Dutch Lucien wrote:

I am an Arc Hazard specialist from the Netherlands and have carried out many studies.

In Europe there is still a lot of confusion as to which method is the correct one.

You are correct, there is quite a bit of confusion regarding arc flash studies and protection. The posted guide â€śArc Hazard â€“ The European Approachâ€ť is a prime example with an apparent bias towards the box test method and BGI/GUV-1-5188E Guide. Many incorrect or misleading statements are made, whether intentional or not regarding IEEE 1584 and the open arc test IEC61482-1-1

I am Vice-Chair of IEEE 1584 and Chair of IEC TC78 Live Working which includes many of the standards that are listed in the guide including both IEC 61482-1-1, 61482-1-2 and 61482-2.

What follows does not represent any official position of the aforementioned standards, but are simply my personal observations to clarify some of the statements in the document.

Mike Frain's (a UK based colleague) earlier post brings some of this to light. I would like to add additional comments regarding this document. Mike and I authored a peer reviewed IEEE technical paper that was presented at an IEEE conference in January 2012.

**A European view of arc flash hazards** The paper addresses the European approach based on many of the directives that your attached paper cites.

Page 8: and there is a tiny difference with the ASM 1959F test.

The standard is AS

**T**M 1959F (minor typo)

Page 8: The test setup consists of 3 electrodes

Incorrect - The test method for 61482-1-1 uses TWO opposing electrodes

Page 8: The test parameters ATPV and EBT50 have a 50% probability of exceeding the Stoll curve., which could result in a second-degree burn. European regulations are based on 100% protection; therefore, these arc ratings are not suitable for the European market.

**Misleading Statement.**IEC61482-1-1 was specifically developed for the European market. The definition of Arc Rating according to IEC 61482-1-1 contains note 1 as clarification which states: The arc rating can be the arc thermal performance value (ATPV), the breakopen threshold energy (EBT) or the incident energy limit (ELIM)

Page 8: The ELIM test parameter has been introduced into the 2018 PPE standard, IEC 61482-2 and have been defined by not exceed the Stoll curve. Due to the fact that the ELIM rating has no limit, it does not meet the European requirements.

ELIM was developed for the express purpose of complying with European Requirements. CENELEC representation was part of the development specifically for that reason.

ELIM is NOT IEC 61482-2-2 specific. In fact, on Page 5 of the 2018 Edition of IEC 61482-2 that lists the changes in the 2018 edition, it specifically states: This edition includes the following significant technical changes with respect to the previous edition.

a) new definition for ELIM, ATPV and EBT as used in accordance with IEC 61482-1-1

Page 8: The incident energy (IE), measured by the sensors, is calculated for 30s after ignition of the arc.

**Misleading**The time period is taken out of context.

IEC 61482-1-1 states: 12.1.4 The comparison shall be made only in the time range starting at 1 s after arc initiation

**up to** 30 s.

The 2018 IEEE 1584 standard

**DOES** account for direct exposure via the Horizontal Electrode Configuration known as HCB. Incident Energy Calculations using HCB may result in incident energy 2 to 3 times greater than the original VCB method. I personally made a presentation at an IEEE conference comparing HCB calculations to arc rated fabric ratings that were tested with horizontal electrodes / more direct plasma exposure and the results using HCB were nearly identical.

**2018 IEEE 1584 HCB Convective Flows** Video on the subject:

**Modify the Arc Rating or Modify the Incident Energy Calculations**BGI/GUV-1-5188E is a guide whereas IEEE 1584 is an International IEEE Standard that was developed over many years of empirically derived tests and was peer review by both IEEE 1584 Working Group Members and a separate group of IEEE members for the final approval.

The IEEE 1584 Standard testing was conducted by the NFPA/IEEE Arc Flash Collaboration which also had an international advisory board including the chief architect of the BGI/GUV-1-5188E Guide.

The equations and calculations methods provided by IEEE 1584 are based on several thousand arc flash tests and the equations were several years in development and with the input of the aforementioned advisory group. A separate model review group then rigorously evaluated and further enhanced the equations over another period of two years. Over 200 people were ultimately involved with the peer review and approval.

The IEEE 1584 calculations on page 19 do not provide much detail. For comparison, I performed the calculations using data that was provided for each of the three enclosure configurations, VCB, VCBB, HCB

My results using 2018 IEEE 1584 for the calculations at "Main 2"

VCB: 4.13 cal/cm^2,

VCBB: 6.21 cal/cm^2

HCB: 8.79 cal/cm^2.

My results using 2018 IEEE 1584 for the calculations at "Sub 2-3"

VCB: 11.95 cal/cm^2,

VCBB: 17.39 cal/cm^2

HCB: 25.42 cal/cm^2.

Again, reference the link and article above regarding the affect of HCB on arc rated clothing.

The IEEE 1584 Standard has been validated up to 15 kV based on actual tests. What was the maximum voltage used for tests for the BGI/GUV-1-5188E Guide? Was it actually 115 kV?

There is much more that I could add. It appears this document contains information that is misleading and taken out of context. Unfortunately it seems to serve the purpose of attempting to discrediting the use of IEC 61481-1-1 test method along with the global standard IEEE 1584 - both of which are used internationally on a large scale.