Combining the best of both worlds

Copyright Material IEEE

Paper No. ESW-2008-22
Lt.Cdr. F.G. Marx, M.Sc.
Netherlands Defense Academy &
Quercus Technical Services
Baileystraat 3
8013 RV, Zwolle
The Netherlands
info@qts.nl
marx02@zonnet.nl

Abstract US and Canadian electrical safety standards are

state of the art. A wide variety of possible electrical hazards,
such as arc-flashes , are covered. European standards have
not developed this way (yet). However, elements from these
European standards might be of interest for the US electrical
safety community. Three of these elements are considered
in this article. This article explains possible switching
strategies that could reduce the risk of an electrical shock
during indirect contact with live parts, in the three basic
grounding schemes. It covers an important strategic
difference between European and US electrical safety
standards that enables a wider variety of installation owners
to be compliant with the electrical safety standards. Finally, a
certification strategy that increased the common electrical
safety awareness in the Netherlands is described

voltage installations. Chapter three compares two

differences between the NFPA 70E and the general

Index Terms electrical shock, safety training, touch

potential, certification schemes, grounding schemes.
I.

European workspace safety standard, the EN-50110: one

can be found in the scope, the second in practical working
procedures. Chapter four covers a popular Dutch certification
strategy that certifies workers based on the EN-50110.
Certification op personal has dramatically improved safety
awareness in the Netherlands. Chapter five concludes this
article.

INTRODUCTION

Risk is commonly regarded (and accepted) as the product

of possibility times effect. US standards cover more
possible effects of potential electrical hazards than
equivalent European standards. The biggest gap between
the US and Canadian (US&C) electrical safety standard
(such as the NFPA 70E [1]) and the equivalent European
standard (the EN-50110 [2]) is the absence of any reference
to arc flashes in the European standard. European
standards have not developed in this direction (yet). Despite
of this gap, there are some interesting features from
European standards that might be of interest for the US
electrical safety community. Some of these elements will be
discussed in this paper.

Figure 1: touch potentials versus switch off time [6]

A sub-goal of this article is to show the role of a document

called IEC 60479 [7] in European standards. This document
explains the way the electrical impedance of a human body
changes as a function of the touch potential, the degree of
moisture of the skin and the current path. From the data
presented in this document it is possible to derive a graph
that indicates the maximum amount of current a human body
can handle given a certain amount of time (figure 6), as well
as its equivalent voltage with respect to time (figure 1).
Example: figure 1 explains that a human body can handle a
touch potential of 100 V (50 or 60 Hz) during 0,45 seconds.
While an electric potential of 100 V direct current (ripple free)
can be touched safely for an infinite amount of time. This
information can be used to determine switch off times during

The second chapter of this article describes the way

indirect contact is handled by European documents
equivalent to the US National Electrical Code (NEC) [3]. In
this case the Dutch NEN 1010 [4] and NEN 1041 [5] have
been selected. The NEN 1010 regulates the design of lowvoltage installations, the NEN 1041 the design of high-

internal faults in subsystems as will be explained in the

following chapter.
II.

covered by means of a typical European system:

Transformer T1 is the power source in figure 3
Generator T1 is the power source in figure 3 and 4.
Phase voltage of 230 V
Line voltage of 400 V
Frequency of 50 Hz.

COMPARING NEN 1010 AND NEN 1041 WITH NEC

This chapter covers protection against indirect contact in

the three principal grounding systems: IT, TN and TT.

A.

Touching a metal enclosure that carries an electrical

potential as a result of an internal fault is called indirect
contact (see figure 2). European standards , such as the
NEN 1010 or NEN 1041 (equivalent to the NEC) state that
figure 1 is to be consulted in order to protect personnel in
case of these internal faults.

Touch potential and switch off time in a TN-system.

Figure 3 shows a TN -system with an internal, fully

developed earth fault. Explanation of the data found in this
figure:
L1
phase 1 .
L2
phase 2.
L3
phase 3.
N
Neutral
PE
Protective Eearh
Uf
Touch potential
RB
grounding resistance of the supply source
gL
type of fuse.
IF
Fault current

Figure 2: indirect contact [8]

First some definitions: European standards define three

different (basic) grounding systems based on three letters:
T
Ground (French: Terre)
N
Neutral
I
Insulated
The three possible combinations are that define systems
are: TN, TT and IT.
Figure 3: a fully developed earth fault in a TN-system [9]

The first letter indicates the way the supply s ource is

grounded. The second one indicates the way metal
enclosures are grounded (table 1).
TABLE I

European standards state that the maximum touch

potential Uf has to be calculated. A fully developed earth fault
will create this condition. Therefore:

DEFINITION OF THE DIFFERENT GROUNDING SCHEMES

IF Z s U0
Where:
Zs
m inimum impedance (in ), equal to the wire
impedance of the phase L3 (ZL3) plus the impedance of the
protective earth (ZPE).
Uo
Phase voltage

Covering the details of these systems is not part of this

articles scope. This section focuses on a speci fic element:
protection against indirect contact as regulated in the NEN
1010 and NEN 1041 and the role document IEC 60479 is
playing. The three different systems (TN, TT and IT) are

To calculate the fault current (If) and touch potential (Uf).

IF =

Uo
Uo
=
Z S (Z L 3 + Z PE )

Entering values:

Therefore

IF =

resistance Ra high, hard to predict and might vary

(depending on the soil). The touch potential U F is equal to
the voltage across Ra plus the voltage across the protective
earth. So, the (high) resistance Ra determines the (therefore
high) touch potential. As this touch potential is high and
hard to predict this system is not popular. In fact, it is hard to
meet the design criteria stated in the NEN 1010 or NEN
1041. Typically, when this system is used, extra protective
connections to earth are added. This should keep the touch
potential within limits as it reduces Ra due to extra paralleled
connections. Despite of these drawbacks, this system has a
couple of principle advantages: a high resistance in the
current path means a relatively low fault current.

230V
= 1150A
(0,1 + 0,1 )

Uf = Z PE I F = 0,1 1150 = 115 V

By inspection of figure 1 the conclusion can be drawn that

a touch potential of 115 V has to be switched off within 0,4
seconds. This means that the gL-fuses has to disconnect
this 1150 A of fault current within 0,4 seconds. If a fuse
cannot meet this requirement it has to be replaced by an
other fuse or switch.
The same design principles with respect to indirect
contact are valid for IT-systems as well as TT-systems. A
TN-system was used in this article as an example to
calculate the touch potential as it is much more
straightforward compared with an IT-system or TTsystem. The following section covers details of the touch
potential in TT-systems and IT-systems, although no
calculations are included.

B.

The characteristics in terms of touch potential of an ITsystem are covered in the next section.
C.

Touch potential and switch off time in an IT-system.

The best system, in terms of touch potential is an ITsystem (figure 5) or ungrounded system. In an ungrounded
system there is no direct connection between the starpoint
of, in this case, generator G1 and ground.

Touch potential and switch off time in a TT-system.

As a result of the absence of this connection between

starpoint and earth, the fault current is usually very low. This
situation can be compared with the case of touching a
battery on one side. Touching the plus only will not result in a
current path as there is none. However, in a three phase
energy distribution system things are a little more
complicated. As a result of cable capacitance a (usually)
small current will flow.

A TT-system (figure 4) is not used frequently in Europe.

The difference between this system and a TN system is the
absence of a Neutral. However, as the second letter
indicates , one or more extra grounding leads are conne cted
to metal enclosures.

Figure 5: a fully developed earth fault in an IT-system [11]

G1

Where:
Ra
grounding resistance of the metal enclosures
Id
Capacitive short circuit current
The magnitude of this current depends on the length of the
cables, type of cable insulation and the system voltage.
Dutch design rules and regulations state that the current in a
one phase to ground fault in an ungrounded system should
not exceed 100 A. As a result of this fairly low short circuit
current, a touch potential lower than 50 Volts is usually easily
met.
Figure 5 shows an IT-system . Generally the gentlemen
will keep smiling while touching a metal enclose with an
internal fault. The capacitors drawn in this picture close the
return path. As the impedance of these capacitors are high
the current Id referred to as the capacitive short circuit current,
is low.
And therefore it is relatively easy to comply with the IEC
60479 requirements stated in figure 1. Due to the low fault
current the touch potential will normally be lower than 50
VAC (generally accepted safe touch potential).

Figure 4: a fully developed earth fault in a TT-system [10]

Where:
Ra
grounding resistance of the metal enclosures
Ia
Fault current
G1
Generator 1
A big disadvantage of this TT system is the fact that

G1

As a result of all this, the EN-50110: it is recommended

that persons responsible for such installations (such as
communication systems) should use this standard as a
guide to the aims to be achieved in setting out their rules and
procedures.
Some
Dutch companies that are involved in
communication systems have embraced the EN-50110.

This concludes the second chapter. The third one

compares the EN-50110 with the NFPA 70E.
III.

COMPARING THE EN-50110 WITH THE NFPA 70E

This chapter covers differences between the EN-50110

and the NFPA 70E in terms of the scope and working
procedures. An interesting conclusion based on the IEC
60479 is included in the scope of the EN -50110. Several
companies involved in radar systems, communication
equipment and ships (excluded from the scope of both
documents) used the EN -50110 to set up their working
codes. Secondly, a difference in working procedure is
covered.

A.

Scope of the EN-50110 versus NFPA 70E

They succeeded in setting up a mode of operation that is

compliant with the European version of the NFPA 70E. The
companies benefit is the fact that there is no need of setting
up a safety standard from scratch. But these people are not
the only ones benefiting form this conclusion derived from
figure 6. Converters contain several types of capacitors.
These capacitors are present to protect switching
components (snubbers). These capacitors might not harm
anyone when directly touched. So why not exclude them from
the stringent parts of the NFPA 70E, but leave a company
free to use the NFPA 70E as a guide.

The document IEC 60479 plays a second important role,

next to system design. It also determines the type of
installations in which Europeans are allowed to work live.
According to the EN-50110 it is allowed to work live (without
PPE) in any installation with a touch potential lower than 50
Volt AC (50 or 60 Hz) or 120 Volt DC (there are some energy
limitations), as can be concluded from figure 1. But this
conclusion is not really that exciting.
Figure 6: body current with respect to time [12].

A more exciting conclusion can be derived from figure 6.

Figure 6 explains in detail the amount of current with respect
to time a human body can handle. Several companies have
used figure 6 by claiming: if the amount of current that can be
drawn from any electrical component cannot harm any
person (region 1 and 2 in figure 6) because the energy
storied is low: working live is allowed, regardless of the
voltage (!).

This comment concludes the first section of this chapter.

The second part covers a significant detail in working
procedures.

B.

Working procedures

The EN-50110 describes the way employees and

employers have to be trained as well as the level of training.
It defines three levels of qualified personnel. The
definitions used in this article may look strange but these
are directly cited from the English version of the EN-50110
[13]:

This conclusion is an important one for those who work

with communication systems (excluded in the scope of the
NFPA 70E and EN-50110). These people usually work with
high voltage, low energy components. These companies
used to refuse the (so called) energy distribution standards
because the assumption in the energy distribution world is:
high voltage means high energy. These people claim:
nobody steps away 3 ft from a 138 kV capacitor in a
television for a good reason: the maximum current that can
be drawn from this capacitor might (only) be 0,1 mA (not
dangerous at all, according to figure 6).

1) Nominated person in control of an electrical installation

That person who has been nominated to be the person
with direct management responsibility for the electrical
installation

2) Nominated person in control of a work activity

That person who has been nominated to be the person
with direct management responsibility for the work activity.

The Dutch government supported th e idea of certification

schemes. During this period the government wanted to
establish a situation where the market created their own
set of rules based on European standards . Government
support is an important step when certifying procedures or
persons. Especially when companies want to prove that the
electrical safety program is compliant with the relevant
standards. The government supported the basic idea that if
a person is certified, his knowledge, attitude and skills are
sufficient and at such a (predetermined) level that hell be
able to perform all his tasks in a safe way.
A foundation called STIPEL [15] was therefore created. In
this foundation the government, employers and employees
as well as training centers and certification companies
united. The mission of this foundation is: to create
certification schemes in order to certify employers and
employees. These certification schemes are actual, reflect a
modern level of engineering skills and are redefined on a
regular base.

3) Skilled person
A person with relevant education and experience to
enable him or her to avoid dangers which electricity may
create.
The first person is usually the manager, the second one is
the experienced chief of the work floor. A skilled person
could be the employee trained to perform certain tasks.
The EN-50110 as well as national standards describe
working procedures and the responsibilities in a lot of detail.
This doesnt seem to be that spectacular, but some details
might be of interest. An interesting example from the EN50110 [14]: When the nominated person in control of the
work activity is satisfied that the electrical installation is ready
to be re-energized, notification shall be made to the
nominated person in control of the electrical installation,
stating that the work is finished and the electrical installation
is available for reconnection.

This is (roughly) how it works:

Employers and employees are responsible for the
content of the certification schemes.
Certification companies check exam procedures,
the quality of the exams and hand out certificates
after passing exams.
The government accepts these certificates as an
official document with all its consequences in case
of accidents.
Training centers have created education programs
that are fully compliant with the certification
schemes.
-

This means in reality that the chief (normally not around

during work performed by a skilled person) has to step in his
car and drive to the skilled person to check whether it is
safe to re-energise. The responsibility of the process of reenergising has been appointed to the most experienced
person. This, according to the EN-50110, should reduce the
risk of accidents from happening.
Notice that the EN-50110 acknowledges the existence of
an installation manager. This has to be a person with an
engineering degree. This person has got direct
management responsibilities. He, therefore, is able to shut
down the plant as he feels it is not safe. The installation
manager can increase the safety awareness of the direction
board.

While developing these certification schemes it turned out

that the manager and chief required more safety training (in
terms of time). As a result of:
the level of the training and
the responsibilities
the chief and manager stay at school for (usually) ten days
before they are fully qualified. While the skilled person
usually requires a seven days training period at school in
order to pass the exam. The certificates are valid for a period
of three years. Extending this period for another three years
means that one has to pass exams again.
Certification has increased the level of safety awareness
drastically in the Netherlands (this is not a European effort).
It might be a useful system in any country in the world.

There are other examples or articles that might be or

interest, but this arti cle covers two of them. Readers who like
to read more can always order a copy of the EN-50100 via
the internet. This article continues with certification
schemes.
IV. CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

V.

Fifteen years ago the Dutch energy distribution market

(employers and employees) decided that they wanted to set
a generally accepted standard for the education of
employers and employees. At that moment different
companies interpreted OSHA-equivalent laws, European
standards and National standards in a different way. As a
result of this the competency and electrical safety
awareness of employees was different, depending on the
company one was working in.

CONCLUSIONS

This article explained several elements that could be used

to increase the already impressive electrical safety
standards in the US and Canada. These elements are
derived from Dutch designs standards, such as the NEN
1010 and NEN 1041 as well as the European safety
standard EN-50110. Certification is not directly stated in
thes e standards , but it has improved the national safety

awareness in the Netherlands dramatically. Switch off times

related to touch potentials might be a good method to
prevent personal accidents in case of a shock. The scope of
the NFPA 70E could be modified in order to increase the
number of companies embracing the NFPA 70E as a
baseline document. Defining an ins tallation manager
could be useful to increase the safety awareness of the
managing board of directors. The responsibility of, for
example reenergizing, has been appointed to experienced
persons and not the skilled person. In a globalizing world
benchmarking is a powerful tool to increase the level of
standards. This article has covered interesting options for
future improvement of the US and Canadian standards. But
on the other hand, the author is pushing European and
Dutch safety standards to include form s of arc flash
analysis. We all learn from each other!

[7] IEC 60479-1 Edition 3.0: B. 1994: Effects of current on

human beings and livestock Part 1: General aspects.
[8] Quercus TTS, high voltage safety training, the installation
manager.
[9] Quercus TTS, low voltage safety training, skilled person
[10] Quercus TTS, high voltage safety training, skilled
person
[11] Quercus TTS, low voltage safety training, the installation
manager
[12] from the IEC 60479-1 Edition 3.0: B. 1994: Effects of
current on human beings and livestock
[13] EN-50110, article 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (1998 version)
[14] EN-50110, article 6.2.7.(1998 version)
[15] homepage: www.stipel.nl

VI.
V.

VITA

REFERENCES
Ivo Marx is currently working as a senior lecturer at the
Royal Netherlands Defense Academy. He has sailed on
different types of warships at different levels (on missions
such as enduring freedom and counter drugsoperations). Previous occupations were project engineer
and head of the electrical safety section at the Navys
engineering school. As a results of this position he has
been heavily involved in the area of electrical safety in the
Netherlands.. In 2000 he received his Masters in Marine
Engineering (electrical option) at the University College of
London. As a result of personal inte rests he got involved with
Quercus TTS and the IEEE ESW workshops.

[1] Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, NFPA

70E, 2004
[2] EN-50110-1: 1998: Operation of electrical installations
[3] National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, 2005
[4] (Dutch standard): NEN 1010: veiligheidsbepalingen voor
laagspanningsinstallaties (safety regulations for low
voltage installations)
[5] (Dutch standard): NEN 1041: veiligheidsbepalingen voor
hoogspanningsinstallaties : (safety regulations for high
voltage installations)
[6] NEN 1010, figure 41Z (2003 edition)