Separately derived ground and objectionable current

Status
Not open for further replies.

mhstever

Member
Where the transformer is the origin of the separately derived system, the NEC shows an equipment ground coming from the supply side, as
allowed by 250.142(A)(3). But since the housing is also bonded to the neutral and the grounding conductor on the secondary side doesn't this
create a hazard and objectionable current on the secondary side? To eliminate the potential can the secondary side be bonded to the ground that
originates on the supply side?
 

dereckbc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Plano, TX
Re: Separately derived ground and objectionable current

Originally posted by mhstever:
But since the housing is also bonded to the neutral and the grounding conductor on the secondary side doesn't this
create a hazard and objectionable current on the secondary side? To eliminate the potential can the secondary side be bonded to the ground that
originates on the supply side?
Simple answer is no and again no. Current will always return to the source that supplied it. In the scenario of a SDS transformer that will the Xo on the secondary. If it is properly bonded as dictated per 250.30 no current will ever flow on the EGC or GEC conductors unless under a ground fault condition. When there is a ground fault and/or the grounded circuit conductor has more than one bond, then current will flow on all paths available to it including the supply side EGC.

What I have wanted to propose is sizing the EGC on the supply side per 250.66 based on the side of the secondary conductors (primary for step-up transformer) and do away with GEC requirements on transformers. Not for the rational of eliminating objectionable current, but rather simplification, extra material and work.

[ December 27, 2005, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: dereckbc ]
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Re: Separately derived ground and objectionable current

Dereck,
What I have wanted to propose is sizing the EGC on the supply side per 250.66 based on the side of the secondary conductors (primary for step-up transformer) and do away with GEC requirements on transformers.
That is where I was going with the following proposal, but CMP5 didn't like it.
5-99 Log #2716 NEC-P05
(250-30(A)(4) Exception No. 2 (New) )
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere Ottawa, IL
Recommendation:
Renumber existing Exception as Exception No. 1 and add new Exception No. 2 as follows:
"Exception No. 2: Where a transformer is used as a separately derived system and where the transformer primary feeder circuit originates in the same building or structure, a grounding electrode shall not be required."
Substantiation:
There is no electrical or safety related reason to require a grounding electrode for a transformer used as a separately derived system when the primary power source for the transformer is located in the same building or structure. The requirements of 250.4(A)(1) are met without the use of a grounding electrode at the secondary side of the transformer. Lighting is not a problem within the building or structure. The only possible contact with a higher voltage system is a fault on the primary feeder and this fault will be cleared by the primary feeder equipment grounding conductor. The bonding required by 250.30(A)(1) will stabilize the voltage to earth under normal operating conditions. The same bonding in combination with the primary feeder equipment grounding conductor will limit the effect of line surges. The addition of a direct connection from the secondary side of a separately derived system to a grounding electrode provides no additional protection over that which is already provided by the primary feeder equipment grounding conductor.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The present requirements for separately derived systems to be grounded to a reference earth by a dedicated grounding electrode conductor apply to all systems without regard of installation inside or outside the building or structure served. The primary reason is to establish an earth ground reference and stabilize the system voltage around this reference. The equipment grounding conductor from the source to the separately derived system does not meet the requirements for size, not having a choke effect when installed in metal
raceways, multiple terminations, etc. The equipment grounding conductor's primary purpose is to provide a low impedance path for fault current in the event of a ground-fault on the system up to and including the primary of the transformer, not to act as the low impedance earth reference conductor.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
RAPPAPORT: The purpose of the grounding electrode conductor in the proposed Exception is to stabilize voltage. See my Comment on Affirmative on Proposal 5-91. An equipment grounding conductor, run with the feeder to the separately derived system and sized for the separately derived system, should be adequate.
Don
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Re: Separately derived ground and objectionable current

Pierre,
Why does ground have to be near the SDS? What real purpose does the grounding electrode, for a SDS, really serve?
Don
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: Separately derived ground and objectionable current

CMP-5:
The equipment grounding conductor's primary purpose is to provide a low impedance path for fault current in the event of a ground-fault on the system up to and including the primary of the transformer, not to act as the low impedance earth reference conductor.
I'm no expert, but that reasoning seems flawed to me. :(
 

dereckbc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Plano, TX
Re: Separately derived ground and objectionable current

Don from a safety point of view I see no reason why the EGC of the primary could not be used. However from a technical point, primarly comom mode noise, you would want to use the closest electrode possible. But that is a design issue. IMO both should be an option at the discretion of the designer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top