×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Objectionable Current

Objectionable Current

Objectionable Current

(OP)
I have been in the electrical industry for 50 years. I am now engaged in performing commission inspections and related tests of new building electrical systems.
I am finding current on all equipment ground conductors to power transformers in the facilities.
This is due to the X-O of the secondary being effectively(earthed) at a point other than at the service ground electrode location.
I have been insisting the X-O ground conductor be routed back to the main service ground point.
The latest edition of the Soares Grounding Book,illustrates the many grounding methods that create two or more ground paths and points.

I would like some of the intellects on this forum to give me their opinion of Chapter 12, 8th Edition, of the Soares Book. This publication is now sponsored by the IAEI.

I feel this book is incorrect and creating many inferior designs of ground systems, with objectionable current flow from interior and exterior systems.

On another issue;

Generator separately derived system in same publication.

I can not see where the utility neutral is being disconnected by the transfer switch, when it is shunted by the ground conductor.

Need all the expert comments I can get. Thanks; Bennie

RE: Objectionable Current

I don't have the Soares book you reference, but if you are talking about a separately derived system, such as a transformer, the NEC requires that a grounding electrode be installed as close as practical to the transformer.  I have never seen the grounding electrode conductor run back to the service ground.  But the grounding electrode for the separately-derived system must be bonded to the overall grounding system.  

I'm not sure what equipment ground you are measuring current on.  Is this on the primary of the transformer?

Maybe I'm not clear on your question...

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Thanks for the reply. The equipment ground conductors, with current flow, are from the service panel to the transformer primary, installed with the supply conductors.

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
I mis-stated the last message. The equipment ground conductors with objectionable current are from the service neutral/ground bus to the X-O of the transformer secondary.
This X-O is connected to effective grounded building steel at closest point.

RE: Objectionable Current

OK, I think I get the picture.  You're referring to the green wire running with the transformer primary feeder?

You may have some stray ground current in this wire, but it would not be objectionable unless the current belonged in the neutral (grounded) conductor.  I'm not sure where you are measuring the current, but you seem to be assuming it is coming from the neutral point of the transformer secondary.  I'm not sure this is the case.

On the secondary side of the transformer, assuming a wye connection, the neutral/ground current is trying to get back to the transformer neutral.  If the secondary system is wired correctly, the only path is via the white neutral conductor, unless there is a ground fault or incorrectly wired device.

If you unground the transformer neutral and the ground current goes away, then you have a problem in the downstream secondary wiring.

But there are other reasons that some current may be flowing in the equipment grounding conductor (green wire) that are not related to the secondary grounding.  Because the green wire is tied to ground at every box, panel, etc, current can flow due to small ground potential differences.  This is true even when dealing with two ground rods - there can be measurable current flow through the earth.  This is why special waveforms are used for doing ground resistivity measurements.

If I've answered the wrong question, let me know.  

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
I am seeing current from the load imbalance and from exterior sources on the equipment ground conductors. I read high EMF on these conductors.

RE: Objectionable Current

Is the load unbalance on the secondary of the transformer?  What is the transformer connection?  If the transformer is delta-wye, then there is no connection between the primary neutral and the secondary neutral.  Load unbalance on the secondary side will flow in the secondary neutral back to the transformer.  On the primary side, the unbalance will be in the phases only, not in the primary neutral or ground.

The transformer is a separately-derived source and the secondary neutral should be grounded at the transformer or before the first overcurrent device or system disconnecting means.  See NEC 250.30.  The primary neutral, if it is brought to the transformer, should not be grounded at the transformer.

I don't have a copy of the Soares book, but generally, you don't want to ground the neutral in more than one place or you may get objectionable ground currents.  See NEC 250.6.  "The grounding of electrical systems, ... shall be installed and arranged in a manner that will prevent objectionable current over the grounding conductors or grounding paths."

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Gentlemen: You don't know how much I value this information. I only hope it is not wasted on me, at the ending of my career. I only wish the internet was active 50 years ago. I,m sure others will read this thread and  benefit from the years of searching my brain.

I agree a transformer is a separate source, but only when the neutral is not connected to the supply neutral. An equipment ground conductor from the neutral/ground buss of the supply to the derived neutral, excludes the transformer from the definition of a separately derived system.

The original description of a separately derived system was; Alternating Current Systems without Exterior Connections. The designation was only for calling attention for purposes of secondary grounding if required to be grounded.



RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
I have been involved in research and design of ground systems at some of the most unique locations in the world.
The conditions covered both extremes of earth impedance.

The coral islands in the Pacific constituded a variable resistor. The impedance changed in relation to the ocean tide.

The sand of the Sahara Desert in Libya, was silca, which offered a very high impedance.

The ice cap at the South Pole, is a near perfect insulator.
Earth connection was impossible.

My interest in ground systems, is based on preventing current flow where not necessary.

The earth is a giant and complex voltage divider. Connection at any two points will create current flow, in systems other than the supply source.

Current may return to its own source, but it can flow in many systems on its way home.

The procedures for grounding transformers indicated in the NEC, create two points of earth contact.

RE: Objectionable Current

benray, I'm not sure I follow your point about the transformer not being a separately derived source.  Generally, a delta-grd wye transformer is considered a separately derived source.  The equipment grounding conductor in the primary circuit is naturally connected to ground.  So when the derived neutral is connected to the ground bus, it gets connected to the primary equipment grounding conductor.  If this excludes the system from being separately derived, when would you ever have a separately derived system?

The NEC definition of a separately derived system says "...no direct electrical connection, including a solidly connected grounded circuit conductor, to supply conductors originating in another system."

The equipment grounding conductor is not a grounded circuit conductor.

Unbalance current in the secondary circuit of a delta-wye transformer will not flow back to the source of the primary system.  This current comes from the secondary of the transformer.  If you look at the zero-sequence equivalent circuit, there is an open on the delta side of a delta-wye transformer, keeping any zero-sequence current out of the primary side.

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Thanks for responding.
 
The supply conductors originating in another system are four wire secondary to a delta primary. The ground/neutral of the supply, connects to the X-O secondary of the user transformer.
 
The MGN is complete to the transformer secondary. This is a MGN system, not a separately derived system.

The phrase "separately derived system" is a technical procedure to make known there is no ground connection to the utility ground, and the secondary may or may not be connected to ground at the user facility.

End user load current is not the problem. The multiple ground points are the problem, when each transformer is connected to ground at a different location. This is the original reason for a transformer being described as a separately derived system.

The only common feature, with the list of equipment designated separately derived systems, is the ground conductor not being electrically connected.

A separately derived system (transformer)is when the primary is supplied by a 3 wire delta or a floating wye secondary from the other system.

A site generator is a separately derived system when the utility MGN is not electrically connected to the user service. This is to insure there is no connection to the user service during a power outage.

The unknown status of the ground/neutral during a utility transformer failure, is one reason for the isolation.

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
I wrote the above to quick. Sorry if it is not clear. I wish there was an edit feature on this forum.

I would like to know the technical facts that determines an equipment ground conductor to not be a circuit conductor. Any conductor that carries current or is capable of carrying current is a circuit conductor. NEC 200.3.

Is there a document that substantiates the contradiction of the definition?

RE: Objectionable Current

As stated, for the plain-vanilla drytype 480∆-208Y/120V 3–to-750kVA transformer have two grounding tasks, one for primary windings and enclosure and one for secondary windings.  Both are intended mainly to provide rapid clearing of associated overcurrent devices and limit potential difference between conductive surfaces.  

For these voltages, one case where the grounded-circuit conductor would have to be routed from the source would be for 480Y/277-208Y/120V autotransformers.  I have not seen any of these recently, but Square-D used to {mid eighties} sell them.   A variation with operation of these was that they freely passed triplen-harmonic currents.

For conventional isolating transformers, low-impedance paths between both circuits implies unavoidably, not-necessarily-undesirable parallel paths except in the relatively rare case where transformer-secondary bond is to a misguided, indeed gothic, remote-flowerbed ‘isolated’ electrode. One of my favorites had a remote electrode tied with dedicated, parallel 4/0AWG welding cables to 100kVA “Topaz-brand” transformer XO-bus stubs.
  

Here was a longstanding {since-modernized} university ‘research-lab’ standard…   
·    For transformer primary: metal raceway with bare equipment ground
·    For transformer secondary: ‘jumper’ from XO term to robust building-perimeter ground ring—via 4AWG Cu THW white, {in 1-inch GRC} joined only at outdoor ground well.
Building ground-ring standard boilerplate was 4/0AWG 7-strand SDBC with minimum four 10-one-inch copper-clad rod.  This was seldom not directly and uniformly tied to all AC-power grounded and grounding conductors, air terminals, building surge protection and virtually all research/particle-beam systems and enclosures.

Point is, each separate characteristic insulation failure mode needs to be allowed for, and high- versus low-side winding interaction during this does not generally cause any undesirable effects with respect to ground currents.  
  

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
busbar: I like your approach.I still question the equipment ground conductor with the transformer supply, not being regarded as a circuit conductor.

The origin of the terminology "Separately Derived System" section 250-26 first appeared in the NEC in 1968. In the 1965 Edition title was; "Isolated Systems".

Until the 1959 edition, the title was "Alternating Systems Without External Connections", Section 2514.

"Separately Derived Systems" was adopted as a term for including all power production equipment, not electrically connected to the servicing utility system. Electrically connected as defined by Section 200.3.

Section 200.3 Connection to Grounded System, specifies a grounded premises system, when connected to a grounded supply, is an electrical connection to the utility MGN system. An complete electrical connection is a circuit.

The grounded premises wiring, when connected to an ungrounded supply, has no direct electrical connection. The connection is by magnetic coupling, therefore it is a separately derived system by the NEC definition.

All schematics from the 1940 Handbooks, illustrate the utility lines as being ungrounded when the transformer is regarded an "Alternating current System without External Connections".  

 

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Another issue; The illustrative technical publications, describing a separately derived system, specify that all transformers meet the definition excluding an auto-transformer. The reason is the supply neutral is connected to the auto-transformer.

How about a grounded wye/grounded wye, configuration? The supply neutral must be connected to both winding star points.

How about an open wye/open delta? The MGN ground/neutral conductor is electrically connected to both sources and carries load current.

Open wye/open wye, same situation.


All auto-transformers do not require a ground/neutral connection. Example 208 to 240 volt single phase.

I am sorry, I am missing something in the translation.
This is why I need the intellects on this forum to set me straight.

Thanks to all



RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Another reason I would like to run this issue by the professional engineers on this, and other forums is;

The schematic of a transfer switch, in the Soares Grounding Publication, is identified as a separately derived system, due to the neutral being switched.

Please examine the equipment ground conductor routing and connection points on this drawing.

My High School basic electricity course taught me the equipment ground conductor is in parallel with the neutral conductor. The switch position has no effect on the electrical connection and continuity of the neutral.The switch is effectively jumpered out of the circuit.

This same logic is in the determination that an equipment ground conductor is not a circuit conductor, when it electrically connects the transformer neutrals.

Does the green insulation prevent current flow? I don't think so.

 

RE: Objectionable Current

The NEC distinguishes between a grounding conductor and a grounded conductor, with the grounded conductor clearly defined as a circuit conductor by NEC Article 100.  The grounded circuit conductor carries unbalanced load current.  The grounding conductor is not meant to carry load current, only to provide a low impedance path for ground faults for fast clearing and to provide low ground potentials for safety during a fault.

See the comments in the NEC 2002 Handbook under 250.4(B)(4).  "Grounding can be divided into two areas: system grounding and equipment grounding.  These two areas are kept separate from each other except at the point where they receive their source of power, such as at the service equipment or at a separately derived system."

Utilities (not subject to the NEC) normally use a multigrounded primary neutral instead of a separate grounding conductor.  The utility service conductors also usually use the neutral as a grounding conductor and it is grounded both at the transformer (and connected to the primary neutral) and at the service.  Because of this, stray currents can flow in grounding conductors, but these normally follow the phase currents because of inductive coupling and will not normally affect premises equipment grounding conductors.

The equipment grounding conductors of circuits connected to separately derived systems do not have to be switched like the grounded neutral conductors because they do not carry load current.

The secondary of a grd wye - grd wye transformer is not a separately derived system.  The unbalanced load current in the secondary is transferred to the neutral of the primary.  There is a connection between systems in the zero-sequence equivalent circuit.

All grounding conductors in a premises should be electrically connected together, even in the unfortunately named isolated ground systems.  This being the case, if you define the grounding conductors as circuit conductors, there can never be separately derived systems.

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Thanks very much, Maybe my problem in understanding this issue is the NEC use of words not in the English language; ie, Grounded, and Grounding.

Very well composed response. Thanks again.

RE: Objectionable Current

benray — That is an interesting review of electrical terminology changing over time, but with essentially unchanged meaning—partly stemming from the negotiated consensus of committees, I suppose.  

I’ll try to address your very interesting comments all though the responder on this end is marginally qualified to do so.  Though not necessarily accurate observations on my part—the “need” for autotransformer grounding is a regional {NEC} peculiarity and is not mandatory for successful operation unless—for pure economics—the bank has graded insulation like those typical of transmission voltages.  It seems like the effectiveness {or tragedy} of system grounding has been hotly argued for at least a hundred years.

The two ‘ground’ connections on a ∆-Y set serve different purposes.  On the hi-side, the connection to the ground source is usually a copper conductor, but could be metal raceway and still meet the intent of the US NEC.  The hi-side equipment-grounding conductor comes into play for primary-to-ground faults, to operate the upstream overcurrent device(s), and to minimize potential difference between the transformer core/enclosure and adjacent grounded objects.  On the other hand, no significant current flows in the primary equipment=-ground conductor for faults on ground faults, phase faults or overloads in secondary coils and the components they serve.   

Although not directly/solidly grounded, 208>240V [only recently for other than ‘existing’ applications] and 480>600V applications are permitted by exception with an acceptable, safe, longstanding track record.  Dime-a-dozen multi-tapped discharge-lighting ballasts operating consistently from 120, 208, 240 or 277 volts is one example of accommodation of systems—all on one continent.  

The only real problem with autotransformer operation seems to be that the shunt winding must not be allowed to open circuit with current in the series winding.  Else, the unit may experience core saturation and resultant insulation-damaging overvoltage.

Open-wye-secondary service is grounded by virtue of being fed universally from a 4-wire grounded-wye source.  A dedicated open-wye arrangement serving any load is fairly rare, and would almost without exception be tapped from a 4-wire wye-secondary configuration.  [Open delta may or may not be grounded based on local custom, particularly if the coil voltage is 480.]  

Getting in over my head fast, Grd·Y—Grd·Y transformer banks variation in voltages passed from primary to secondary  Grd·Y—Grd·Y will reflect positive, negative and zero-sequence components, where Ungrd·Y—Grd·Y connections will not pass zero-sequence {related to primary grounded neutral} voltages/currents.  Ungrd·Y or Grd·Y choices in utility distribution seems to be a localized choice—there are arguments for both from an operational-safety versus economic view.  Lineman discuss whether normally ungrounded bank-primary wyepoints should be temporarily grounded during fused-cutout switching.
  

RE: Objectionable Current

In my last post, I cavalierly stated that the secondary of a grd wye - grd wye transformer is not a separately derived system.  I still believe this to be the case, but does this mean that you do not ground the neutral at the transformer and depend on the neutral ground back at the primary service point?  Doesn't sound reasonable to me.  Any AHJ's (Authorities Having Jurisdiction) out there want to answer this?  Sounds like a good enough reason to me to not use this connection where you are subject to the NEC.

As far as the ungrd wye - grd wye connection, you don't really have an open in the zero-sequence circuit if the primary neutral is grounded somewhere, like back at the service.  You just have an unknown ground resistance in the circuit.  In a metal framed building, this might not be all that much resistance.

RE: Objectionable Current

To jghrist,

I agree with your thoughts on wye-wye transformers.  The NEC definition of a separately-derived system is based on whether or not the "grounded circuit conductor" (a.k.a the neutral), or any phase conductor, is solidly connected between the two systems.  The " equipment grounding conductor" is not part of the definition, which makes sense, at least to me.

This is a common issue for standby generators.  Four-pole transfer switches are often used to isolate the generator neutral from the system neutral.

The basic issue in the original question seems to be the distinction between the grounded conductor (neutral) and the grounding conductor (green wire).  Although these may appear to be electrically common, their interconnection is strictly regulated by the NEC to ensure the proper functioning of the grounding system and the ground fault protection systems.  

 

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
I will try this another way;

Draw a distribution transformer, MGN system, as a supply to a building.
 
Now draw an end user transformer, connected as required in the NEC for a separately derived system.

What is the difference in electrical connections?

RE: Objectionable Current

Forget what I said about the ungrd wye - grd wye connection.  The transformer primary would be floated and not connected to the primary neutral.  An ungrd wye - grd wye transformer is not suitable for serving a 4-wire secondary system because the neutral is not stable. An unbalanced secondary load or a line-to-ground fault will cause the heavily loaded or faulted phase voltage to collapse.

There is an open in the zero-sequence equivalent circuit, with no short on one side like in a delta-wye.  Zero-sequence current cannot flow in either the primary or secondary.

RE: Objectionable Current

What does "MGN system" mean?

RE: Objectionable Current


In utility medium-voltage distribution, typically a neutral conductor span is ran physically below distribution transformers—versus above the transformers for phase conductors.  Then the neutral span is connected to ground electrodes every nth pole, and is common to primary and secondary windings and metal tanks of the overhead banks.  A typical transformer looks something like the right photo on page 1 at http://www.cooperpower.com/Library/pdf/20110.pdf
  

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
On a MGN distribution system, the primaries and secondaries of all transformers, including the end user equipment, are electrically connected under the definition of NEC section 200.3.

The only transformer configuration that meets the definition of a separately derived system, is when the supply secondary is from an ungrounded delta or a floating wye.

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
I was active in the industry when the term "separately derived system" was coined.

The term "separately derived system" never has appeared in the transformer article of the NEC.

"Separately derived system" is a procedure for connecting to ground, the equipment listed in the definition. The purpose is make it known the systems are not connected to ground at other supply systems.

What is the only common technical concept that all the items listed in the definition have in common?

The earth connection method is the only thing all the items have in common.

 

RE: Objectionable Current

What does "MGN" stand for?

RE: Objectionable Current

benray,

I'm not sure there is really an answer that is going to satisfy you, and it seems we've beaten this to death.  

Let me just throw a little more gasoline on the fire and say that determination of a separately derived system has to do with the electrical isolation between the (normally)current-carrying conductors in the system.  The equipment grounding conductors are not intended to be current-carrying and do not enter into the determination in any way.  Article 110 defines separately-derived systems and, as you say, Article 250 deals with grounding and bonding of these systems.  

If you disagree with the NEC requirements, you could  propose a modification to the Article 250 committee.

But the requirements for grounding of separately-derived systems, especially transformers, haven't changed much that I can recall in the thirty plus years I have been doing electrical design work.   Maybe I just have a bad memory - that's what my wife keeps telling me.

Good luck.


RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Sorry dpc, MGN is Multi Ground Neutral. This is the most popular distribution system in use.
Through fault containment is provided at each transformer, by a shorting effect. Single bushing pots can be used. The neutral can serve as the third phase on open wye and delta banks.

This conductor extends to the end user service, and each branch circuit. This system is for both load and ground fault current.

RE: Objectionable Current


Cows are often particularly skittish around common-neutral distribution systems.  Half a volt in the wrong places can really get 'em p*ssed.
  

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
A separately derived system will prevent the dairy cattle issue.

The normal load carrying conductor being electrically connected to other systems is not the defining issue, this is not even in the consideration.
The common connection of the ground fault conductor is the reason for a separately derived system.

The term "separately derived system" appears only in the grounding article of the NEC.

I am sure there is no documented standard declaring an equipment ground conductor as not being a circuit conductor.
NEC section 200.3 indicates otherwise.

RE: Objectionable Current

benray, back to your hypothetical service from utility MGN system and user's separately derived system.  I'll assume a 4-wire 277/480 volt service and a 480-120/208 volt delta-wye user transformer.

The utility will provide four wires in the service.  The neutral will serve as both neutral and grounding conductor, grounded at both ends to grounding electrodes.  The user will have four or five wires in his distribution system: 3 phases, a grounded conductor (neutral) if he has any 277 volt loads, and an equipment grounding conductor.  The 120/208 volt secondary of the user's transformer is a separately derived system.  There will be five wires in the secondary: 3 phases, a grounded conductor (neutral), and an equipment grounding conductor.

The neutral, if any, of the 277/480 volt system will be grounded only at the service, not at the 480-120/208 volt transformer.  The neutral of the 120/208 volt secondary will be grounded only at the transformer (or before the first disconnect).  The two neutrals will not be connected together.  The grounding conductor of the 480 volt system will be connected to the transformer case.  The grounding conductor of the 120/208 volt system will be connected to the transformer case and to the nearest grounding electrode.

The 480 volt equipment grounding conductor will be connected to the 120/208 volt grounding conductor by virtue of the common connection to the transformer case.

Request:  

If you contend that an equipment grounding conductor is a circuit conductor, give an example of a separately derived system.  The equipment grounding conductors are always connected together.

RE: Objectionable Current

(OP)
Draw the schematic for a user transformer. There is a solid connected conductor from the service 480/277 volt neutral to the neutral of the 120/208 secondary X-O. This electrical connection is complete to the utility MV MGN.

Please explain; where is the separation?

RE: Objectionable Current

There is no separation, and it’s not obvious that it cannot be reasonably avoided with current practices and requirements.  In a 480∆-208Y/120V unit, what is "separate" is not necessarily simultaneous current flow related to two the different winding sets—the hi-side equipment-grounding conductor(s) versus lo-side bonding jumper/grounding-electrode conductor/secondary-side equipment-grounding conductor.  

Back to the original matter—is any of that objectionable current?  I think if a person pokes around with an ammeter/voltmeter on any 60Hz transformer and related wiring they're bound to find ‘stray’ currents in various grounding/grounded conductors…but are those really objectionable?  Do they cause singificant, practical problems?  In a single residence served by a single overhead/underground transformer, there will be some current in the pole/pad ground rod/ring and the ground rod/metallic plumbing in the building—with some of it ultimately “in parallel.”  The question is—except for cows, does that cause problems?  An important aspect of installations as simple as described is, what is the open-circuit voltage if one ground-electrode conductor is opened?  I think in most cases it would be roughly similar to ground-to-neutral voltage on a remote circuit—it’s there, but within limits, don’t we have to live with it?   

RE: Objectionable Current

So because the 120/208 neutral is connected through grounding conductors back to the 480 service, you contend that the system is not separately derived?  You may have found an inconsistency in the NEC definitions, but for the purposes intended, it is separately derived.  Unbalanced load currents from the 120/208 system will not flow in any significant amount back to the 480 volt service through the grounding conductor because they have to go through the 120/208 neutral first to the transformer, which is the source of the current.

According to your strict interpretation of the definition of separately derived systems, they are non-existent.

RE: Objectionable Current

Greetings,

I have a Topaz Line noise Ultra Isolator 15KVA 208Y/120 in, 208Y/120 output supplying our computer center.  Some of the UPS's and surge protectors are indicating a ground fault condition.  We are reading a voltage of 16 volts across the neutral and the equipment ground.  This 16 volts are from some phase imballance and some electronic injection I am sure.  If we install a jumper wire between the neutral and equipment grounding bus the fault condition lights go out and the voltage drops to .0 levels.
My question, is it acceptable to bond the equipment grounding bus and the neutral bus together in the breaker panel that is served from the isolation transformer?
This gets back to the question of connecting the equipment ground and the neutral buss bars together at other than the service entrance panel.
I am of the opinion that the isolation transformer is a separately derived system and is permissable to bond the equipment ground and the neutral busses together being as how it is the first panel to be served from the "new system".  Am I interpreting this right and is this the intent of the NEC?

Thanks,
SGC

RE: Objectionable Current

You are REQUIRED to bond the neutral to ground.  

This does NOT get "back to the question of the . . . service entrance panel".  This has nothing to do with the service entrance panel.  This has everything to do with being a separately derived system, and all separately derived systems are required to be bonded to ground in accordance with NEC 250.20 & 250.30.

Your existing situation, unbonded, is a violation of code, is dangerous, and can lead to erratic operation or fried equipment.

RE: Objectionable Current

Benray said:
"The latest edition of the Soares Grounding Book,illustrates the many grounding methods that create two or more ground paths and points.

I feel this book is incorrect and creating many inferior designs of ground systems, with objectionable current flow from interior and exterior systems."

This is not correct, Soares is trusted in the trade,by inspectors, Engineers, and Electricians and is merely a descriptive commentary on article 250 of the National Electrode Code. As has been recently seen here, in posts, related to Grounding, it is obvious that grounding is not a completely understood subject, Soares Book on grounding is a bridge between the NEC and that fuzzy area of misunderstanding.
 Everything found in the Book is taken from the NEC and explained and expanded on and repeated for redundancy , they do not invent new terms nor do they promote any method of grounding/bonding that is not approved by the NEC.

WmColt

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources