Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
1. What is compliant? What is safe?
Understanding differences between voltage vs time exposure limits in 4871, 2067 & 3007.
4. Summary observations
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
OVERVIEW
COMPLIANT IS NOT NECESSARILY SAFE ?
Is there a distinction between what is compliant and what is safe? Traditional earth fault limits in presently in common use are compliant eg: 5A fault limit for 1000V systems in hazardous areas Earth loop impedance limits set out in AS2081 are compliant Touch potentials resulting from compliant fault limits and loop impedances are not necessarily safe under the new revision of 4871
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
WHAT IS COMPLIANT ?
Any given parameter is considered to be compliant if it is nominated as such in a Regulation, in an MDG or in an applicable Australian Standard. The earth fault current limits set out in previous revisions of AS/NZS2081 are generally considered compliant. The limits for earth loop impedance and relay tripping times in AS/NZS2081 are compliant.
WHAT IS SAFE ?
AS/NZS4871.1:2012 relates the maximum duration of human exposure to prospective touch voltages that do not usually result in harmful physiological effects on any person subjected to that touch voltage (i.e. safe).
Both curve sets exceed the AS4871:2012 Lp curve and in some instances the dry area L curve. Using AS/NZS60479:2010, it can be demonstrated that higher touch voltage exposures allowable under AS3007 were not intended for application in underground wet area environments.
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
Each curve results from differing assumptions in clothing, footwear, PPE and environment and so body current. Which one is right ?
Depends on the application
The definition of safe could be inferred from the amalgam of applicable standards as the lowest voltage versus time duration of all curve sets. The Lp curve of AS4871:2012 closely approximates the minimum but may not be achievable or necessary in all applications
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
For a 1000V system, phase to earth voltage is 577V, for 5A limitation NER is ~115 Ohms At 45 Ohm earth continuity limit, touch potential is: 577 x 45 / (45 + 115) = 162V (how hazardous is this?)
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
5A earth fault limit at substation, EC relays in sub and DCB both allow up to 45 Ohms pilot earth impedance Total return impedance for a fault at the load may be as much as 75 Ohms
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
5 Amp earth fault current limit, 35+40 = 75 Ohms earth return impedance Prospective touch voltage is 75/(115+75)*577 = 228V Clearance time:
earth leakage relay 50 msec interposing relay delay 20 msec circuit breaker delay 130 msec
On one hand: scenario is arguably compliant with older standards revisions since the key operating parameters are consistent with:
5A Earth fault limit 45 Ohm earth return impedance limit Typical of previously accepted practice
On the other hand: Prospective touch voltage clearance times are to the right of the safe area under the Lp curve in AS/NZS4871
TYPICAL GRADING
TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Resultant touch voltage is 134V Clearance time 400msec (E/L relay 250msec, interposing relay 20msec, CB delay 130msec)
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
At 400msec clearance time, touch voltage reqd ~57V Back calculate current limitation for 35 Ohm return impedance as 1.8A (same as previous example) What about 10:1 tripping ratio?
Under 4871:2012 test current for E/L relay is 120% or 1.2:1 Typical tripping ratios in UK are 3:1, US are 2.5:1
Tripping ratio should be maintained high as possible, but at 350mA trip (5:1) system would be safe Increased trip current avoids sympathetic trips on unfaulted outlets and relays still proven/tested to trip
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
LESS CURRENT IS BETTER WHY NOT REDUCE THE EARTH FAULT CURRENT ? LIMITATION FUTHER ?
In previous examples, the situation with regard to risk from touch potential and delivered energy is demonstrably improved as the fault current limit is reduced Touch potential hazard and the delivered fault energy can both be reduced to zero if the NER impedance is made infinite What is the upper limit for NER impedance ?
NER AND COMMON MODE INDUCTIVE FAULTS IN MOTOR OR TRANSFORMER DAMPING WINDINGS
Capacitance to earth dominated by cabling Large fault inductances can be created in winding faults (several Henry), common mode resonant frequency may approach 50Hz or a harmonic frequency of 50Hz
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
In any practical system, the NER impedance can be no larger than would afford sufficient damping to prevent excessive insulation stress in case of an inductive fault.
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
Recent changes to AS/NZS4871 are more significant than generally appreciated Previously compliant elements are not necessarily compliant when configured in a practical system Removal of prescriptive limits on key parameters (earth fault limit, trip settings and clearance times) requires all design settings to be examined from first principles We must be able to justify all protection parameters (regardless of if they fall below the Lp curve or not) as being as low as reasonably practical
Copyright Ampcontrol 2013
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
A PROACTIVE APPROACH
Complete an audit against AS/NZS4871 Carefully consider the fundamental system parameters:
earth fault limitation return earth impedance limit tripping ratio and total clearance times
QUESTIONS?