Current Limiting Fuses: Proposed NFPA 70-2017 240.

67, Arc Modeling and

an Assessment based on IEEE 1584-2002
Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. ESW2016-35

Tammy Gammon, Ph.D., P.E. Vince Saporita, P.E.

Senior Member, IEEE Fellow, IEEE
John Matthews & Associates Eaton
P.O. Box 3229 P.O. Box 14460
Cookeville, TN 38502 St. Louis, MO 63178
tgammonphd@gmail.com vincesaporita@eaton.com

Abstract – When operating in current limiting mode, current- development of fire, cost millions in equipment and property
limiting fuses can effectively mitigate the heat and pressure damage, as well as the more tragic cost of human injury and
hazards associated with an arc event because they limit the death [3]. The severe burn hazard posed by arcing faults
current in the first ¼ cycle and interrupt current flow in less than garnered national attention with Ralph Lee’s 1982 paper, “The
8.3 ms. The effectiveness of current limiting fuses is reinforced other electrical hazard: electric arc blast burns [4].” Since that
by their inclusion in NFPA 70E-2015: Note to Table time, OSHA, NFPA, IEEE, and other organizations have
130.7(C)(15)(A)(b), Annex D.4.6, and Annex O.2.4(4). The proactively strived to prevent electric arc injuries through limiting
incident energy levels associated with current limiting fuses can work on energized systems and establishing safety programs
be determined from IEEE Standard 1584-2002, IEEE Guide for designed to raise worker awareness of the hazards and to
Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations. IEEE 1584-2002 adequately protect workers when electric arc hazards are
presents a method for directly determining incident energy present. Forty years after the 1971 addition of 230.95 to
without first determining arc current or arc duration. The fuse minimize system damage, the addition of Section 240.87 to the
equations were derived from 600V arc tests involving a range of 2011 NEC focused on circuit breaker requirements for
current limiting fuse sizes. This data is reviewed to assess the minimizing worker injury, rather than equipment damage, due to
performance of current limiting fuses in reducing arc energy in arcing faults. After the Public Input stage and hand voting at
accordance with the proposed NFPA 70-2017 Section 240.67. the Public Comment stage of NFPA 70 2017, Section 240.67
The IEEE 1584-2002 equations are used to assess the has been added with similar requirements for fuses. Section II
performance of these fuses in comparison with an arc energy of this paper will provide the proposed Section 240.67 from the
reduction maintenance switch, and the combination of both first revision draft of NFPA 70-2017 in its entirety. Section III
technologies. The viability of predicting arc current and incident presents and summarizes the 1998 arc test data used to
energy for installations involving current limiting fuses and develop the 1584-2002 incident energy equations for current
implementing the proposed NEC Section 240.67 using general limiting fuses. Section IV assesses the expected performance
arc models is discussed. of the second revision NFPA 70-2017 240.67(B)(2). This
Index Terms — current limiting fuses, NEC (National section addresses current limiting fuses used alone or
Electrical Code, NFPA 70), arc flash energy, IEEE Std. 1584, combined with switches equipped with Arc Reduction
arc models Maintenance Systems (ARMS). Section V examines the
viability of applying general arc models to current limiting fuse
I. INTRODUCTION applications.

Over the last century, arcing faults in low-voltage power

distribution systems have warranted enough concern to II. NFPA 70-2017 FIRST & SECOND REVISIONS
conduct arc testing and to be the subject of a number of
technical papers [1]. Arcing faults on the early three-phase low- Section 240.67 of the first revision of the 2017 National
voltage systems, which commonly operated at 208Y/120V, Electrical Code (NFPA 70-2017 [5]) is printed in its entirety
were rarely self-sustaining. In the 1960s, arcing faults became below. It must be noted that the NFPA 70-2017 is in the
more prevalent as load densities increased. Newer 480Y/277V process of development, and this proposed section in this or a
services and higher current-rated overcurrent protective devices revised format may or may not appear in the final edition of
were commonly installed to more effectively supply power to the NEC 2017.
heavier loads. Efforts to mitigate the damage caused by arcing Reprinted with permission from the first revision of the 2017 National
faults resulted in the 1971 National Electrical Code Section Electrical Code®, copyright ©2015 National Fire Protection Association.
230.95, which stipulated that ground fault protection must be This material has been submitted for the NFPA standards development
installed at all service entrance equipment rated 1000 A or process, it has not yet and may not be incorporated in this or a revised
higher, when operating at more than 150 V to ground [2]. format into the next edition of the NEC®.
Although the 1971 adoption of Section 230-95 was a landmark 240.67 Arc Energy Reduction.
addition to the National Electrical Code, arcing faults continued Where the ampere rating of the fusible switch is 1200 A or
to occur in industrial and commercial power systems. These higher, 240.67(A) and (B) shall apply. This requirement shall
incidents either through high energy release and/or subsequent become effective January 1, 2020.

978-1-4673-9922-7/16/$31.00 @2016 IEEE

149
(A) Documentation. method outlined in 240.67(B)(2), may effectively reduce arc
Documentation shall be available to those authorized to design, energy. A great reduction in energy, over a wide range of low
install, operate, or inspect the installation as to the location of to high magnitude available arc currents, may be achieved with
the fusible switch(es). the combined use of the two technologies.
(B) Method to Reduce Clearing Time.
One of the following shall be provided:
(1) Differential relaying III. ARCING CURRENT, INCIDENT ENERGY,
(2) Energy-reducing maintenance switching with local status AND CURRENT LIMITING FUSES
indicator
(3) Energy-reducing active arc flash mitigation system The IEEE Standard 1584-2002, IEEE Guide for Performing
Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations [7], included equations for
(4) A fuse that would open the circuit in 0.07 seconds or less, at
directly determining the arc flash energy generated when
or below the available arcing current
current-limiting fuses provide circuit protection. The fuse
(5) An approved equivalent means
equations were developed from fitting 600V data recorded
Informational Notes: during three phase arc testing conducted by Cooper Bussmann
No. 1: An energy-reducing maintenance switch allows a worker to set a and Dupont in 1998. The tests were conducted in an
disconnect switch to reduce the clearing time while the worker is
working within an arc-flash boundary as defined in NFPA 70E-2015, ungrounded, 20”x20”x20” test enclosure with vertical electrodes
and then to set the disconnect switch back to a normal setting after the separated by a 1.25” air gap and positioned 4” from the back
potentially hazardous work is complete. panel. The calorimeters were placed 18” from the electrodes.
No. 2: An energy-reducing active arc flash mitigation system helps in Additional details on test procedure and setup are included in
reducing arcing duration in the electrical distribution system. No change [8]. Arc tests were conducted at five bolted-fault current levels
in the disconnect switch or the settings of other devices is required for eight different current-limiting fuse ratings, where the test
during maintenance when a worker is working within an arc flash duration was determined by the opening time of the fuses. Six-
boundary as defined in NFPA 70E-2015. cycle arc tests were also run without fuses for four bolted-fault
No. 3: IEEE 1584 is one of the available methods that provide guidance
in determining arcing current. current levels. (Note: Data was provided for analysis by the
courtesy of Eaton Corporation. IEEE 1584-2002 also includes
The closing date for public comments on the first draft incident energy equations derived from testing Class RK1 200A
revision was September 2015. The public comments were and RK1 100A fuses, but this data could no longer be located.)
reviewed by NEC Code-Making Panel 10 in early November Table I lists the number of tests of available data categorized
2015. At this point in the NEC code making process, the by fuse type and bolted-fault current level. Data from 78 tests
proposed section had been modified to shift the focus of the was recovered; thirteen with no fuse present. Four series of
proposed section to fuses away from fusible switches. Fuses tests (at available bolted fault currents equal to 106, 65.9, 44.1
rated 1200A or higher shall have a clearing time of 0.07 and 22.6 kA) were conducted for the Class L fuses rated at
seconds or less at the available arcing current or be combined 2000A, 1600A, 1200A and 800A. Five series of tests were run
with one of the methods listed in the first draft revision for the Class RK1 600A fuse and two series of tests were run
240.67(B) of the 2017 NEC. The modified proposed 240.67 will for the Class RK1 400A fuse. Therefore, a total of 23 test
appear in the second revision of the 2017 NEC, if it is approved series were run to test the performance of these current limiting
through a written ballot of the panel members. This proposed fuses. For each series (defined by fuse type and available
section exemplifies the democratic and legislative process bolted-fault current), the arc test was repeated two to six times.
involved in developing the National Electric Code and other Two tests for the 800 ampere Class L fuses at a bolted-fault
NFPA Standards. current of 44.1 kA were conducted at 472 V; all other tests were
When this paper is presented at the 2016 IEEE IAS Electrical conducted at 602 or 604 V.
Safety Workshop, the second revision of the 2017 edition of the Tables II and III list the average rms, three-phase Iarc
NEC, will have been posted and voted (written ballot) upon. magnitude for each test series (Iarc-avg), the range of the
The final second revision will be posted for NITMAM review on three-phase averages for the tests within a series (Iarc-3ph),
April 8, 2016. The deadline for a Notice of Intent to Make a
Motion (NITMAM) is April 29, 2016. It is expected that the TABLE I
modified form of Section 240.67 focusing on fuses will appear in 1998 Cooper Bussmann and DuPont Current Limiting Fuse
the final version of the 2017 NEC which will be issued in August Testing for Development of IEEE 1584-2002 Equations
2016; but, again it must be noted that the 2017 edition of the Fuse No. of Bolted Fault Current
NEC is in the development process and Section 240.67 in this
Type Tests 106 kA 65.9 kA 44.1 kA 22.6 kA 5.04 kA
format or a revised format may or may not appear in the final
edition. Revision reports for NFPA standards, as well as the No Fuse 13 2 3 4 4 --
2016 NFPA Annual Revision Cycle schedule [6], are available L2000 12 3 3 4 2 --
through the NFPA website. L1600 12 2 3 4 3 --
Proposed Section 240.67 specifies that arc energy must be
reduced through a reduction in clearing time. Current limiting L1200 11 2 2 4 3 --
fuses in many applications, and method 240.67 permits the use L800 13 2 2 6 3 --
of current limiting fuses as a means to reduce arc energy when RK1 600 12 2 2 4 2 2
the fuse will open in 0.07 s or less at the available arc current. RK1 400 5 -- -- -- 2 3
For lower arc current levels where the anticipated response of
the fuse is longer, an energy reducing maintenance switch, the Total No. 78 13 15 26 19 5

150
 TABLE II TABLE III
Results for No Fuse, L2000, L1600, L1200 Testing and Results for L800, RK1-600, RK1-400 Testing and
Arc Current and Incident Energy 1584-2002 Eqns. Arc Current and Incident Energy 1584-2002 Eqns.
Bolted-Fault Current Bolted-Fault Current
106 kA 65.9 kA 44.1 kA 22.6 kA 106 kA 65.9 kA 44.1 kA 22.6 kA 5.04 kA
No Fuse Present L800 (Current Limiting Thresholda: 10kA)
Iarc-avg 44.0 34.4 25.3 15.2 Iarc-avg 15.7 14.8 10.2 12.0
Iarc-3ph 43.5-44.5 34.1-34.9 23.9-27.4 15.1-15.3 Iarc-3ph 15.2-16.2 14.7-14.9 8.7-11.8 11.5-13.0
Iarc-line 40.9-46.1 32-37.5 22.7-28.7 14.1-16.0 Iarc-line 12.6-19.4 10.9-19.2 3.8-15.1 9.5-15.4
cal/cm 2 33.5-37.9 18.7-23.1 9.4-17.3 7.3-8.4 cal/cm 2 0.2-0.3 0.2 0.1-0.2 0.3-1.9
Time-ms 101-103 100-106 98-106 102-108 Time-ms 6.6-7.0 5.3-5.4 5.4-7.0 10.0-60
IE-StdEq 31.2-31.9 19.5-20.6 12.9-13.9 7.0-7.4 IE-FuseEq 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.5
L2000 (Current Limiting Thresholda: 26 kA) IE-StdEq 3.1 1.9 1.3 0.7
Iarc-avg 25.6 20.3 17.0 15.0 Pred ms b 10 10 10 10
Iarc-3ph 25.3-25.9 18.1-21.8 15.4-18.1 14.9-15.0 RK1-600 (Current Limiting Thresholda: 9.2 kA)
Iarc-line 22.6-30.3 13.1-28.4 11.8-22.4 14.0-16.0 Iarc-avg 11.4 10.6 9.6 10.6 4.4
cal/cm 2 1.6-3.2 0.39-23.8 7.8-16.8 28.4-29.5 Iarc-3ph 11.1-11.7 10.1-11.2 8.8-10.1 10.5-10.8 4.4-4.4
Time-ms 25-42 8.3-363 167-303 328-344 Iarc-line 6.2-17.7 5.7-17 4.1-12.6 9.4-12.8 4.0-4.7
IE-FuseEq 3.0 23.8 26.6 29.4 cal/cm 2 0.04 0.07-0.11 0.07-0.08 0.15 18.9-33.8
IE-StdEq 3.1 1.9 2.9 41.3 Time-ms 2.5-6.8 5.6-7.4 5.1-5.8 8.6-8.8 702-1050
Pred ms b 10 10 22 600 IE-FuseEq 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 --
L1600 (Current Limiting Thresholda: 21 kA) IE-StdEq 3.1 1.9 1.3 0.7 90.7
Iarc-avg 21.1 18.1 20.9 12.8 Pred ms b 10 10 10 10 5700
a
Iarc-3ph 20.1-22.1 16.6-19.7 18.9-21.7 12.4-13.0 RK1-400 (Current Limiting Threshold : 6.3 kA)
Iarc-line 11.0-29.4 10.1-25.6 18.2-24.3 10.5-15.9 Iarc-avg 6.3 4.5
cal/cm 2 0.35-0.36 0.38-3.0 0.76-1.24 8.3-12.0 Iarc-3ph 6.3 4.3-4.7
Time-ms 6.6-7.1 7.9-48 9.9-27.1 149-208 Iarc-line 4.4-8.4 2.8-7.1
IE-FuseEq 0.4 2.9 2.9 23.7 cal/cm 2 0.03-0.04 0.09-0.85
IE-StdEq 3.1 1.9 1.3 11.0 Time-ms 5.6 20-170
Pred ms b 10 10 10 160 IE-FuseEq 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.8
L1200 (Current Limiting Thresholda: 16 kA) IE-StdEq 3.1 1.9 1.3 0.7 2.2
Pred ms b 10 10 10 10 140
Iarc-avg 16.0 15.8 14.5 9.9
Iarc-3ph 15.8-16.3 15.4-16.1 11.9-16.2 8.3-11.6 IEEE 1584-2002 General Arc Eqn.
Iarc-line 9.3-24.1 9.0-23.7 7.7-20.6 6.9-13.7 Iarc-3ph 63.7 41.5 28.9 15.9 4.1
a
Current limiting thresholds estimated from fuse let-through data in
cal/cm 2 0.23 0.24 0.20-0.46 3.3-9.9
[9, pp. 256-257]. bTimes predicted from 1584 Iarc and estimated
Time-ms 6.0-6.1 6.0-6.7 6.2-9.2 94-316 from fuse clearing time characteristics [10] and [11].
IE-FuseEq 0.4 0.4 0.5 9.9
IE-StdEq 3.1 1.9 1.3 1.5
for single phase current flow.) The range of arc durations is
Pred ms b 10 10 10 22 included where arc duration is defined as the time taken to clear
IEEE 1584-2002 General Arc Eqn. the circuit. (If one fuse opened early but the arc sustained, the
Iarc-3ph 63.7 41.5 28.9 15.9 three-phase arc was reduced to a phase-to-phase arc, likely to
a
have a lower current magnitude.) The arc current and incident
Current limiting thresholds estimated from fuse let-through energy predicted using the general, IEEE 1584-2002 equations
data in [9, pp. 256-257]. bTimes predicted from 1584 Iarc
are also included, as well as the incident energy predicted using
and estimated from fuse clearing time characteristics [10].
the 1584-2002 current limiting fuse equation. Table II provides
the test results for the L2000, L1600 and L1200 fuse sizes
covered by proposed NEC Section 240.67, as well as the arc
and the range of the rms line arc currents for each test series
tests conducted without fuses. Table III provides the test
(Iarc-line). (Note: The “line” arc currents are the currents flowing
results for the smaller L800, RK1 600, and RK1 400 fuse sizes.
through phases A, B, and C. The term “phase” is avoided
because the test enclosures are not grounded, there is no path

151
 IV. EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF PROPOSED with a programmable trip mechanism set to pick up at 7.5 times
NFPA 70-2017 SECTION 240.67 the current rating, the 2000, 1600, and 1200A switches would
respond to fault currents of 15, 12, and 9 kA, respectively.
Table IV predicts whether the fuse types tested are expected Based on the three-phase average arc currents listed in Table
to respond within 0.07 s (70 ms), as proposed by NFPA 70- IV, it is likely the switches would pick up for the lower currents
2017 Section 240.67. (The response time for a current limiting that would require one of the arc energy reduction techniques
fuse test series is assumed to equal the longest arc duration of shown in proposed 240.67(B).
one of its tests.) The majority of the test series for the Class L Table V provides the calculated incident energy levels for
2000, 1600, and 1200 A fuses would respond in 70 ms or less. current limiting fuses operating independently, an ARMS-
One example of an exception is the Class L 2000A fuse with an equipped switch, and the combined use of the two. The
available bolted fault current of 65.9 kA. Tables I and II reveal proposed NEC 240.67(B)(2) specifies an energy reducing
that three tests were conducted for this series with durations maintenance switch as an approved method to reduce the
ranging from 8.3 to 363 ms. The time durations were actually clearing time of an arcing fault. Table V shows that an ARMS
recorded as 8.3, 9.3, and 363 ms; therefore, the arc equipped switch effectively reduces the arc energy for lower
extinguished in significantly less than 70 ms during two of the available arc currents, where current limiting fuses are in the
three tests conducted. For this test series, the range of average
three-phase and line arc currents listed in Table II are 18.1 to TABLE V
2
21.8 kA and 13.1 to 28.4 kA, respectively. The line A, B, and C NEC 240.67(B)(2): Incident Energy (cal/cm )
arc currents (rms over the period of current flow) measured Fuses, ARMS Switch, and Combination
during the test lasting 363 ms are 16.1, 16.1, and 22 kA. It is Ibf ARMS 1200A 1600A 2000A
possible, that the fuse protecting line C opened quite early and kA 50ms Fuse Both Fuse Both Fuse Both
an A-to-B line-to-line arc flowed for an extended period of time.
(A Class L 2000A fuse would open in roughly 350 ms when 5 ?X 0.8
subjected to a fault current of 17.7 kA [10].) Also note that the 6 ?X 0.9
three-phase average arc currents listed in Table IV are lower 8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
than the arc currents measured during the no-fuse tests
10 1.5 61.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
because the actual fault current (instantaneous flowing through
each fuse) is reduced in the fuse’s current limiting range above 12 1.8 35.0 1.8 1.8 1.8
the threshold current (determined from a symmetrical peak-let- 14 2.1 21.4 2.1 64.1 2.1 2.1
through chart). Arc energy is highly dependent on arc current 16 2.4 11.1 2.4 24.9 2.4 2.4
and arc duration. Although proposed NEC Section 240.67
18 2.7 10.8 2.7 24.6 2.7 2.7
requires that arc energy reduction be achieved through a
reduction in clearing time, current limiting fuses also reduce the 20 3.0 10.4 3.0 24.2 3.0 3.0
arc energy by reducing the actual arc current magnitude for 22 3.3 10.0 3.3 23.8 3.3 53.1 3.3
potential arc currents in the current limiting range. 24 3.6 8.9 3.6 23.5 3.6 29.2 3.6
The use of current limiting fuses in a fusible switch with a
three-phase trip mechanism may be an effective means to 26 3.9 7.5 3.9 23.1 3.9 28.9 3.9
reduce arc energy. For example, if the Class L 2000, 1600, and 28 4.2 6.3 4.2 22.7 4.2 28.7 4.2
1200A fuses were placed in similarly sized switches equipped 30 4.5 5.2 4.5 22.3 4.5 28.4 4.5
32 4.8 4.1 4.1 21.7 4.8 28.2 4.8
TABLE IV
Proposed NEC 240.67 and Expected Fuse Performance
a 34 5.1 3.3 3.3 18.6 5.1 27.9 5.1
Bolted-Fault Current 36 5.4 2.5 2.5 15.5 5.4 27.6 5.4
106 kA 65.9 kA 44.1 kA 22.6 kA 38 5.7 1.8 1.8 12.4 5.7 27.4 5.7
No Fuse Present 40 5.9 1.2 1.2 9.3 5.9 27.1 5.9
Iarc-avg 44.0 34.4 25.3 15.2 42 6.2 0.8 0.8 6.2 6.2 26.9 6.2
L2000 (Current Limiting Threshold: 26 kA) 45 6.7 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.9 26.5 6.7
Iarc-avg 25.6 20.3 17.0 15.0 50 7.4 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.9 25.8 7.4
< 0.07 s yes no no no 55 8.1 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.9 25.2 8.1
L1600 (Current Limiting Threshold: 21 kA) 60 8.8 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.9 24.6 8.8
Iarc-avg 21.1 18.1 20.9 12.8 65 9.5 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.9 23.9 9.5
< 0.07 s yes yes yes no 70 10.2 0.4 0.4 2.7 2.7 21.7 10.2
L1200 (Current Limiting Threshold: 16 kA) 75 11.0 0.4 0.4 2.4 2.4 19.1 11.0
Iarc-avg 16.0 15.8 14.5 9.9 80 11.7 0.4 0.4 2.0 2.0 16.5 11.7
< 0.07 s yes yes yes no 85 12.4 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 13.9 12.4
a
Performance is based on 600V arc testing conducted in 90 13.1 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.4 11.3 11.3
ungrounded test enclosures. Responses may differ at 480V and 95 13.8 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.1 8.7 8.7
with grounded electrical equipment.
100 14.5 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 6.1 6.1

152
vicinity of or below their current limiting rangge. On the other equation. For the Class L 2000, 1600
0, and 1200 A fuses, Fig. 2
hand, current limiting fuses can be extremely e effective in limiting compares the series maximum incid dent energy to the incident
the arc energy at higher available arc cu urrents. Table V energy predicted by the 1584-2002 direct
d fuse and general arc
demonstrates their combined use is especiallly effective for the equations. Newer general arc curren nt models (developed from
1200 and 1600 A Class L fuses in switche es with the same larger data sets) may more accurately
y predict potential arc
ratings.
2
In Table V, the incident energy (cal/cm ) haas been calculated
using IEEE 1584-2002 equations based on the following
assumptions: ungrounded, 600V switchgearr, and 1.25” gap
(testing conditions during fuse tests). The fusse incident energy
is calculated directly from fuse equations unless otherwise
noted. The incident energy associated with th he ARMS switch is
based on the general 1584 arc current and d incident energy
equations, a 4X pickup (i.e., 4 x 1200A = 480 00A), and a 50ms
response time. The green, yellow, orange, and red color coding
indicates calculated incident energy levels up to 1.2, 8, 25, and
2
40 cal/cm , respectively; purple indicates incid
dent energies over
2
40 cal/cm . Incident energy levels listed in blue bold font
wer than applicable
indicate that the bolted fault currents were low
for the 1584 fuse equations, and the incid dent energy was
predicted using the general arc equations an nd estimated fuse
response times. It should be noted that extrem mely high incident
energy calculations for low level fault curren nts are somewhat
misleading, since the heat flux (i.e., heat inte
ensity, rate of heat 00A Fuse
Fig. 2a Class L 200
2
over time in cal/cm -s) is also low. Furthermorre, the general arc
equations may not be very accurate for the fuse performance
over this range. Precisely estimating a “lon ng duration” fuse
response time for an overload current can also o be difficult.

V. VIABILITY OF USING GENER

RAL ARC
EQUATIONS WITH CURRENT LIMITTING FUSES

A comparison of the average arc currents ffrom the “no fuse”

test series in Table II with the fuse test se eries (for a given
available bolted-fault current) in Tables II and III shows that the
current limiting fuses limit the magnitude of the
e arc current even
when the arcs were not cleared in ½ cycle or less. When using
a general arc model to predict the potential arrcing fault current,
the predicted arc current should be compared to the “no fuse”
test data. As the bolted fault current increa ases in Fig. 1, the
Fig. 2b Class L 160
00A Fuse
600V “no fuse” test data is considerably lo ower than the arc
current predicted with the IEEE 1584-2002 general arc current

Fig. 2c Class L 120

00A Fuse

Fig. 2 600V Test Data and 1584--2002 Incident Energy

02 Arc Current
Fig. 1 600V Test Data and IEEE 1584-200 for Class L 2000, 1600 and
d 1200 A Fuses

153
current, but the incident energy associated w with fuses is more
difficult to accurately estimate. The arc current used in the
incident energy equation should be the fuse e’s current-limited
value when the calculated potential arc curren nt is a comfortable
margin above the current limiting threshold. A safety margin
above the current limiting threshold is rrecommended to
compensate for the magnitude variation in the three line
currents flowing through the individual fuses.
Prolonged development of lower magnitud de phase-to-phase
arcing may develop from a three-phase a arc current in the
vicinity of the current limiting threshold. Th he average three
phase arc currents with no fuse present are listed in Table VI
with the response times of select fuse test sseries to illustrate
that the response time sometimes exceeds ½ cycle when the
average rms three phase arc current is greate er than the current
limiting threshold. The incident energy listed iin Tables II and III
and in Fig. 2 for the 1584-2002 general arc model was
determined from the 1584-2002 arc current equation, not the Fig. 3 Range of Line Arc Currents (Not Three Phase Avg.)
current limiting value, because at this time no safety margin has for No-Fuse, L2000, L1600 and
a L1200 Testing
been established and the 1584-2002 arc currrent equation did
not closely model the no-fuse measured arc currents over the
range of bolted fault currents. The recorded a arc durations listed
in Table VI reveal a wide range of arc durattions within a test
series unless the available arcing current (i.e., no fuse present)
is substantially higher than the current limiting threshold. Each
fuse’s opening time is determined by the lin ne current flowing
through it, not an rms three-phase average. Figs. 3 through 6
feature the range of current magnitude a and fault duration
recorded for all fuse test series.
The conventional, asymmetrical “side-to-side” layout of the
Phases (Lines) A, B, and C in power syystem equipment
generates some normal phase current imbala ance, which often
results in a larger Line B arc current. Note tthat the impact of
phase imbalance on the recorded line currentss is also evident in
Fig. 3 for the test series without fuses. The range of line current
magnitudes can also be impacted by spacin ng, supply voltage
and bolted fault current. Arcing is a dynam mic phenomenon,
especially at lower voltages (120Y/208V and d 277V/480), and
variations are expected to occur, particularly in real equipment
enclosures. When three current lim miting fuses act
independently, fuses may open at different times. One or two Fig. 4a Response Time: 0 to 400 ms Scale
fuses might open, and a three phase arc is red duced to a phase-
to-phase or a single phase-to-ground arc. Phase-to-ground
arcing is often involved in systems 600 V and less. The
magnitude of the arc current(s) can drop sub bstantially, and the
arc may propagate considerably longer. Bassed on conceptual
480V arc modeling, it has been published and widely accepted

TABLE VI
Select Fuse Response Times for RMS Avera age Three Phase
No Fuse Arc Current in Vicinity of Current Lim
miting Threshold
Fuse L2000 L1600 L800
Current Limiting
26 21 10
Threshold (kA)
"No Fuse" Iarc (kA) Range of Response e Time (ms)
44.0 25-42 Fig. 4b Response Time: 0 to 50 ms Scale
34.4 8.3-363 7.9-48
25.3 9.9-27 Fig. 4 Range of Three Pha
ase Arc Duration
15.2 10-60 for L2000, L1600 and L1200 Testing

154
 that a sustaining, 277V phase-to-gro ound arcing fault is at least
38% of the three phase bolted fault current [12]. Subsequent,
less well known work concluded that an overall rms arc current
might be as low as 22% of the three e phase bolted fault based
on an analysis of an arcing fault inciident which resulted in the
deaths of five people [3].
Based on the test data used to de evelop the model, the IEEE
1584-2002 current limiting fuse equations
e effectively and
conservatively predict the potential incident energy associated
with the initiation of a three phase arcing
a fault. Results using
the 1584-2002 general arc equation ns are not as reliable. It
might be prudent to verify the efficacy of a general arc model
before it is adopted for use witth current limiting fuses
independently protecting a three pha ase system. Independent
operation is desired in some single-p phase and phase-to-phase
circuits, such as lighting circuits. However,
H single-phase and
phase-to-phase applications are usua ally protected by fuse sizes
Fig. 5 Range of Line Arc Currents (Not Thre
ee Phase Avg.) much lower than 1200 A (lowest fuse e size covered in proposed
for L800, RK1 600 and RK1 400 T Testing NFPA 70-2017, Section 240.67). When independent fuse
operation is not necessary, the use off a tripping mechanism in a
fusible switch, may enhance the sp peed of system protection
and aid in a conservative hazard asse essment. Trip mechanisms
may be triggered by blown fuse detectors, current magnitude,
or some other means. The respons se time of the switch might
be inherent to the device or program mmable, depending on the
complexity of the equipment. When a blown fuse mechanism is
utilized with a shunt-trippable switch, the addition of six cycles
to the opening time of the first fus se for arcing fault current
magnitudes lower than the current limmiting threshold of the fuse,
may be an appropriate method to estimate the clearing time.

VI. CONCLUS
SIONS

Current limiting fuses are an effecttive means in reducing arc

energy in many applications, as demo onstrated by their inclusion
in 2015 NFPA 70E: Note to Table 130.7(C)(15)(A)(b), Annex
D.4.6, and Annex O.2.4(4). Those arc energy reductions are
most evident when the arc current flo owing through each fuse is
above the current limiting threshold. For lower arc currents, a
Fig. 6a Response Time: 0 to 1200 m
ms Scale shunt trip, signaled by a blown fuse detector
d when the first fuse
opens, can improve the total respons se time. Analysis based on
the 1584-2002 equations and fuse te est data suggests that arc
energy reduction may be effectively achieved
a as outlined in the
proposed 2017 NEC, Section 240..67 for fuses 1200A and
greater.

VII. REFER
RENCES

[1] A. H. Kehoe, “Underground Allternating-Current Network

Distribution for Central Station Systems,” AIEE
Transactions, vol 43, pp 844-853, June 1924.
[2] J. R. Dunki-Jacobs, “The Effectts of Arcing Ground Faults
on Low-Voltage System Design,” IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, vol IA-8
8, pp 223-230, May/June
1972.
[3] T. Gammon, “Improved Arcing g-Fault Current Models for
Fig. 6b Response Time: 0 to 60 mss Scale Low-Voltage Power Systems (<1 kV)”, Ph.D. Thesis,
School of Electrical Engineerring, Georgia Institute of
Fig. 6 Range of Three Phase Arc D
Duration Technology, Atlanta, GA, 1999.
for L800, RK1 600 and RK1 400 TTesting

155
[4] R. Lee, “The Other Electrical Hazard: Electric Arc Blast
Burns,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol
IA-18, pp 246-251, May/June 1982.
[5] NFPA 70, 2017 National Electrical Code®, First Revision,
copyright ©2015, National Fire Protection Association,
Quincy, MA.
[6] NFPA. “2016 Annual Revision Cycle.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/standards-
development-process/revision-cycle-schedules,
accessed on July 01, 2015.
[7] IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard
Calculations, IEEE Standard 1584, 2002.
[8] R. L. Doughty, T. E. Neal, T. L. Macalady, V. Saporita,
and K. Borgwald, "The Use of Low-Voltage Current-
Limiting Fuses to Reduce Arc-Flash Energy,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol 36, pp 1741-
1749, Nov/Dec 2000.
[9] Eaton Publication, “Selecting Protective Devices
Handbook, 2014 edition.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussm
ann/electrical/resources/library/selecting_protective_devic
es_handbook.html, accessed on July 30, 2015.
[10] Cooper Bussmann (Eaton), Max. Clearing Time-Current
Characteristic Curves for KRP-C 601SP to 6000SP
Fusible Links, no 263 rev A, 5-18-01, ECN A01062.
[11] Cooper Bussmann (Eaton), Total Clearing Time-Current
Characteristic Curves for LPS-RK Low Peak (RK1) Fuses,
no 307-2 rev B, 10-24-00, ECN A00151.
[12] J.R. Dunki-Jacobs, "The Escalating Arcing Ground-Fault
Phenomenon,” IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol IA-22, pp 1156-1161, Nov/Dec 1986.

VIII. VITA

Tammy Gammon earned a bachelor, a master of science

and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute
of Technology in the 1990s. She is licensed as a Professional
Engineer in the State of North Carolina. Since 2003, Tammy
has worked as senior electrical engineer for John Matthews and
Associates. She performs research and analysis in power and
power quality issues, in fires of electrical origin, in electrical arc
and shock injuries, and in product design and manufacturing.
From 2006 to 2014, Tammy Gammon also served as the
research manager for the IEEE/NFPA Arc Flash Research
Project.

Vincent Saporita graduated with a BSEE from the University

of Missouri-Rolla and with an MBA from Lindenwood College.
He is a Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois. He has
worked for Eaton (Bussmann) since graduation in various roles,
and is Vice-president, Technical Sales. Standards experience
includes membership on National Electrical Code panels 10
and 11, NFPA 70E (Standard for Electrical Safety in the
Workplace), and the NFPA NEC® Correlating Committee.
Organizations include National Fire Protection Association,
International Association of Electrical Inspectors, IEEE (IAS,
I&CPS, and PCIC), and National Electrical Manufacturers
Association.

156