Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Bonding XO when not using a neutral conductor

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ingenieur View Post
    yes: 600,800,1000 are used often

    a 2 mva 4.5% 53ka with a stiff supply
    easily see >40ka on on short hi amp feeders


    in utility substations?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinexis View Post
    once again i will say we are talking about 2 different things, i'm saying 1 cycle is a lot safer than 30 cycles, 15 cycles.

    you cannot accurately adjust your impedance of bad bonding connections throughout a ground fault return path, zero is the ideal z to shoot for in this subject matter. i am not disputing the numbers you are coming up with i assume they are correct, those numbers are related to what i am talking about but they do not look at the real world scenario i'm talking about
    and I say that is not plausible if code compliant
    and still may not be

    it is definitely real world
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ingenieur View Post
    page 18 http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ...td012034en.pdf
    16x 0.02 sec
    80x 0.006

    16^2 x 0.02 =5.1, 1.2 cycles
    80^2 x 0.006 = 38.4 , 0.36 cycles

    over 7 times as much
    but a fault rise is a curve, not a straight line
    nor is it's mag, transient, subtransient, steady state

    whats the incident energy?

    and once again we are not talking about the same thing i'm talking about the difference in 1 cycle and 30


    both less than
    Incident Energy = 1J/cm2 [= 0.24 cal/cm2 ]

    so is it more dangerous to scrape off the paint?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    34
    so now factor in real world.


    30 years down the road the ground fault current path is rusty, which initial installation is better?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinexis View Post
    in utility substations?
    no
    industrial and mining
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinexis View Post
    whats the incident energy?

    and once again we are not talking about the same thing i'm talking about the difference in 1 cycle and 30


    both less than
    Incident Energy = 1J/cm2 [= 0.24 cal/cm2 ]

    so is it more dangerous to scrape off the paint?
    ok, let me try another approach
    pu values
    base: v = 1, i = 1 (ie cb rating), load = 0.8

    v drop = 0.05 x 1
    z = 0.05/0.8 = 0.0625
    i sc = 1/0.0625 = 16 or 1600% of cb rating
    inst range
    not an issue

    if you
    comply with code
    use listed equipment
    install per code, mfgs recommendations, good workman like manner
    not an issue

    no one said more dangerous, just no advantage, it's not 'less' dangerous
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    36,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinexis View Post
    for that you just need to have correct ocpd for the available fault current which is already required by NEC. an impeded ground connection should never be considered adding a safety factor in my opinion
    Kind of what I was trying to get at - yes we want higher magnitude to make the device operate as quick as possible, but at same time device is only designed to take a certain level, once you exceed that level, a different device is what is needed or design the supply so that there is enough impedance to keep available fault current below that maximum device rating.

    There are more ways to introduce impedance other then via the grounded conductor - longer conductor runs, aluminum vs copper, line reactors, etc.

    Only time you should put impedance in the grounded conductor is with intentionally impedance grounded system with ground fault monitoring components. Those systems are somewhat rare but do have places where they have benefits of using them.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    36,333
    looks like I missed about 26 posts before that last reply - doesn't change what I had to say much though.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ingenieur View Post
    ok, let me try another approach
    pu values
    base: v = 1, i = 1 (ie cb rating), load = 0.8

    v drop = 0.05 x 1
    z = 0.05/0.8 = 0.0625
    i sc = 1/0.0625 = 16 or 1600% of cb rating
    inst range
    not an issue

    if you
    comply with code
    use listed equipment
    install per code, mfgs recommendations, good workman like manner
    not an issue

    no one said more dangerous, just no advantage, it's not 'less' dangerous

    then i'll say it. impeded bonding connections make an electrical system more dangerous, whether they were initially installed impeded or if they are impeded later in life either by corrosion, vibration loosening or other reason.

    i think the big issue where with our disagreement is i look at electrical installations as limited by the transformer for the amount of available fault current, usually a-lot lower than the currents you are considering. also in terms of impedance for bonding connections i am thinking a better connection gets you closer to 1/2 cycle clearing time of short circuit protection and that the system cannot deliver astronomical current's, compared to worse connections that could introduce impedance lowering the short circuit current to levels where the clearing time is increased to something like 15 or 30 cycles.

    i think you are looking at this discussion as simply system impedance and fault current where i am looking at the connection impedance and available fault current

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    Kind of what I was trying to get at - yes we want higher magnitude to make the device operate as quick as possible, but at same time device is only designed to take a certain level, once you exceed that level, a different device is what is needed or design the supply so that there is enough impedance to keep available fault current below that maximum device rating.

    your system should be designed for available fault current with 0 impedance at connections, therefore short circuit protection will already have interrupting rating for the max available fault current for the system, making connections with more surface area and using anti oxidants to ensure against corrosion and bad connections for the lifetime of the system would not raise your available current. but if that little terminal bar or whatever other connection your considering hanging on(bonding) by (4) 1/4-20 threads sees some humidity over 40 years along with many other connections in the system the impedance can increase to where the short circuit protection does not open quick enough or at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •