Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0900ed9401 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed
    10 views16 pages

    Original Title

    0900ED9401.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views16 pages

    0900ed9401 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 16
    POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING DATA SQUARE D Volume 1 Numbers (rev. 1) PUBLISHED BY SQUARE D, SMYANA, TENNESSEE Subject: Modified Differential Ground Fault Protection uly 1894 For Systems Having Multiple Sources And Grounds by David L. Swindler, P.E. Senior Member IEEE ‘Square D Company ‘Smyma, Tennessee (615) 459-1311 and Carl J. Fredericks Member IEEE Dow Chemical Houston, Texas (713) 978-2816 ABSTRACT: This pave’ discusses the mosified differential ground fault protection system, forthe purpose of ilustrating that: 1. Such systems are suitable for application on service equipment having mubtiple sources of electrical power, each of which may have multile grounds, Such systems may be app! available from several suppliers. 4:pole transfer switches and switched neutrals. analysis techniques, using conventional equipment thet is currently ‘Such systems can meet requirements for generator grounsing without the use of Such systems may be analyzed for effectiveness using conventional circuit “This page intentlonaly eft lank Bulletin 0900€D9401 July 1994 Modified Differential Ground Fault Protection For Systems Having Multiple Sources And Grounds David L. Swindler, P.E. ‘Senior Member IEEE ‘Square D Company ‘Smyma, Tennessee (616) 459-1311 ABSTRACT ‘This paper discusses the modified differential ground fault protection system, for the purpose of illustrating that: 1. Such systems are suitable for application on service equip- ‘ment having multiple sources of electrical power, each of ‘which may have multiple grounds. 2. Such systems may be applied using conventional equip- ‘ment that is currently available from several supplier. 3. Such systems can meet requirements for generator ground- ing without the use of 4-pole transfer switches and switched neutrals 4. Such systems may be analyzed for effectiveness using con- ventional circuit analysts techniques. INTRODUCTION With the advent of ground fault protection and the prolifera- tion of its use in complex power systems, difficult problems have emerged in the application of multiple source systems, suchas the double-ended substation and automaticemergency transfer systems. The National Electric Code has undergone a number of revisions in attempting to provide for adequate ground fault protection in system grounding. These revisions have come slowly, and previous codes have been interpreted in various ways. Because of the complexity of the subject, philosophies have differed concerning both the method of grounding and the application of ground fault protective systems. The concern for adequate system ground- ing led to the development of some multiple grounding sys- tems. [n some situations, additional source grounding connec- tions cannot be controlled by the user, suchason the utility side of the service entrance. The modified differential systems deseribed in this paper pro- vide ground fault selectivity even on systems with multiple sources, cach with more than one possible system grounding location. The focus ofthis discussion ancl the major application of these schemes is for solidly-grounded low voltage systems protected by circuit breakers with dedicated trip devices. How- ever, the concepts discussed here can also be applied to 3-and ‘-wite relayed low and medium voltage systems and low- resistance grounded medium voltage systems. ‘The systems described in this paper are truly partial diferential (not differential in its strictest sense, or full differentia’) where there are feeder circuit breakers which are not included in the differential scheme. However, the term modified differentia is generally usec in this paper, in accordance with common indusiry usage, and since partial differential systems are in- doed a form of modified differential systems, Carl J. Fredericks Member IEEE Dow Chemical Houston, Texas (713) 978-2316 Where the schemes are truly partial differential, the ground relay settings should be coordinated with the ground relay settings on the feeder circuit breakers. This prevents non- selective trippingona feeder ground fault, though thisisnotan NEC requirement, Further, current transformer (CT) burden and saturation considerations are beyond the scope of this ‘paper, but must be considered in the final application of these ‘orany relaying systems, particularly those involving intercon- nected CTS. NEC REFERENCES In considering this subject, the following, excerpts from the National Flectrie Code are recognized 1, Article 250-5(6) requires most ac systems to be grounded. 2. Article 250-5(d) requires separately derived systems, such as generators, 10 be grounded, 3. Article250-21(2) requires that thetypeand ocationofground- ing prevent objectionable (unwanted) current flow. 4. Article 250-2148) provides methods for interrupting objec: tionable current, one of which isto discontinue one or more ‘multiple grounding connections. 5. Article250-21(¢) does notpermitdeletionofmultipleground- ing connections if they are only objectionable during occa- sional ground fault conditions. This has led to confusion as towhether ornotthe Coderequires multiplesystem grounds in some instances 6. Article 250-23(@) requires grounding on the supply side of ‘the sorvice disconnect, and one additional grounding con- nection ifthe transformer is located outdoors, but provides Fxception #4 which permits a single grounding point on the Toad sideof service disconnects for dial feed (double-ended) systems. 7. Article 250-26 requires grounding of separately derived ac systemsat the source, but provides that Exception #4 of 250- 23(@) may apply, thus eliminating the need for multiple grounding. The authors believe that there is no provision in the 1993 Code that requires multiple grounding, ot at least there is ample provision to avoid itin most instances. How- ever, there appears to be sufficient interest in multiply grounded systems to consider adequate techniques for ground fault protection. Adequate protection for these sys- temsdoesnotnecessarilyrequirethat theneutral beswitched. This is one viable technique, but equivalent protection can be provided with 3-pole devices, solid neutrals, and modi- fied differential ground fault protection systems as dis- cussed herein, © 1984 Square D All Rights Reserved 3 Bulletin 0900ED9401 July 1994 ‘The modified differential system is an adaptation of earlier differential systems. Differential systems are frequently used for dual or Gouble-encied service equipment, as referred to in NEC 250-23(a) Exception #. The modified differential system is dif- ferential in that the net output signal is interdependent with two ‘or more CTs or sensors. It is modified in that the circuit is rearranged so as to nullify the effects of multiple grounds. The term modifi differential ground ful system is often used in the indusiry, and this type of system has become known as one that jsimmuneto theeffectsof multiplegrounding. Itshouldbegiven formal recognition for this purpose ‘TYPES OF DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS Early Differential Ground Fault Systems: As a point of reference, the early, better-known differential ‘ground fault system, as used on double-encled services (Fig. 4), 3s discussed first. This type of system has been successfully used for many years; however, it is not immune to the effects of multiple grounding, As shown in Fig. 5, page 10, ground fault relay sensitivity is adversely affected by the existence of an alternate ground path back to the source. The current divides as «a function of the relative ground impedance parameters, which areextremely difficult to assess. In the case shownin Fig. 5, it was assumed that the ground fault in the feeder circuit occurred ‘somewhat closer to the source transformer than to the system, ‘grounding means, thus the sensitivity was effectively reduced to ‘one-fourth the intended setting Another deficiency of this system is thatitlacks selectivity when ‘both busses are served by one source with the tie circuit breaker ‘closed. Ifthe ground fault occurs on the downstream side of the tie circuit breaker, we would want the tie circuit breaker to trip, ‘but not the closed main. This would leave the unfaulted bus between the closed main and the tie energized, continuing, to ‘supply powertoits (possibly crticaD loads. The early differential ‘ground fault systems, as shownin Figs. 4and 5, page 10,canonly ‘be coordinated by the ground fault trip settings. This, in many ‘cases, is not the best solution and sometimes not even possible due to other considerations, A better solution isto develop a system which isolates the bus in ‘which the ground fault is located. In many power systems, a feeder busis supplied by two alternate sources, and thesolution is to isolate the affected bus from all possible sources. The solution should trip all source circuit breakers to that bus, but not trip circuit breakers supplying power to non-affected busses, ‘Modified Differential Ground Fault Protection Systems ‘The modified differential ground fault protection system, ‘shown in Fig. 6, page 10, isa differential system thatis arranged. ‘80 multiple Source grounding does not affect system pezfor- ‘mance. As in all differential systems, the response of a relay ‘depends on the output of one or more sensors. Inthe case shown nig. 6, theremaybeasmany as I2sensors oreurrenttransform- ‘ers interconnected, with up to three relays. The circuit is ar- ranged so currents which finally sum at the relays are indicative of true ground fault currents, and all currents of normal nature ‘sum so as to never flow through the ground fault trip devices. ‘The current summation at eack node may take aa infinite num- ber of magnitudes and phase angle relationships depending on. the performance ofthe system. However, the final summation at the trip devices always properly controls the system. Therefore, the primary advantage of the modified differential system is that each sourte may be separately and or multiply grounded. A second advantage is that, since the modified differential system relates only to the interconnection of components, con- ventional ground fault sensing and relaying equipment can be used. Several different types and brands of ground fault equip- ‘ment, originally designed for the simple single source applica- tion, have been employed in the modified differential systems successfully. Another advantage is that typically the same number of sensors and relays are used in the modified differential systems as are used for the more conventional early differential system; there- fore, the basic cost of such systems is no higher than that of conventional systems Finally, because ofthe characteristics of the modified differential systemand itstolerance or multiplesource grounding, switched neutrals are not required. “Modified differential ground fault protection systems do have certain disadvantages. First they are difficult to understand and, asa result, are not commonly known. The purpose ofthis paper is to demonstrate their effectiveness and to spread the knowl- ‘edge of their operation and use, ‘The second disadvantage is that it is possible, under many conditions, to apply a trip signal to a circuit breaker that is already in an open state. This does not harm the system; how- ever, ifthe ground fault relay equipment is equipped with trip. flags, multiple flags may confuse the analyst as to the true location of a ground fault. This disadvantage is overcome when the user understands the operation of the modified differential system. IT ANALYSI ‘Thissuibject mustbe discussed ona general basissincethe variety of eleciric power systems, types of ground fault equipment, and Geegrees of protection desired are endless. Two power sources in large or critical systems are typical; however, three or more power sources are becoming connmon. Each power system ust beanalyzed, along withits requirements, before. specific modi- fied differential ground fauit system can be devised. ‘One system, the double-ended substation, will be discussed, with illustration of the requirements and submitted analysis. ‘These same principles can be applied to other systems using, somewhat different detection networks, For the hypothetical double-encled substation under discussion, it is usually specified that both sources may not be paralleled, both mains and tie are fo be equipped with ground fault protec- tion, and when the ties closed, ground fault elaying isto open the tie only if the ground faultis located on theside with theopen ‘The power source consists of two remotely located transformers, Bach of the transformer neutrals is grounded at the transformer location, and sorvice entrance groundsare requiredatthedlouble- ‘ended substation, ahead of the main disconnects. The circuit to ‘eet this requirement is shown in Fig. 6 4 € 1904 square DAI Fights Resowed Bulletin 02009401 July 1994 ‘These illustrations are for instances where mains are not paral leled; however, a modified differential ground fault system will, ‘operate as well with paralleled sources. In the case of a double- ended substation with all three circuit breakers closed, the sys- temwill trip thetwo circuit breakers capable of supplying power to the faulted bus (see Fig. 14b, page 12). This isa very important advantage since such systems are in use, and other types of ground fault protection have proven inadequate. Fundamental Principles ‘Toanalyze circuit suchas that shownin Fig. 6,one must be sure of the fundamental principles. As a review, the following tools 1. Allcurrenttransformersand some ground faultrelay sensors are polarity marked. Usually CTs and/or sensors are of the window type. The primary polarity mark is placed on the surface of the primary window and the secondary polarity mark is next to one of the two secondary terminals. These ‘markings take the form of a white dot, a pius-minus mark, or the symbols HT and XT. These symbols mean that, at any one instant of time, ifa current is flowing into a primary polarity mark, acorresponding secondary current will low out of the secondary polarity marked terminal (see Fig. 1) ‘Secondary curent flowing out ofthe xi secondary polarity mark wy NPY Primary curet towing ito the primary polarty marc Fig Gurront Transformer or Sensor Polarity Marks vs. Conventional Current Flow [Notall ground fault equipment manufacturers polarity mark theirsensors, because, atthe time of development, the marks ‘had no-use, With the advent of differential systems, polarity markings aze now extremely important. If transformers aze ‘not polarity marked, thewinding sensemustbe found experi- mentally. 2. Thesecondary current ofa sensor or CTs proportional tothe primary current Ifthe primary currents zero, the secondary current is zero. This may seem obvious, but it is easy t0 overlook during circuit analysis. One will invariably ey to ‘makecurrent flow througha CT secondary whichis known to hhave zero primary current. For all practical puzposes, the impedance, as looking back into the secondary of the current transformer, is infinite (see Fig. 2) 3. Kirchof’s current law, as illustrated in Fig. 3, states that the sum of the currents flowing toward a junction point in a network sequal to thesumof thecurrents flowing away from ‘that point. This law may also be applied to the rms magni- ‘tudes of ac currents given appropriate consideration to rela- tive phase angles. in the case of theillustrations to follow, itis assumed that the currents illustrated are instantaneous val- ues frozenata specifiemomentintime. With thisassumption, they can be considered as de values. This analysis technique [permits us to disregard relative phase angles.

    You might also like