Arc Hazard Assessment for DC Applications in the Transit
Industry
Kenneth S.Y. Cheng Stephen L. Cress
Kinectrics Inc. Kinectrics Inc.
Toronto, Canada Toronto, Canada
ITRODUCTIO
During accidental faults on electrical power
systems, workers may be exposed to hazards from
electrical arcs. A prime concern is the exposure of
workers to the intense radiated component of the arc
energy, which has the potential to cause skin burns.
In the United States of America, it has been reported
that approximately 80% of electrical injuries are due
to burns from exposure to radiant and convective
energy from electrical arcs [1]. Further studies show
that between 10 and 15 workers are hospitalized
everyday due to burns caused by arc flash [2]. Safety
programs including arc hazard analysis are dedicated
to protecting workers from burns caused by electric
arcs. Arc hazard analysis programs have been
implemented by electric utilities and industries across
North America and similar programs have been
established in some public transportation
organizations. These programs are conducted to
select appropriate Personal Protective Equipment
(PPE) for employees to limit burns to levels that are
considered curable. Safety regulations such as
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) states clearly that it is the employers’
responsibilities to ensure that the employees are
adequately protected (OSHA 1910.269 l,6,iii states
that the employer shall ensure that each employee
who is exposed to the hazards of flames or electric
arcs does not wear clothing that could increase the
extent of injury.). In the past few years, several
corporations had been heavily penalized for their
negligence. One of the more severe penalties
charged by OSHA can be found in reference [3].
Assessment of thermal radiation from arcs is
required for both Alternating Current (AC) and
Direct Current (DC) electrical systems. A significant
amount of testing and computational method
development has been conducted related to the
incident radiated energy that can be produced from
AC faults [5], [6], [7]. This has resulted in a number
of useful tools for assessing AC arc hazards in
Donald J. Minini
Excalibur Associates, Inc.
Connecticut, United States
various industrial and utility work situations related
to AC power systems (e.g. NFPA 70E, IEEE 1584,
ArcProTM). There has been, however, a lack of test
data and scientific algorithm development for the
purpose of assessing DC arc hazard analysis. DC arc
exposure might occur at locations with sizable battery
banks and rectifiers such as in power plants or in the
transportation or railway sectors. To-date, there is no
single set of equations that can be used to evaluate all
DC arc hazard situations. Several reviews of possible
methodologies for DC arc hazard computations have
been published [8], [9]. In this paper, some of the
most relevant methods are reviewed and of most
significance, these methods are compared to test data
from novel DC arc tests conducted at Kinectrics’
High Current Laboratory (e.g. the tests for Bruce
Power and Coast Mountain Bus Company). In
particular the transit industry should find this
information relevant to conducting due diligence arc
hazard studies on rail and transit systems involving
DC power at 600V and below.
In a transit industry survey conducted for
Kinectrics Inc., it was apparent that presently, transit
regulators and standard developers such as the
Federal Railway Administration (FRA), Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and the American
Public Transit Association (APTA) have no
inspection, compliance or standard programs that
deal specifically with arc hazard assessment. For
guidance on arc hazard assessment, corporations in
each State generally default to Federal or State
OSHA safety regulations (which applies NFPA 70E
as the standard for compliance). Ultimately, it is
clear that transit employers are obligated to ensure
that workers who may be exposed to electric arcs
must be clothed to prevent enhanced injury. Rulings
have been awarded against transit companies as
illustrated in reference [4], which describes one of the
highest awards made to an ex-railroad worker.
Survey results indicated that many rail
companies in North America are aware of the need
for arc flash safety programs; nevertheless, only a 1500
few have taken the initiative to put these in place and
these are generally at the early stages of program
development. One of the difficulties faced by these 1000
organizations is how to compute arc hazards related
to DC electric systems. 500

Electric Arcs 0

An electric arc is the passage of current through 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
ionized air. The axial temperature of an arc column -500
can reach 15,000 to 25,000°C. In addition to the
radiated thermal energy, tremendous amounts of -1000
noise (150 dB) and pressure (2000 lb/ft2) can also be
released from electric arcs. Accidental arcs can be Figure 2. AC Arc Voltage Waveform
caused by foreign object bridging of phases,
dielectric breakdown and mechanical failure.
16000
The severity of incident energy levels (which 14000
will be the focus of this paper) released from electric 12000
arcs is dependent on the following parameters: 10000
8000
• System voltage
• Available fault current 6000
• Fault duration 4000
• Arc length or gap distance 2000
• Working distance 0
• Electrode materials -2000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
• Enclosure around arc
• AC or DC
• Number of phases involved Figure 3. DC Arc Current Waveform
• Arc motion
400
Figure 1 to Figure 4 show sample waveforms of
350
AC and DC arcs. The waveforms were obtained
from controlled laboratory experiments at Kinectrics. 300
250
15000 200
150
10000
100
5000 50
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-5000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

-10000
Figure 4. DC Arc Voltage Waveform
-15000
As seen from the figures, there exist considerable
-20000 differences between the AC and DC arcs. Below are
some of the major differences:
Figure 1. AC Arc Current Waveform
• AC arcs encounter zero-crossing, but DC
arcs do not. Therefore, under the
assumption that all other parameters remain
 constant, DC arcs generate more energy than
AC arcs because DC arcs will not have
ignition and re-ignition.
• The diameter of DC arc’s plasma column
remain constant, AC arcs’ plasma column
expands and contracts.
• DC arcs are more difficult to extinguish.
• DC arcs decay characteristics are dependent
on the source (ie battery systems have a
finite capacity to sustain the arc).
DC ARC TESTIG AT KIECTRICS
Kinectrics Inc. has conducted the pioneering DC
arc hazard tests and modeling at their unique High
Current Laboratory. Kinectrics has recently
completed DC arc flash test for both Bruce Power
(power generation company in Ontario, Canada) and
Coast Mountain Bus Company (public transit
company in Vancouver, Canada). Figure 5 shows a
sample open-air arc flash test conducted at
Kinectrics’ High Current Laboratory.
Figure 5. Sample Arc Flash Test
For the DC testing, a special low-impedance
transformer was used to obtain the desired voltage
and current range. The output of the transformer was
connected to one or two high-power three-phase
rectifiers to produce a DC power source. The current
magnitude was controlled by adding resistance or
inductance in the circuit on the output of the rectifier.
Precise control of arc times was controlled by a test
sequencer and a synchronous make-switch and circuit
breaker.
DC arc flash testing at Kinectrics has covered the
following range of variables:
• System voltage: 125 V, 250 V and 600V
DC
• Bolted fault current: 1 kA to 25 kA
• Arc gap distance: 0.2” to 6”
• Fault duration: 0.01 to 2 seconds
• Working distance: 6”, 12”, 22” and 34”
• Arcing environment: Open air and enclosed
• Electrode configurations: Vertical,
horizontal and series
With the results obtained from the various tests,
Kinectrics has examined the relationship between
incident energy and working distances from DC arcs,
estimated arcing fault current from bolted fault
current, and derived equations to predict the amount
of incident energy released from DC arcs. Kinectrics
has also compared the measured incident energy and
ArcProTM predictions.
The following subsections show the sample test
results and some of the DC arc hazard developments
achieved by Kinectrics.
130 V and 260 V DC Test Results
Figure 6 shows the measured heat flux from DC
arcs of various lengths and at various available arcing
currents for tests using a 260 V DC source.
Controlled DC arcs were generated between 2
vertical electrodes. At 260 VDC, 1 and 2 inch arc
could easily be sustained at higher arcing faults. The
probability of sustaining arcs is highly dependent on
the electrode configuration, the source voltage and on
the current.
Figure 6. 260V DC Heat Flux @ 12” with 1” and 2” Arc Gap
Extrapolating the heat flux data measured for
260V arcs, graphs of incident energy at 12 inches as a
function of time were produced for different fault
currents levels. The threshold of the hazard/risk
categories set by NFPA 70E were also plotted on
these graphs for 260V DC arcs. Figure 7 shows
incident energy as a function of time for 260 V DC
arcs with 2” gaps. Such curves can serve as a guide
for the incident energy from DC arcs for a range of
possible fault conditions.

Figure 7. +FPA 70E Categories – 12” Working Distance; 2”
Arc Gap Distance; 260 V DC
DC vs. AC Incident Energy
Comparisons can be made between the results
from the AC and DC tests with respect to the incident
energy vs. fault current with a fixed arc gap.
Comparisons were made using data from tests with
1” and 2” gaps and heat flux measured at 24” away
from the arc. Similar fault currents were used for
both AC and DC arcs.
The curves in Figure 8 illustrate the results of the
measurements at 260 V DC compared to AC with 1”
and 2” arc gap distances. Note that DC arc energy is
consistently higher than AC arc energy for the same
current (DC vs. AC rms). The average value per unit
difference in the range from 2,000 A to 10,000 A was
estimated to be approximately 1.25.
Figure 8. AC vs. DC Heat Flux Comparison at 24” Working
Distance
Figure 8 includes the ArcProTM computation
results along with the measured data. It shows that
DC average currents produce higher incident energies
than numerically equivalent AC rms currents.
ArcProTM computations are generally higher than the
AC measured values, mostly due to the fact that the
measured values were averages. Also, the computed
values are intended to be more conservative and more
representative of the maximum hazards.
600 V DC Test Results
600 V DC arc flash tests were performed in both
open-air (electrodes pointing towards one another)
and enclosed (electrodes pointing downwards and
electrodes pointing outwards). It was observed that
with arcs in a box, the two electrode configurations
make very little differences with respect to the
amount of incident energy captured by the
calorimeter. Regardless of which direction the
electrodes point, once the arc is generated, radiated
incident energy will be deflected off the sidewalls of
the box and captured by the calorimeter at the front
opening. This also explains that radiated incident
energy from an enclosed environment is always
higher than that from an open environment if all other
parameters remain unchanged.
The objective of the test was to derive equations
to calculate arcing fault current at 600 V DC and
ultimately, to predict the amount of incident energy
released from DC arcs at a specified working
distance away from the potential arc. The
empirically derived equations are as follows:
‫ܫ‬௔௥௖ = 0.9063 ∗ ‫ܫ‬௕௙ ଴.଼ଽଶ଻ − 0.1051݁ ଴.ଵ଴ଽଷூ್೑ (‫ ܩ‬− 1)
‫ܧ‬௜ = (0.9694 ∗ ‫ܫ‬௔௥௖ − 0.0589)
∗ (0.4793 ∗ ln(‫ )ܩ‬+ 1.0027)
‫ݐ‬ 6ଶ
∗ ൬ ൰ ∗ ቆ ଶቇ
0.1 ‫ܦ‬
where:
‫ܫ‬௔௥௖ is the arcing fault current in kA
‫ܫ‬௕௙ is the bolted fault current in kA
G is the arc gap distance in inches
t is the fault duration in seconds
D is the working distance in inches
The equations were derived under the following
laboratory testing conditions:
• 600 V DC
• Bolted fault current of 2 kA to 25 kA
• Arc gap distance of up to 6” (depending
on the configuration of the electrodes
and the available fault current, arcs may
not be sustainable at an arc gap distance
of 6”)
 As with all curve fit approximations, the above
equations should be considered valid within the range
of parameters in the data used to derive the equations.
Figure 9 shows the relationship between bolted
fault currents and arcing fault currents with arc gap
distances of 1”, 3” and 6”. As obvious from the
curves, there is an inverse correlation between the
arcing fault currents and the arc gap distances.
Bolted Fault Current vs. Arcing Fault Current at 600 V DC
1" Arc Gap
18
For instance, if the working distance is doubled, the
incident energy would decrease by a factor of four.
This relationship is true only under the circumstances
that the energy readings captured by the calorimeters
are 100% radiated thermal energy released by the arc,
e.g. This is likely true for the more distant
measurements but calorimeters as close as 6” are
likely to be influenced by contact with hot arc
plasma. In testing this generally leads to a wide
range of incident energy values for calorimeters that
are very close to the arc.
3" Arc Gap 6" Arc Gap

16
The following figure shows similar information
14 as Figure 7, it displays the resulting incident energy
with the arcing fault currents and durations. The
Arcing Fault Current (kA)

12

10 curves can be extrapolated to predict incident energy

8 levels of longer duration. The incident energies were
6 measured at 12” away from the arc with an 1” arc
4 gap.
2

0
Incident Energy at 12" vs. Arc Duration for 1" Gap
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Arcing Current at 600 VDC
Bolted Fault Current (kA)
2 kA 8.60 kA 13.4 kA Cat 0 Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3
30
Figure 9. Arcing Fault Current vs. Bolted Fault Current under
Various Arc Gap distances at 600 V DC 25
Incident Energy (cal/cm2)

20
It can be noted from Figure 9 that at 2 kA or
below, the arcing fault current is approximately equal 15

to the bolted fault current. For the specific lab setup 10

and tests conducted, the arcing fault currents always
remain between 64% and 97% of the bolted fault 5

currents. 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

To identify how incident energy from DC arcs Arc Duration (s)

varies with working distances, fault durations were

normalized as seen in Figure 10 below. As a result, Figure 11. Arcing Fault Current and Duration vs. Incident
Energy
incident energy can be plotted as heat flux.

DC Heat Flux Comparison for 1" Arc for Various Distance

0.1 second arc 0.5 second arc COMPARISO OF DC ARC MODELS
100

90
At the time of writing, there is no standardized
80
and verified model to determine incident energy
70
Heat Flux (cal/cm2/s)

released from DC arcs. Another DC arc flash hazard

60

50
equation is proposed in a paper by Doan [8]. This set
40
of equations, as shown below, is applicable for DC
30 systems rated up to 1000 V.

ܸ௦௬௦ ଶ ܶ௔௥௖
20

‫ܧܫ‬୫ୟ୶ ௣௢௪௘௥ = 0.005 ∗ ∗

10

ܴ௦௬௦ ܴଶ
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from Arc (inches)

where:
Figure 10. Heat Flux vs. Working Distances
ܸ௦௬௦ is the system voltage in volts
ܴ௦௬௦ is the system resistance, in ohms
As expected, heat flux or incident energy varies
ܶ௔௥௖ is the arcing time in seconds
inversely with the square of the working distances.
 R is the working distance from the arc, in
centimeters
‫ܧܫ‬୫ୟ୶ ௣௢௪௘௥ is the estimated DC arc flash
incident energy at the maximum power point, in
cal/cm2
For exposures where the arc is in a box or
enclosure, the proposal suggests using a 3-times
multiplying factor for the resulting incident energy
value.
Based on laboratory test results, this calculation
is shown to be conservative and estimates higher than
measured incident energy levels. A comparison of
Doan’s equation1, ArcProTM with a modification
factor derived from the DC arc flash tests at 120 V
and 260 V DC, and the test results at 600 V DC is
shown in the following figure.
Heat Flux at 12 inches vs. Arcing Fault Current
1" Arc Gap
90
80
70
Heat Flux (cal/cm2/s)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6
Figure 12. Comparison of Existing DC Arc Flash Evaluation
Methods
As seen from Figure 12, under the specific
scenario, ArcProTM with factor matches well with the
results from the 600 V DC test. It is also important to
note that Doan’s equation is designed for worst case
energy and produced the same results independent of
the value of the arc gap.
RECOMMEDATIOS
An interim approach for performing arc flash
evaluation at DC equipment could include:
1. ArcProTM with factors has been verified for
the following conditions:
• 130 V DC to 260 V DC
1
It is assumed that Ibf = 2 Iarc, where Iarc is measured
from the laboratory experiment at Kinectrics
• Bolted fault current of 2 kA to 25 kA
Arc gap distance of up to 0.5” for 130 V
•
DC systems and up to 2” for 260 V DC
systems
2. The set of 600 V DC equations Kinectrics
derived should be used under the following
conditions:
• 600 V DC
• Bolted fault current of 2 kA to 25 kA
• Arc gap distance of up to 6” (depending
on the configuration of the electrodes
and the available fault current, arcs may
not be sustainable at an arc gap distance
of 6”)
3. In situations where the case being assessed
does not fall in 1. or 2. the maximum arc
energy equation proposed by Doan could be
600 VDC
6" Arc Gap Doan Arcpro 1" Arcpro 6"
used as a conservative approach. Further
testing and studies are required in order to
derive more practical models and formulae.
COCLUSIOS
Arc hazard analysis is a safety assessment, dedicated
to protecting workers who might be exposed to
radiated thermal energy from electric arcs. In this
paper, the focus is on incident energy released from
8 10 12 14 16 18
DC arcs, which should be of particular interest to the
Arcing Fault Current (kA) transit industry.
OSHA states clearly that it is the employers’
responsibilities to ensure that the employees are
adequately protected with PPE.
Based on the research and testing conducted at
Kinectrics, the following can be concluded:
1. At present, there is no standardized and
verified model to determine incident energy
released from DC arcs.
2. An initial set of DC arc measurements from
Kinectrics laboratories can be used as a
verification tool for proposed DC arc hazard
analysis tools.
3. The DC arc flash formulas proposed by
Doan is conservative compared to
measurements. Use of ArcpoTM and the 600
V DC arc hazard equation developed by
Kinectrics, is suitable within the range of
parameters for which these models have
been verified.
 4. There is a need for additional development
of DC arc models. Extrapolation may
produce misleading results.
5. It is critical to understand the applications
and limitations of the existing models and
equations.
6. The transit industry with DC systems for 3rd
rail and cantenary applications should find
the test results and preliminary computation
methods mentioned in this paper useful for
initial DC arc hazard assessments.
ACKOWLEDGEMETS
[6] Doughty, R., Neal, T. and Floyd, L..
“Predicting Incident Energy to Better Manage the
Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V Power distribution
Systems”, United States.
[7] ArcProTM Software, Kinectrics Inc..
[8] Doan, D.. “Arc Flash Calculations for
Exposures to DC Systems”, Delaware, United States.
[9] Ammerman, R. et al.. “DC Arc Models and
Incident Energy Calculations”, Colorado, United
States.

The authors would like to thank the following

individuals and corporate for their contributions
on this paper:

• Carl Keyes, Associate, Kinectrics Inc.

• Claude Maurice, High Current
Laboratory Manager, Kinectrics Inc.
• Coast Mountain Bus Company
• Bruce Power Inc.

REFERECES

[1] IEEE Standards Association: Industry

Backs IEEE/FPA Arc Flash Testing Program with
Initial Donations of $1.25 Million. Retrieved May 8,
2008, from Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers website:
http://standards.ieee.org/esrc/arclfash/pr_arcflash.htm
l

[2] Neitzel, D. (2006). “The Hazards of

Electricity – Do You Know What They Are?”, Texas,
United States.

[3] Harrell, J.. "Pieper Electric to challenge

OSHA citations". Daily Reporter (Milwaukee).
FindArticles.com. March 25, 2011.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn5302/is_20040
402/ai_n24422402/

[4] Stannard, E.. "Injured Ex-Metro-North

Worker Awarded $1.1M". New Haven Register.
April 13, 2010.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/04/13/news/
aa3ctrailaward041310.txt?viewmode=fullstory

[5] Lee, R. (1982). “The Other Electrical

Hazard: Electric Arc Blast Burns”, United States.