How to manage European arc-flash safety requirements using ETAP

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.
Martin Utla, CEO, MR Power Systems

European electrical safety standards differ significantly from North American practices, particularly when evaluating arc-flash hazards. Engineers must navigate EN 50110, DGUV 203-077, IEC arc-classification tests, IEEE 1584, and NFPA 70E - each with different scopes, calculation methods, and PPE requirements. In this case study, MR Power Systems demonstrates how ETAP’s integrated arc-flash engine - including native DGUV support - helps engineers evaluate both North American and European standards within the same model, compare results, and understand their operational implications.

MR Power Systems 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 70E, DGUV 203-077, and IEEE 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

Ensuring high-quality Arc-Flash studies

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
  • 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 Shao & Halinka factors in DGUV
  • Validate enclosure effects, reflection factors, and electrode configurations

ETAP was the only platform capable of performing both methodologies natively.

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, MR Power Systems identified improvements, quantified risk reductions, and justified future hardware upgrades.

Revealing operational implications

In several locations, IEEE 1584 indicated safe working conditions, while DGUV predicted extreme energies—offering 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 perspectives

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.
By Martin Utla, CEO, MR Power Systems

 

Conclusion

European arc-flash assessment requires navigating multiple standards that do not always align.
ETAP provides a unified, accurate platform to evaluate IEEE 1584 and DGUV side-by-side, understand their differences, and support grounded engineering decisions.

With ETAP’s integrated 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.


Videos

Managing European Arc-Flash Safety Requirements using ETAP

Explore how ETAP can assist in meeting European directives for arc flash studies and understand the distinctions between North American and European electrical safety standards, offering crucial insights for professionals.


Solutions


Packages/Products