Achieving

High
Resolution
SEF Protection
on the
Overhead
Distribution
Network

Sensitive Earth Fault (SEF) protection has been omnipresent in the Australian electrical
distribution network for many years. SEF Protection aims to address outlying fault conditions
that are not covered by conventional Overcurrent and Earth Fault (EF) protection relaying
techniques on distribution feeders.

By Martin van der Linde, General Manager - Marketing, NOJA Power

A
ccordingly, SEF is often cited as the method for improving
safety by detecting high impedance faults, progressive
insulation failure, or even for fire mitigation purposes.
SEF Protection and its implementation varies significantly across
earthing schemes, and the ubiquitous Australian technique of
resistance earthing using Neutral Earthing Resistors (NERs) may
facilitate the usage of SEF to detect failing insulators, but from a fire
mitigation point of view, the existing network settings of around 4
to 5 amps for a few seconds provides zero benefit [1]–[3].
The immediate insight then becomes a push to reduce SEF pickup
levels, but the existing technology is not necessarily designed to
facilitate accuracy at lower current measurement levels. Reducing
SEF pickup levels may introduce additional spurious tripping, and
alone does not achieve practical improvement from a safety and
economic standpoint[4].
Fortunately, modern distribution protection devices such as NOJA
Power OSM Reclosers are capable of achieving SEF protection at
200 mA of primary current on a distribution network, through
a combination of specialist sensor hardware, extensive system
calibration and SEF protection algorithms honed from experience
in European isolated/resonant earthed distribution networks. A
shift towards high sensitivity without compromise on reliability is
possible today, with proven field installations in Australian networks
operating at 400 mA primary current pickup with effective rejection
of capacitive network effects.

1 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION JUNE-JULY 2020


THE QUEST FOR BETTER SAFETY
The general remit of SEF protection is to address the cases of high
impedance faults and insulation degradation. Accordingly, these
classes of faults are generally of low initial energy, in the order
of up to 30 amperes at distribution levels from 10 to 38kV. The
expectation is that the fault scenario, such as a high impedance
fault connection or failing insulated will iteratively arc over time,
progressively developing into a major fault.
In the Australian context, without a form of SEF protection, these
faults will progress to major earth faults before detection, leading
to a high net release of energy at the fault site over the arcing time.
Conventional Australian SEF protection application is essentially
standard EF protection techniques, looking for residual current,
but graded over a long time at low currents to offer separate
detection. Generally, these are set at 4 to 8 amperes primary
current with an operating time well into the seconds. This scenario
is certainly preferable to the aforementioned case of continuation
until catastrophic failure via earth fault, but 4 amperes is certainly
sufficient to cause significant harm to personnel and property, and
from a fire mitigation perspective, detecting 4 amperes of primary
current offers zero chance of stopping a fire from starting.
Research into powerline bushfire ignition has yielded the limit
in Australian conditions for energy loss into a fault site before fire
ignition at 0.1 A2s [1]. At 4 amperes, this arc energy limit provides
approximately 6ms to operate and stop the fault before this fire
ignition threshold is crossed. Therefore, unless high impedance
faults are caught before they evolve to the pickup points of standard
SEF protection today, the service that conventional SEF provides is at
best a fire location method.
Accordingly, much marketing literature dedicated to purported
fire mitigation techniques of protection devices, switchgear or
network reclosing techniques stands in defiance of physics. After a
loss of control event, these protection systems will provide nothing
more than fire location services if they cannot limit the fault arc
energy to below 0.1 A2s. For genuine fire prevention after a fault
occurs, the practical limit for such SEF protection is 500 mA, where
400 milliseconds would be the limit in arc energy.
This practical performance limitation also defines the classes of
earth faults for which fire mitigation can be achieved through circuit
breakers and reclosers. Specifically, these are high impedance faults
and partial discharge/tracking insulator faults, both of which will
lead to a fire if the arc energy exceeds 0.1 A2s. Detecting SEF at 500
mA or lower provides a physically credible method for preventing
the fire after the fault.
As with most distribution network fire mitigation practices,
prevention is better than cure, although there is significant value
in achieving SEF protection at 500 mA or less on circuit breakers
and Reclosers to catch fault cases of insulation breakdown and
high impedance faults. The technology is available and proven, and
evidently there are merits in operating on lower residual currents,
provided this can be achieved with selectivity and specificity. If circuit
breakers are only considered valuable for fire mitigation if you can
achieve 500 mA or less SEF protection, how does a utility handle the
larger fault cases?
Figure 1 The Bowtie Diagram for Risk Management
www.powertrans.com.au TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
T&D
THE BOWTIE DIAGRAM
To better characterise risk and mitigation, the common instrument
of policy makers is the Bowtie Diagram, where the discussion
is centered around a loss of control event (Figure 1). Mitigation
policies are placed on either side of the loss of control event based
on whether they are preventative or reactionary mitigations. The
practice of developing this model within a utility context is to cite
the list of causes of faults, then moving left to right, considering
what measures are in place to prevent such fault, and their effective
rates of performance. If the cause passes the preventative measure,
the loss of control event occurs, at which point protection measures
come in to play. If they fail to clear the fault, we have the resultant
outcomes to handle, which could be considered unpleasant at best
in the case of SEF protection and fire mitigation.
This model provides a solid baseline for evaluating risk and
remediation technology, of which SEF protection falls firmly in the
“Protective Measures” mitigations category. The constraints and
likelihood of fire mitigation for this technique is that faults not
limited to 0.1 A2s will certainly progress to a fire. Figure 2 graphically
demonstrates the diagram in action, showing what happens if SEF is
unable to act before 0.1 A2s.
Figure 2 SEF Bowtie Diagram
From this form of analysis, it is possible to devise a more structured
approach to general risk mitigation with SEF protection. It is clear
that reclosers and circuit breakers which can interrupt at 500 mA
residual and clear the fault with under 0.1 A2s provide a mitigation
for a loss of control event that would ordinarily result in fire, but
what can be done about the remaining cases?
RESONANT EARTHING
Circuit breakers and Reclosers that have the capacity to interrupt
fault current before exceeding the 0.1 A2s threshold can provide
fire risk mitigation, but the limitation of protection equipment is the
speed of operation and detection. Faults which do not start small
and grow, such as low impedance earth faults or three phase faults,
cannot be cleared by mechanical means before sufficient energy is
released to the fault site to initiate a fire. To address these cases,
the engineer must turn to standard practice in much of Europe:
Resonant Earthing.
Resonant earthing is the practice of introducing an Inductor in the
earth connection of the substation transformer, which is also known
as an Arc Suppression Coil (ASC). The ASC is tuned to match the
capacitance of the network. In theory, with no resistive path for real
current, and an inductor to match the capacitive current, the fault
current for single line to ground faults becomes zero.
In practicality, there is always some leakage current, however
resonant earthing remains the best performing method for limiting
energy escape in single line to ground faults on the distribution
network. An exploration of earth fault behavior under different
network earthing follows.
2
EARTH FAULTS Conventional EF detection examines the residual current, and for
For an earth fault to exist, there must be a return path for current SEF, the pickup current is low, but the operating time is long. By
through the circuit. In Resistive Earthed Networks with NER’s, as analysing this network diagram, we begin to understand how
per general practice in Australia, the return path for the resistive higher impedance faults become more difficult to differentiate
current is back through the earth connection at the star point of using the conventional SEF protection methods. Simply relying on
the transformer. Accordingly, placing impedances in the star point the magnitude of the residual measured at each of the breakers
of the upstream transformer changes the response of the network would not be sufficient, when Ir is close to IC. Using this method
to single line to earth faults. Table 1 shows an overview of existing alone, we cannot differentiate between genuine downstream faults
network earthing practices and their results on fault performance. and the sympathetic capacitive currents from other feeders under
the fault condition.
TECHNIQUE DESCRIPTION RESULT ON L-G FAULT To handle this, engineers can implement directional SEF protection.
Low overvoltage on By determining the direction of current flow, protection engineers
A direct solid bond of
all phases, but massive can determine if the fault is downstream or not, and act to block SEF
the star point of the
Solid Earth current limited only trips if the fault is in the reverse direction. This works well, provided
transformer to earth
by windings and line that there is sufficient differentiation between Ir and Ic.
at the substation
impedance
From a fire risk perspective however, this network earthing
Resistance is added in ensures that only high impedance faults would remain below the
Placing a Power
series with earth faults,
Resistor (an NER) fault energy required to prevent a fire start. Accordingly, to bring all
decreases severity, but acts
Resistive Earth Earth-Neutral single line earth fault energies down to manageable levels, resonant
as a voltage divider. Some
(NER) connection at the earthing is employed, as showing in Figure 4.
Voltage Rise on adjacent
star point of the
phases based on Voltage
transformer
Divider principle
Zero resistive current, only
capacitive current from
No earthing lines and cables returning
Isolated Neutral connection in the through the earth.
upstream transformer Possibility for up to 3.8 per
unit (p.u.) overvoltages
due to capacitance [5]
Include an Arc
Under perfect tuning, zero
Suppression Coil,
fault current. In practice,
Resonant Earth specifically a tuned
very low fault current.
Neutral inductor to match the
Limits overvoltages to
capacitance of the
1.9 p.u.
network.
Table 1 Network Earthing Practices and Line to Ground Fault Responses

From an SEF Protection perspective, it is evident that while Isolated
Neutral and Resonant Earthed neutral networks reduce the earth
fault magnitude, they also introduce great challenges with detecting
faults. Aside from limiting fault currents to below the 0.1 A2s limit
required to meet fire mitigation practices, detecting these currents
requires entirely different algorithms to the systems designed to
work on large earth fault currents present in resistive and solid
earthed networks.
SEF PROTECTION
Figure 3 demonstrates the typical behavior of a NER earthed network
under a single line to ground earth fault. The faulted phase draws
real power to the site, shown by the dark arrow. This is augmented
by capacitive current, which is the capacitance of the lines over the
earth [6]. The amount of capacitive charge available is a function
of the network topography and size, but generally, the longer the
lines, the more capacitive current will be present.
Figure 3 A Resistive Earthed (NER) network with an Earth Fault [9]
Figure 4 A Resonant Earthed Network with an Earth Fault [9]
Figure 4 shows the fault case under a resonant earthed network.
The capacitive current is cancelled by the inductive current. In the
resonant earthed network, a neutral resistor is often connected in
parallel to the Arc Suppression Coil (ASC) to provide some level of
resistive current for earth faults, for protection purposes.
Under these conditions, conventional SEF protection based on
torque angles, Relay Characteristic Angles and phasor magnitudes
become ineffective, as the system is not designed to handle such
low currents. This presents a great challenge to network operator.
If devices such as reclosers, designed to segment the network, do
not have algorithms designed to work with such low earth fault
currents, isolating faults becomes a significantly challenging task.
Accordingly, a new method for detecting genuine downstream
faults is required – the Watt metric, or Cos φ method.
SEF PROTECTION TECHNIQUES FOR ISOLATED
NEUTRAL OR RESONANT EARTHING NETWORKS –
WATT METRIC/ COS Ф METHOD
Conventional SEF protection will first react to the magnitude of
the residual current and then attempt to ascertain direction to
determine whether the fault is downstream or not. When it comes to
detecting high impedance faults however, particularly in capacitive
environments, the capacitive magnitude will be far higher than the
resistive current, and accordingly using the “earth fault protection
set to low operating points” method does not provide sufficient
selectivity at low current.
Rather than simply acting on the phasor magnitude of the
residual current, watt metric or cos φ sensitive earth fault
protection evaluates the phasor angle between the Neutral Voltage

3 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION JUNE-JULY 2020


Displacement and the measured residual current, taking IResidual cos
φ to derive the resistive current. The protection then acts on this
derived quantity, rather than simply operating on the magnitude of
the current.
In practice, this angular shift is very low. A faulted feeder on
a resonant earthed network would have around 93 degrees
of shift, while the un-faulted phases would have 90 degrees (purely
capacitive)[7]. Even at 5% resistive current, Cos Ф SEF provides
a method for differentiating between resistive currents and
fault currents.
Figure 5 Detection and Non – Detection Zones [7],
Watt metric Cos SEF Protection
NOJA Power’s OSM Reclosers have the unique capacity to operate
on such low currents, enabled by the combination of proprietary CT
design, end to end system calibration and the incorporation of these
advanced earth fault algorithms to provide sensitivity and selectivity
at this level of fault current. This implementation has been field
proved at 400mA primary current pickup in Australian networks.
Figure 6 A NOJA Power OSM Recloser installed on a Resonant
Earthed Network with 400 mA SEF Primary Pickup Configured
THE APPLICABILITY OF ADVANCED SEF PROTECTION
TO RESISTIVE NETWORKS
Watt metric or Cos Ф EF protection techniques also has applicability
for resistive networks. The key to selectivity at low levels of earth
www.powertrans.com.au TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
T&D
fault current is to determine the flow direction of earth fault current.
The watt metric method makes this innate to the protection itself,
providing equivalent functionality to conventional directional SEF at
higher currents, but then also providing selectivity at lower currents
as the resistive component is derived from the residual.
In the context of distribution reclosers, when the watt metric
method is combined with a fully calibrated system and CT’s such as
the OSM Reclosers, it is possible to reliably configure SEF protection
at current levels far lower than traditional levels.
Conventional GOSS metal CT’s are often insufficient for such
applications, where the low currents sit below the CT energisation
level. Hybrid CT’s with a mixture of metals, such as the system in the
NOJA Power OSM Recloser are essential to provide accuracy at such
low levels of current.
The use of Rogowski coils is also generally not feasible for such
low current levels, as the requirement for an intermediary integrating
op-amp between the sensor and relay introduces noise that distorts
the performance of the system at such high resolution precision
applications [8].
The remaining limitation in application is the balance of the
distribution network which can be addressed with feeder balancing
and controllable capacitor balancing units, or CBUs.
CONCLUSION
SEF Protection in the distribution network is undergoing a
renaissance of performance improvements. As fire mitigation
derived from protection devices can only be achieved by setting SEF
below 1 ampere, new algorithms and systems are required to be
able to deliver selectivity and sensitivity at these low current levels.
NOJA Power’s OSM Recloser has been deployed in networks across
the world with SEF levels below 1 ampere, providing reliable fault
detection in a network application that most other recloser products
simply cannot operate. This is enabled by the combination of high
performance CTs in a matched configuration, end to end factory
calibration and the application of watt metric cos Ф Sensitive Earth
Fault protection algorithms. T&D
For more information, visit www.nojapower.com.au.
References
1] T. Marxsen, ‘Prevention of Bushfires from Powerline
Vegetation Faults’, T&D Magazine Australia, Jun. 2018.
[2] T. Marxsen, ‘Vegetation Conduction Ignition Tests Final
Report’, Marxsen Consulting, 1, Jun. 2015.
[3] T. Marxsen, ‘New Research on Bushfire Ignition from Rural
Powerlines’, T&D Magazine Australia, Feb. 2012.
[4] Industry Safety Steering Committee of NSW, ‘ISSC 33
Guideline for Network Configuration During High Bush Fire
Risk Days’, Dec. 2010.
[5] A. Cerretti, F. M. Gatta, A. Geri, S. Lauria, M. Maccioni,
and G. Valtorta, ‘Ground Fault Temporary Overvoltages in
MV Networks: Evaluation and Experimental Tests’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1592–1600, Jul.
2012, doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2192456.
[6] P. Colella et al., ‘Currents Distribution During a Fault in
an MV Network: Methods and Measurements’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 4585–4593, Nov. 2016, doi:
10.1109/TIA.2016.2600672.
[7] G. Kaufmann and R. Vaitkevičius, ‘Sensitive ground fault
detection in compensated systems (arc suppression coil).
What is influencing the sensitivity?’, J. Eng., vol. 2018, no.
15, pp. 971–977, 2018, doi: 10.1049/joe.2018.0147.
[8] D. C. R. Hewson, ‘Application Notes’, p. 17, 2002.
[9] Prévé, C., ©2006 ISTE, “Protection of Electrical Networks”,
ISBN-13: 978-1-905209-06-4
4