How MR Power Systems manages European arc-flash safety requirements using ETAP

ETAP allows us to compare IEEE 1584 and DGUV directly, something no other tool offered before. It gives clarity when studies diverge and helps explain results to customers.

Marcin Ruta, CEO, MR Power Systems

European electrical safety standards differ significantly from North American practices, particularly when evaluating arc-flash hazards. Engineers must navigate multiple standards to determine the best approach, including EN 50110, DGUV 203-077, IEC arc-classification tests, IEEE 1584, and NFPA 70E, and others. Each standard has a different scope, calculation methods, and PPE requirements. In this case study, MR Power Systems demonstrates the use of ETAP for integrated arc flash studies - including native DGUV support. -In this way, engineers are able to evaluate both North American and European standards within the same model, compare results, and understand their operational implications.

MR鈥疨ower鈥疭ystems is a Poland-based electrical engineering firm specializing in electrical safety and power systems analysis across the EMEA region. As experts in arc flash studies for both AC and DC systems, they employ industry-leading standards like NFPA鈥�70E, DGUV鈥�203-077, and IEEE鈥�1584 to safeguard people, facilities, and infrastructure. Their core offerings include electrical safety audits, protection coordination, relay settings, short-circuit analysis, load flow and power quality studies, motor-starting and dynamic simulations, as well as grid interconnection and transient analysis.

Location: Jaworze, Silesia, Poland

Year: 2023

Check the overall results and implications for safe operation

Challenges

1. Understanding diverse EU arc-flash standards

EN 50110 for live working zones
DGUV 203-077 for arc energy and PPE box-test classifications
IEC standards for internal arc classification in LV & MV switchgear
IEEE 1584 widely adopted for arc-flash calculations

Each uses different coefficients, limits, voltages, PPE philosophies, and assumptions.

2. Comparing North American and European methodologies

IEEE 1584 computes incident energy & arc-flash boundaries
DGUV does not calculate a boundary and expresses severity in kilojoules, often exceeding PPE capability
PPE selection: NFPA 70E where categories exist, versus APC1/APC2 or ELIM ratings in EU

3. Evaluating real sites with mixed equipment and legacy protection

MV rings with multiple transformers
LV switchgear without arc mitigation measures
Selectivity issues increasing clearing times → increasing hazard
Hardware variations significantly impacting arc energy

Which solutions did they choose?

MR Power Systems used ETAP to:

Run IEEE 1584 and DGUV 203-077 side-by-side within the same model (ETAP was the only platform capable of performing both methodologies natively.)
Evaluate arc energy at 280 locations
Use the Scenario Wizard to test minimum, maximum, existing, and recommended settings
Assess PPE implications under APC, ELIM, and NFPA classifications
Examine differences introduced by Schau & Halinka factors in DGUV
Validate enclosure effects, reflection factors, and electrode configurations

Why do they use ETAP?

Main customer benefits

Unified evaluation of IEEE and DGUV methods

Engineers can compare European and North American results directly—critical for multinational facilities.

Realistic representation of EU PPE requirements

DGUV’s kilojoule-based results are integrated, highlighting cases where PPE limits (APC1/APC2) are exceeded.

Accurate modeling of practical system constraints

ETAP accounts for selectivity issues, long clearing times, arc-quenching systems, maintenance mode switches, and IEC test conditions.

Scenario-based decision support

By modeling several parameter variations, improvements were identified, risk reductions were quantified, and future hardware upgrades could be justified.

Revealing operational implications

In several locations, IEEE 1584 indicated safe working conditions, while DGUV predicted extreme energies. This provides valuable insight for risk assessments and maintenance planning.

Integrated workflow inside one software

Before using ETAP, DGUV calculations required manual spreadsheets or Excel-based tools. ETAP eliminates these workflows and ensures consistency.

What do they think about ETAP?

Customer perspective

DGUV can produce extremely high energies expressed in kilojoules, often exceeding PPE limits. With ETAP, we can see how protection settings, clearing times, and equipment changes impact both methods.

- Marcin Ruta, CEO, MR Power Systems

Conclusion

European arc-flash assessment requires that engineers consider multiple standards that do not always align.

ETAP provides a unified, accurate platform to evaluate IEEE 1584 and DGUV side-by-side, to understand their differences and provide more precise safety recommendations.

With ETAP integrated arc flash calculations, engineers can confidently evaluate arc flash risk, justify upgrades, interpret PPE implications, and communicate results clearly to operators and safety managers across both North American and European contexts.

Arcflash

欧美A片

Case Study