See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260705477

Thermal Sizing and Electric Shock Calculations

for Equipment Grounding Conductors

Article in IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications July 2013

DOI: 10.1109/TIA.2013.2258133

CITATIONS READS

3 97

3 authors, including:

Haijun Liu Massimo Mitolo

ETAP Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI)
101 PUBLICATIONS 1,009 CITATIONS 100 PUBLICATIONS 250 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Currents flowing through the human body: the numerical viewpoint View project

Electrical Safety in Arc Welding Processes. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Massimo Mitolo on 05 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
1720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2013

Thermal Sizing and Electric Shock Calculations

for Equipment Grounding Conductors
Haijun Liu, Senior Member, IEEE, Massimo Mitolo, Senior Member, IEEE, and Farrokh Shokooh, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractThis paper presents the thermal sizing procedure

of equipment grounding (protective) conductors and the electric
shock calculations as per the standard 60364 of the International
Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) that is used worldwide. The
application of IEC standards in the design of low-voltage systems
(i.e., not exceeding 1 kV) governed by the National Electrical Code
(NEC) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
which are adopted in the U.S., is discussed and proposed in this
paper. The authors propose an interpretation of the NEC installa-
tions in light of the earthing definitions included in the IEC realm.
On this premises, IEC sizing criteria are applied to typical North
American installations to prove their general applicability and
their legitimacy to NEC/ANSI-based electrical systems. Examples
are also presented for both thermal sizing and electric shock
calculation of equipment grounding conductors.
Index TermsElectric shock, equipment grounding conductors
(EGCs), grounding, protective conductors (PEs), residual current
devices (RCDs), safety, thermal sizing.

I. I NTRODUCTION Fig. 1. Comparison between minimum sizes of PEs (NEC versus IEC) as a
function of standard trip ratings of overcurrent devices.

T HE TERM equipment grounding refers to the interconnec-

tion and grounding of the nonelectrical metallic elements
of system [1]. An equipment grounding conductor (EGC),
which is also referred to as a protective conductor (PE) in the
International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) realm, must be
run with circuit conductors inside the metal raceway or inside
the multiple-conductor cable jacket [2]. The grounding conduc-
tor must function to conduct the available ground fault current
that might be imposed on it, during the clearing time of protec-
tive devices, without excessive temperature rise or arcing [1].
Electric shock injuries result from contact with metallic
components that are normally not live but are unintentionally
energized. Effective equipment grounding practices, in con-
junction with proper protective devices, can minimize these
personal injuries. The impedance of the grounding conductor
must be low enough to accept the available line-to-ground fault
current without creating a hazardous voltage drop [1], which
appears as a perspective touch voltage at the far end of the
grounding conductor, in correspondence with the equipment.
Manuscript received June 22, 2012; revised October 14, 2012; accepted
November 30, 2012. Date of publication April 15, 2013; date of current version
July 15, 2013. Paper 2012-PSEC-251.R1, presented at the 2012 IEEE Industry
Applications Society Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA, October 711,
and approved for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY
A PPLICATIONS by the Power Systems Protection Committee of the IEEE
Industry Applications Society.
The authors are with Operation Technology, Inc., Irvine, CA 92618 USA
(e-mail: haijunl@etap.com; mitolo@ieee.org; farrokh.shokooh@etap.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2013.2258133
In [1, Tables 2-2 and 2-5], shock voltage exposure is provided
as a function of the spacing between the EGC and the phase
conductor, of given sizes, at a presumed ground fault current.
No detailed thermal sizing and electric shock calculation re-
quirement are presented in this standard.
In reference to the EGC sizing, it is stated in
[2, Sec. 250.122A] that EGCs of the wire type shall not
be smaller than that shown in Table 250.122, but in no case
shall be they required to be larger than the circuit conductors
supplying the equipment. National Electrical Code (NEC)
Table 250.122 gives the minimum size of EGCs based on
trip settings of protective devices. There is a warning note at
the bottom of Table 250.122, which calls attention to the fact
that the tabled minimum cross-sectional areas may not fulfill
all the code requirements; therefore, the size may need to be
increased. However, no detailed thermal sizing and electric
shock calculation requirement are presented in [2] either.
In [3], the tabular method of IEC standards is shown, which
yields larger cross-sectional areas S of PE than [2] in corre-
spondence with the same values of trip settings of protective
devices. Fig. 1 provides a comparative chart for calculated
values of SPE (as per the IEC methodology detailed in the suc-
ceeding sections) and of SEGC (as per the NEC Table 250.122)
as a function of standard trip ratings of overcurrent devices,
ranging between 15 and 200 A. To determine the ampacities
of the line conductors per IEC and, hence, the size of PEs, it
has been assumed with a polyvinyl-chloride (PVC)-insulated
phase conductor or a single-core cable, in a conduit on a

0093-9994/$31.00 2013 IEEE

LIU et al.: THERMAL SIZING AND ELECTRIC SHOCK CALCULATIONS FOR EGCs 1721

wooden or masonry wall, and in the presence of only two loaded TABLE I
VALUES OF PARAMETERS FOR D IFFERENT
conductors in the conduit. C ONDUCTIVE M ATERIALS FOR PE/EGC S
In [4], in contrast with [1] and [2], the details of a thermal
sizing calculation for protective/EGCs is given. This paper
will explore the possibility of using such calculation to size
EGCs in NEC [American National Standards Institute (ANSI)]-
based installations. This paper investigates how the calculation
presented in [5] can be adapted to the given electrical systems.
Specifically, [5] provides a detailed guide for the calculation
of the line-to-ground fault-loop impedance. Such impedance
is crucial in the assessment of the magnitude of the actual
ground fault current, which must be of sufficient magnitude to
trip protective devices within a safe time, thereby preventing
electric shock hazard.
TABLE II
M AXIMUM P ERMISSIBLE D ISCONNECTION T IME
II. T HERMAL S IZING OF EGC S
In [4], a methodology to thermally size PEs is given, which
can be also used for EGCs calculation in NEC/ANSI-based
installations. In [4], methods that are both based on tables and
equations are given. The method from theoretical equations is
the main focus of this paper.
The cross-sectional areas of PEs (also referred to EGCs)
must not be less than the value determined by the following
formula (in adiabatic conditions that are applicable for discon-
nection times not exceeding 5 s) [4]:
IG 
S= tf (1) in a cable, bare, etc.) [6]. The PEs final temperatures, which
k
are the maximum temperatures that its insulation can withstand,
where slightly differ among standards (e.g., in [7][11]).
S cross-sectional area (in mm2 ); Note that, if (1) produces nonstandard cross sections, the
IG rms value (in amperes) of the prospective fault current for succeeding higher trade size must be selected for the PE.
a fault of negligible impedance that can flow through the Equations (1) and (2) are installation independent and can be
protective device; directly applied to NEC/ANSI installations.
tf clearing time (in seconds) of the protective device;
k factor dependent on the conductive material of the PE, III. E LECTRIC S HOCK C ALCULATIONS
its insulation, and other parts, and the initial and the final IN L OW-VOLTAGE I NSTALLATIONS
temperatures.
IEC specifies different earthing types (TNC, TNS, TNC
Factor k can be determined from the following formula:
S, TT, and IT) based on system grounding and equipment
  
c( + 20 ) M 0 grounding [3], [5], for which electric shock calculations vary.
k= ln 1 + (2)
20 + 0
A. TNCS Earthing System
where TNCS earthing systems are solidly grounded power sys-
c volumetric heat capacity of the PE conductive material tems, in which the EGC is directly connected to the grounded
(in J/ C mm3 ) at 20 C; point of the source (e.g., neutral point); in part of the system,
reciprocal of the temperature coefficient of resistivity at the PE/EGC and the neutral wire are combined in a single
0 C for the conductor (in C); conductor, defined as the PEN. A diagrammatic representation
20 electrical resistivity of conductor material at 20 C (in of a TNCS system is shown in Fig. 1.
mm); RN is the ground grid/ground electrode resistance of the sup-
0 temperature (in C) of the PE/EGC at the inception of the ply source (i.e., it is not an intentional resistance). The acronym
fault; ECP, i.e., exposed conductive part, identifies the conductive
M maximum temperature that the PE/EGC insulation can enclosures of electrical equipment. The dashed line represents
withstand. a fault between a phase conductor and the enclosure.
Table I lists the values of parameters for different conductive In [5], the maximum permissible disconnection time for final
materials of PEs to be used in the calculation of k. ac circuits not exceeding 32 A is listed, as shown in Table II for
The PE initial temperature varies according to its arrange- TT and TN systems.
ment in raceways (e.g., bunched with other cables, incorporated U0 indicates the system nominal voltage to earth.
1722 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2013
Fig. 2. Diagrammatic representation of TNCS systems.
It is important to note that the given disconnection times have
been established by conventionally assuming that phase and PE
conductors have the same cross-sectional area (i.e., Sph = SPE ,
when Sph 16 mm2 , in accordance to [5]); when SPE < Sph ,
the conventional disconnection time may not be safe.
In TN systems, a disconnection time not exceeding 5 s
is permitted for circuit exceeding 32 A and for distribution
circuits, regardless of the possible values of the touch voltage;
however, fault potentials appearing on distribution circuits must
not affect any final circuit they supply.
Fig. 2 can be a general representation of an NEC-based
installation in buildings: The PEN splits into the neutral con-
ductor and the PE/EGC at the service entrance of the unit due
to the main bonding jumper.
The four steps for the electric shock calculation, leading to a
safe EGC size, for the system in Fig. 2 are as follows.
1) In correspondence with the maximum disconnection time
provided in Table II (or 5 s for distribution circuits),
the minimum allowed line-to-ground fault current Ia to
clear the fault is obtained from the upstream protective
devices timecurrent curve (TCC) (e.g., a fuse). If the
protective device is a residual current device (RCD), Ia
is a rated residual current (e.g., 30 mA); in this case, the
RCD is in compliance with the permissible disconnecting
times of Table II, as long as the prospective residual
fault currents are at least five times higher than the rated
residual operating current.
2) The maximum allowed fault-loop impedance ZM is cal-
culated as U0 /Ia .
3) The actual fault-loop impedance Z is obtained by adding
the following:
impedance of the faulty phase conductor;
impedance of the source (e.g., a Delta/Wye solidly
grounded transformer and a primary network);
impedance of the EGC (PE);
impedance of the PEN conductor.
4) If Z ZM , the EGC is acceptable from the electric
shock point of view. Touch voltages on faulty enclosures,
in fact, will persist for a harmless period of time; other-
wise, steps 3 and 4 must be repeated with a larger trade
size of the EGC.
Alternatively, RCDs, which guarantee a much faster clearing
time in correspondence with the same ground fault current, may
be employed.
Fig. 3. IT systems.
B. IT Earthing System
IT earthing systems are characterized by a source with an
ungrounded neutral point or connected to earth through suffi-
ciently high impedance [e.g., high-resistance neutral grounding
resistor (HRG)] (see Fig. 3).
The enclosures of electrical equipment, however, must be
individually or, in group, collectively grounded through a local
ground electrode system of resistance that is low enough to
limit touch voltages to values not exceeding 50 V.
In the given safe conditions, protective devices will not
have to trip in the event of a single fault within an ECP or
earth, thereby guaranteeing the continuity of the service and yet
preserving the safety of people.
Ungrounded systems are prone to overvoltages and to the
occurrence of resonant faults to ground, which can severely
damage the system and set up fires. For this reason, high-
resistance grounded systems are preferable as they offer the
same benefits of the continuity of the service, without the
aforementioned risks.
An example of an IT system, whose equipment enclosures
are collectively grounded, as excerpted from [1], is the mine
installation shown in Fig. 4.
In [13], a high-resistance grounded system for substations
supplying heavy portable electric machinery is mandated, such
as those found in surface mining [14], which is adopted in
the U.S.
The two steps for the electric shock calculation for the given
ITcollective system are as follows.
1) At the occurrence of the first ground fault, safety against
indirect contact is guaranteed if the prospective touch
voltage does not exceed 50 V [5]; thus, the following
conditions must be fulfilled:
ZPE IG 50 V (3)
where ZPE is the impedance (in ohms) of the PE/EGC
connecting the faulted ECP to the frame ground of the
substation, and IG is the magnitude (in amperes) of the
first fault-to-ground current.
LIU et al.: THERMAL SIZING AND ELECTRIC SHOCK CALCULATIONS FOR EGCs
Fig. 4. Example of an ITcollective system. U.S. mine installation.
2) At the inception of a subsequent second fault to ground,
involving another phase, the ITcollective system evolves
into a TN system, and the following condition on the
fault-loop impedance must be fulfilled (assuming that the
neutral wire is not distributed) [5], [12]:
3Vph
ZS ZM = (4)
2Ia
where ZS is the fault-loop impedance comprising the
impedance of the phase conductor and of the PE/EGC of
the faulted equipment, ZM is the maximum permissible
loop impedance, and Ia is the current causing the auto-
matic operation of protective devices within the safe times
specified in Table II for TN systems, or 5 s for distribution
circuits.
It is worth noting that IT systems, whose equipment enclo-
sures are individually, or in group, grounded, at the occurrence
of a second fault evolve into a TT system; therefore, the
following condition, in accordance to [5], applies:
RG Ia 50 V
where RG is the earth resistance of the local grounding elec-
trode of the faulted enclosures; Ia is the current causing the
automatic disconnection of the supply in a time complying with
that of Table II for TT systems, or 1 s for distribution circuits.
C. System Protected by GFCIs (RCDs)
The ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI), defined as the
RCD in the IEC world, can be only effectively used in TT and
TNS systems and not in TNC or IT systems. In TNC sys-
tems, in fact, the fault current may circulate through the toroid
of the RCD via the PEN conductor, i.e., desensitizing it, unless
the connection of the PE/EGC to the PEN conductor is made on
the source side of the RCD. In IT systems, instead, the ground
current would flow through the RCDs toroid due to the system
natural distributed capacitance. In both cases, the RCDs cannot
sense any current unbalance and therefore cannot operate.
1723
Fig. 5. Example of a solidly grounded system as per the NEC.
IV. C ALCULATION E XAMPLE : S OLIDLY
G ROUNDED S YSTEM
A simplified one line depicting a solidly grounded system as
in [2] is shown in Fig. 5.
The given arrangement is similar to the TNCS system,
as described in [3]. The neutral conductor and the EGC are
bonded together at the service entrance, and both are connected
to the building ground electrode (e.g., water pipe, ground rods,
etc.). The multiple earth connections of the PEN, constituting
a multiple grounded neutral system [17] adopted in the U.S.,
are lumped into RMGN . In this paper, the simulation of the
path to the source of the ground fault current originating at
the consumer premises through the aforementioned multiple
earths is not carried out; it is assumed that the single-phase
fault current to ground at the service entrance of the facility
is communicated by the utility.
In Fig. 5, a 208-V three-phase source (e.g., utility) supplies a
load through two segments. In segment 1, i.e., from the source
to the service entrance of a building, the neutral wire and the
PE/EGC are combined in one conductor to form the PEN. In
segment 2, the PE/EGC is separated from the neutral conductor,
and at the service entrance, a five-wire distribution system is
originated. This arrangement can be considered as a TNCS
earthing systems as in [5], as shown in Fig. 2. The final circuit
supplying the load is protected with 15-A fuses.
A. PE/EGC Thermal Sizing
(5)
The line-to-ground fault current at the load side of segment 2
is 0.53 kA, and the fault clearing time tf of the fuse is 0.01 s.
We also assume a copper PE/EGC, insulated in cross-linked
polyethylene and bunched with other cables or insulated con-
ductors, with an initial temperature of 90 C and a maximum
admissible temperature of 200 C.
With the data from Table I, k can be calculated with (2),
which yields the result of k = 140.7 ((A s)1/2 /mm). The
cross-sectional area of the PE/EGC can be determined through
(1), which yields S = 1.77 mm2 . This value corresponds to the
trade size of 14 AWG (i.e., 2.08 mm2 ). In [2, Table 250.122]
mandates the same 14 AWG for the PE/EGC, It is worth noting
that, in the IEC realm, S = 2.04 mm2 is not a standard size;
therefore, the next larger trade size for the PE/EGC would be
2.5 mm2 , which is greater that 14 AWG. This consideration
confirms the tendency of the IEC calculations to provide larger
wire sizes.
1724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2013
Fig. 6. Example of a high-resistance grounded system.
B. Electric Shock Calculation
The maximum disconnection time for final circuits not ex-
ceeding 32 A in TN systems is 0.4 s (120 < U0 230 V).
From the TCC curve of the fuse, in correspondence with
0.4 s, we can obtain the minimum allowed line-to-ground fault
current Ia to clear the fault, which is 27.5 A.
The allowed maximum loop impedance ZM = U0 /Ia =
120 V/27.5 A = 4.36 .
In this example, the source impedance is XU = j0.001 ,
the phase conductor impedance for segment 1 is Zph1 =
0.032 + j0.017 , and the PEN conductor impedance is
ZPEN = 0.101 + j0.023 ; segment 2 has phase conductor
impedance Zph2 = 0.006 + j0.003 and PE/EGC impedance
ZPE/EGC = 0.081 + j0.006 . The calculated magnitude of
the fault-loop impedance, including all the given above
impedance, is Z = 0.226 . Comparing Z with ZM , it is clear
that this system is well in the electric shock hazard safety limits.
V. C ALCULATION E XAMPLE :
H IGH -R ESISTANCE -G ROUNDED S YSTEM
Fig. 6 shows a high-resistance-grounded system permitted by
[2, Art. 250.36], modeled with [16], which can be considered as
an IT (collectively) earthed system, as in [5].
The neutral point of the transformer is earthed through an
HRG rated 5 A.1
An EGC of size #6 AWG connects the enclosure of LV Bus 2
to the earthed side of the neutral grounding resistor at the
1 Monitoring equipment of the ground fault current, mandated to be used in
conjunction with HRGs in both NEC and IEC standards, is not shown.
Fig. 7. TCC of LV CB 2.
transformer T1. Under fault conditions, the presence of the
HRG does not pose any safety issue to people, as prospective
touch voltages appearing on the equipment on the secondary
side of the substation is in fact proportional to the PE/EGC
impedance and not to the ohmic value of the HRG [15].
The PE/EGC in question, with a length of 110 ft, offers
a complex impedance ZPE/EGC = 0.0539 + j0.0056 , of
magnitude ZPE = 0.054 . As a consequence, the prospec-
tive touch voltage to which people are exposed, which is the
voltage drop across this conductor, is ZPE 5 A = 0.27 V.
This value is well below the threshold of 50 V, and the dis-
connection of the supply for safety upon the first fault is not
necessary.
Upon a subsequent second fault to ground, involving a differ-
ent phase of the distribution circuit, (4) must be fulfilled, where
Ia in correspondence of 5 s, is approximately 250 A, as shown
in the TCC of LV CB 2 of Fig. 7.
As a result, ZM = 0.96 , whereas ZS = Zph + ZPE/EGC ,
of magnitude ZS = 0.139 ; the inequality (4) is therefore true,
and the protection against indirect contact is guaranteed.
VI. C ONCLUSION
The thermal sizing procedure of PE/EGCs based on IEC
60364-5-54 and the electric shock calculations based on IEC
60364-4-41 have been detailed in this paper. On this basis,
it has been substantiated how NEC-based installations can be
studied and designed by using the aforementioned standards.
This paper, in fact, have shown that the calculation methods
provided by IEC might be used in the North American low-
voltage installations from both theoretical and legal points of
view as they substantially provide the same or even more
conservative end results.
Table III offers a summary of more conservative changes
to the sizing of grounding conductors that would result from
following the IEC rather than the NEC. The comparison be-
tween the two sizing methodologies has been performed in
correspondence with the same ratings of overcurrent devices;
it is assumed the case of single-core PVC-insulated conductors,
in a conduit on a wooden or masonry wall, and in the presence
of only two loaded conductors in the conduit [18].
LIU et al.: THERMAL SIZING AND ELECTRIC SHOCK CALCULATIONS FOR EGCs
TABLE III
C OMPARISON B ETWEEN M INIMUM S IZES OF
PE/EGC C ONDUCTORS (NEC V ERSUS IEC)
IZ in column 4 is the minimum current-carrying capacity of
the line conductor of size SLine to match, or exceed, the trip
rating IN of the protective device. Columns 5 and 6 list trade
wire sizes per IEC; column 3 lists the equivalent cross-sectional
areas of AWG wires, as the result of the metrification of
column 2.
A mandatory set of rules and minimum requirements in the
U.S. electrical engineering practice is given in [2], which cannot
be replaced by any other standard. However, specific criteria for
the electric shock analysis, of paramount importance in order
to assess the electrical safety of systems, are not included in
[2]; therefore, the engineers of record, who would inevitably
undergo a legal scrutiny of their work in the unfortunate event
of accidents, has the choice to take advantage of the IEC safety
criteria to enhance their design in this area, with the likely
approval of local authorities having jurisdiction.
Simplified examples were also provided to unequivocally
show the correspondence between electrical systems NEC/IEC
and the related calculations.
R EFERENCES
[1] IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commer-
cial Power Systems, IEEE Std. 142-2007, 2007.
[2] National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, 2011.
[3] M. Mitolo, M. Tartaglia, and S. Panetta, Of international terminology and
wiring methods used in the matter of bonding and earthing of low-voltage
power systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 10891095,
May/Jun. 2010.
[4] Electrical Installations of BuildingsSelection and Erection of Electrical
EquipmentEarthing Arrangements, Protective Conductors and Protec-
tive Bonding Conductors, IEC 60 364-5-54, Jun. 2002.
[5] Low-Voltage Electrical InstallationsProtection for SafetyProtection
against Electric Shock, IEC 60 364-4-41, 2005-12.
[6] M. Mitolo and M. Tartaglia, An analytical evaluation of the factor k2 for
protective conductors, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 211
217, Jan./Feb. 2012.
[7] Short-Circuit Temperature Limits of Electric Cables With Rated Volt-
ages of 1 kV (U m = 1.2 kV) and 3 kV (U m = 3.6 kV), IEC 60 724,
Oct. 2000.
[8] Short-Circuit Temperature Limits of Electric Cables With Rated Voltages
From 6 kV (U m = 7.2 kV) up to 30 kV (U m = 36 kV), IEC 60 986,
Oct. 2000.
[9] Short-Circuit Temperature Limits of Electric Cables With Rated Voltages
Above 30 kV (U m = 36 kV), IEC 61 443, Jul. 1999.
[10] Short Circuit Characteristics of Insulated Cable, ICEA P-32-382,
Jan. 2007.
View publication stats
1725
[11] Calculation of Thermally Permissible Short-Circuit Currents, Taking Into
Account Non-Adiabatic Heating Effects, IEC 60 949, 1988.
[12] M. Mitolo, Electrical Safety of Low-Voltage Systems. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
[13] 30 CFR 75.801, Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Mineral
Resources.
[14] W. L. Cooley and R. L. King, Bureau of mines information circular/
1980, United States Dept. Interior, Washington, DC, USA, IC 8835,
1980.
[15] M. Mitolo, Grounding the neutral of electrical systems through low-
resistance grounding resistors: An application case, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 13111316, Sep./Oct. 2008.
[16] [Online]. Available: www.etap.com
[17] M. Mitolo, Of electrical distribution systems with multiple grounded
neutrals, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 15411546,
Jul./Aug. 2010.
[18] Electrical Installations of BuildingsPart 5-52: Selection and Erection
of Electrical Equipment - Wiring Systems, IEC 60 634-5-52, 2001-08.
Haijun Liu (SM01) received the Bachelors
and Masters degrees from Chongqing University,
Chongqing, China, and the Doctoral degree from the
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA, all
in electrical engineering.
He was with the Thomas Edison Technical Center
of Cooper Power Systems as a Senior Power Engi-
neer. He is currently a Principal Electrical Engineer
and the Vice President of Operation Technology,
Inc., Irvine, CA, USA. His research interests in-
clude electric power system modeling, simulation,
and software development. One of his current focuses is low-voltage system
studies.
Dr. Liu is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California.
Massimo Mitolo (SM03) received the Doctoral de-
gree in electrical engineering from the University of
Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
He is currently a Senior Principle Electrical En-
gineer with Operation Technology, Inc., Irvine, CA,
USA. He is the author of over 60 journal papers and
of the book Electrical Safety of Low-Voltage Systems
(McGraw-Hill, 2009). His research interests include
the analysis and grounding of power systems.
Dr. Mitolo is a Registered Professional Engineer
in Italy. He is active within the Industrial and Com-
mercial Power Systems Department of the IEEE Industry Application Society,
where he is currently the Chair of the Power Systems Engineering Committee,
the Chair of the Power Systems Analysis Subcommittee, and the Chair of the
Grounding Subcommittee. He also serves as an Associate Editor for the IEEE
Power Systems Engineering and Energy Systems Committees with ScholarOne
Manuscripts. He was the recipient of the IEEE 2012 Outstanding Engineer
Award, awarded by the Orange County Power Engineering/Industry Applica-
tion Society for the development of new technical concepts for the advancement
of the electrical safety engineering of low-voltage systems, as well as of the
2012 I&CPS Ralph H. Lee Department Prize Paper Award and of the Power
Systems Engineering Committee 2012 Prize Paper Award.
Farrokh Shokooh (F94) was associated with
Barbay Engineers, Inc. for five years. He was an
Associate Professor with Louisiana State University
and was a Visiting Lecturer with the University of
California, Irvine, CA, USA. For six years, he was a
Staff Engineer with Fluor Corporation before found-
ing Operation Technology, Inc., Irvine, in 1986. His
teaching and research interests include mathematical
modeling and dynamic analysis of electrical ma-
chines and power systems. His industrial experience
ranges from conceptual design, control, and opera-
tion of power systems to computer software design and development. His areas
of expertise include cable systems, grounding, short circuit, transient stability,
and protective device coordination.
Dr. Shokooh is an active member of a number of IEEE subcommittees
and working groups. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of
California.