Do anyone knows about a arc flash calculation software that use DGUV method? I know Sincal from Siemens can do it, but not SKM neither ETAP.

To my knowledge, none of the software companies like SKM, ETAP or Easypower consider the BGI/GUV-I 5188E in their software.

The BGI/GUV-I 5188E is published by: German Social Accident Insurance otherwise known as DGUV. The calculation method outlined in the BGI/GUV-I 5188E was also published as part of a similar guideline known as ISSA - International Social Security Association also based in Germany.

The calculation method was developed by a group of well regarded industry experts from Germany. A key member of this group also served as one of the technical advisors for the IEEE/NFPA Collaboration on Arc Flash Phenomena Research Project which is being used to develop the next edition of IEEE 1584 - IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations.

The development of the BGI/GUV-I 5188E calculation method was due to a different approach that is used for PPE testing as defined in International Electrotechnical Commission Standard IEC 61482-1-2 (EN 61482-1-2)

This test method, known informally as the "Box Test Method" ejects an arc out of a small box towards the material or assembly (PPE). There are presently two test classes for this method and they are pass/fail. The first test, known as Class 1, uses a 4,000 Amp short circuit current at 400 Volts to develop the arc from the box. The second test is known as Class 2 and uses a 7,000 Amp current at 400 Volts. If the material or assembly passes the first arc test, it is classified as "Class 1" If it passes the second test, it is classified as Class 2.

One problem with the classification method was how to determine which Class is necessary for suitable protection of the electrical worker. There are no corresponding incident energy values measured during the "box test" and the Class system does not have any listed attribute that could be used for selecting a protection class. Simply basing a Class on 4 kA and 7 kA did not provide a suitable criteria for application guidance. The calculation method found in BGI/GUV-I 5188E was developed to provide a method for the user to determine which Protection Class i.e. Class 1 or Class 2 to use.

There continues to be some debate in the global arc flash community when comparing the use of IEEE 1584 and PPE Arc Rating methods with the BGI/GUV-I 5188E and Box Test method. The IEEE 1584 Standard is an internationally recognized standard and is used as the basis for most major software company's arc flash programs. There is presently a new IEC document in development with the goal of providing information regarding all of the various available test and calculation methods regarding arc flash and protective clothing / equipment.

Although the calculation method used in BGI/GUV-I 5188E has been published in two German insurance related guides, to my knowledge it is not part of a standard such as IEC, EN etc. and that is most likely the reason that you do not see it being used by the power system software companies such as SKM, ETAP and EasyPower.

Full disclosure and disclaimer: Although I am the Secretary of the IEEE 1584 Working Group as well as a member of several related IEC Working Groups and IEC Technical Committee 78, the views expressed here are my own.

Thank you Jim for such complete answer. I wonder how engeneers perfom calculation in Europe using IEC 61482-2 if there insn't software to solve it. Because doing manually (or using excel spreadsheet) is very dificult and not recommended for complex electrical networks.

Hello Everyone,

ETAP 19.0 has implemented this feature. Users can run the following methods as shown below

1. DGUV-I 203-078 information brochure (previously known as BGI/GUV-I 5188).
2. Method based on approach proposed by Dr. Holger Schau along with other experts in the reference: "Elektrische Schutz-einrichtungen in Industrie-netzen und –anlagen” (German language).

Users also have the capability to view plots, perform batch calculations.

This is good news. Although most global arc flash studies use IEEE 1584 and Arc Ratings for PPE, there are few countries and regions that use the IEC Arc Protection Class 1 and 2 and this addition will be quite helpful.

After a brief skim-read of the DGUV-I 203-078 (BGI/GUV-I 5188) guide, I could see that the Scope mentions that "This information is applicable for work performed on or in the vicinity of electrical equipment > 50 VAC". However, I was unable to find a maximum voltage constraint.

Is this methodology only appropriate for LV locations or can it be sensibly applied to MV & HV locations also?

Great Question! The "Box Test" for PPE is at 400V and the DGUV guide references a 400V example. So... I'm not sure about an upper limit.

I contacted a colleague in Germany who was very involved with this and asked if there is an upper limit for voltage. I will report back when I hear.

The limitation is the limitation of the IEC 61482-1-2 Box Test. It currently only produces about 4 and 12 cal/cm2 depending on the fault current used in the testing Class 1 is 4kA and Class 2 is 7kA. There is a 2.5 cm arc gap so it is really similar to an single phase to ground arc flash in a box like a meter box which was its origin in accident investigations. The limitation to around 12 cal max means that higher levels still must use the IEEE calculations.

The IEC committee has interest in expanding this level to something more like at least 40 CAL but while some of test labs have played with moving the test samples closer (30 cm in the original test and 15 cm in the proposed testing) this is still non-standard. The area of exposure makes limits the testing of a PPE system but the open arc while a larger exposure area is also limited.

Most of the protection in arc flash in life saving is preventing ignition. Better protection can be accomplished but using the Class system or the Arc Rating system will usually result in a life saved.

Small update on software. BGI 5188 is implemented in Digsilent but Digsilent in general has very poor arc flash module
Also BSD Dresden has some simple software (German PPE manufacturer)

BGi 5188 as published is not very well documented comparing to IEEE1584 if you try to look to all limitations and model coefficients. As far I see it is good approach however this year IEC61482 introduced ELIM which is not very clear yet ( Jim can say more) but intention is to make ATPV easier to get CE marking, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, IEEE 1584 can be used to calculate the incident energy to specify arc rated clothing and PPE based on IEC 61482-1-1: Test methods – Method 1: Determination of the arc rating (ELIM, ATPV and/or EBT) of clothing materials and of protective clothing using an open arc. The latest edition was just recently published and reflects the efforts of many global experts all dedicated to creating international standards.

In regards to your question about CE marking, ELIM was created so that IEC 61482-1-1 would be approved by the CEN consultant. CEN is the European Committee for Standardization and standards.

The CEN Consultant is an Independent expert whose role is to provide guidance and advice to the Technical Committees (TC), Subcommittees (SC) and Working Groups (WG) preparing draft European Standards.

Among the many responsibilities of this person are: Provides guidance to Technical Committees on their work programs in relation to New Approach Directives. Facilitates the standard drafters’ understanding of the Essential Requirements (ERs) of the Directive concerned. Checks the conformity of the draft European Standard with these ERs Provides comments, if any, on drafts submitted to the CEN Enquiry. Provides indicative assessments of drafts as agreed with the Technical Committee at any time during the development process. Provides advice to CEN and the European Commission as necessary.

At issue was the concern regarding ATPV which is “is the value of incident energy at which the heat transfer through the test specimens is enough to reach the Stoll criteria with 50 % probability” and Ebt which is the Breakopen Threshold Energy that is the value of incident energy at which breakopen occurs with 50 % probability. The 50% number was a show stopper for the CEN consultant so ELIM was created.

The Incident energy limit - ELIM is a numerical value of incident energy attributed to a product (material or clothing), below which value all product responses are below the Stoll curve and without Breakopen. The ELIM of a material or material assembly is calculated from data points obtained from testing a set of test specimens, which are also used for the determination of the ATPV and/or EBT.

So, a long answer to your question, ELIM was created so the standard would be accepted by complying with the CEN Consultant requirements so it could be used in Europe.

My normal disclaimer, although I’m Chair of TC78 Live Working which oversees this standard, the above are my comments and not necessarily representative of IEC.

Thanks Jim. So as I understand intention for ELIM will be to use it for EUROPE for CE marking instead of ATPV value.

Back to your original question about voltage:

I heard back from the chief developer of the BGI/GUV-I 5188 guide - now referred to as DGUV-I 203-078. According to him, this guide is good up to 110 kV (surprised me). There is a 2nd edition nearing completion that will also include DC up to 1500 VDC. These limits will be listed in the new 2nd edition when it is published (sometime within the next year).

Super - thanks for enquiring and for letting me know the response.

If this is still interesting for anyone I did recently study for 4 sites where I did double work with latest DGUV and IEEE1584 and conclusions are :
- DGUV returns much more conservative results than latest IEEE1584-2018
- comparing to IEEE it is much harder to make improvements as DGUV goes almost all the time down to 50% for Iarc ( like max power method) and this makes it much harder to control with protection settings - at least in my view and experience

Now from interesting topics :
- As far I read back DGUV 203-077 was started as apparently in EU we need 100% protection against anything and it was opposed against 50% factor in ATPV or EBT50 test
- well in DGUV203-077 from 2021 there is interesting part with risk matrix = severity x probability (not new)

What is interesting is that for severity ( table A4.1) it gives relation between Arc energy and PPE arc energy ( Warc/Warc prot) which might be up to x10 factor. If I got it right (attached screenshot) if I had (very unlikely) level of probability I can have calculated energy 3 x bigger than PPE. Simple example will be : If calculated energy is 960kJ and APC2 = 320kJ it normally will mean that I have no PPE . Now if we implement risk matrix that says that for unlikely event and reversible injuries we can use APC2 as it fits x1 to x3 (50% factor in ATPV and 0% in ELIM ?)

I wonder if someone look at it ?