskforce Chair
and active writer of ASTM arc flash test methods. He is a Canadian Expert to
Project Teams working on Arc Test Methods in IEC Technical Committee 78.
He currently consults with ArcWear and Kinectrics.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Rick Downer. Downloaded on March 29,2021 at 15:39:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3305
Andrew Haines received the B.Eng. degree in chemical engineering from
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, in 2012.
He is currently a Supervising Technologist with Kinectrics High Current
Testing Laboratory, Toronto, ON, Canada.
André Maurice received the B.Sc. degree in mechanical engineering from the
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, in 2015.
He is a currently a Mechanical Engineer with Kinectrics, Toronto, ON,
Canada.