residual vs. zero sequence ground fault protection
residual vs. zero sequence ground fault protection
(OP)
What is the difference between the two?
When was the last time you drove down the highway without seeing a commercial truck hauling goods?
Download nowINTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
residual vs. zero sequence ground fault protection
|
RE: residual vs. zero sequence ground fault protection
Zero sequence is also known as flux summation and involves putting a window-type CT around all three phase conductors. Normally, the flux of the three phase conductors should sum to zero so there will be no current in the CT secondary. If there is a ground fault, phase currents are not balanced, flux is not zero and there is secondary current in the CT proportional to the primary ground current.
RE: residual vs. zero sequence ground fault protection
RE: residual vs. zero sequence ground fault protection
You can obtain a much lower setting with a sensitive ground fault protection (zero sequence ground fault protection) than with residual ground fault protection.
A setting of 1%-2% Full Load Current is obtainable with sensitive ground fault protection while a setting of lower than 10% Full Load Current (residual ground fault protection) normally result in nuisance trips.
For additional info see also the NPAG, chapter 9, "Overcurrent protection for phase and earth faults"
http://ww
Failure seldom stops us, it is the fear for failure that stops us - Jack Lemmon
Make the best use of Eng-Tips.com
Read the Site Policies at FAQ731-376