Maximum and Minimum fault currents

Bit confused, I was reading this in a book called modern wiring practices

Calculation minimum fault current 3P 3 wire.

Ipp = VL / 2zp

Ipp  - phase / Phase PSSC

VL - Line voltage

2zp inpedance of one phase only

So using 400V

In the design guide its.

Ief = Cmin Uo / Zx + CrZd + Cr'Z1 +Cr"Z2 + Cr'"Zpen

So using 230V


EIDG tells us A fault across three phases is considered the worst case....

and we get Cmax Uo / Zx +Zd

Again voltage to earth is used.

But basically a bit unsure why 230V is used to calculate 3 phase fault current and not 400V

Any help really appreciated. Thanks

Parents
  • Apologies for not noticing earlier. This should have been posted in the Wiring and the Regulations forum as it relates directly to BS 7671 and its guidance publications.

    I think you have mis-interpreted the phrase "A fault across three phases is considered worst-case" ... this is a three-phase bolted fault across all phases, not a  line-to-line fault.

    In a three-phase bolted fault across all phases, where all live conductors are connected together, and the fault current returns via Neutral or PEN. Hence, it is the line-Neutral voltage that is used.

    The maximum line-to-line fault current must take into account the impedance of each line and each phase winding, and therefore using the same symbols as present in Section 6.3.2 of the IET Electrical Installation Design Guide, 5th Edition, would be:

    Ipf(L-L) = UOC(L-L)/[2×(Zx+Zd)]

    As you point out, UOC(L-L)=√(3)×UOC, and therefore we get:

    Ipf(L-L) = √(3)×UOC/[2×(Zx+Zd)] ≅ √(3)×CmaxUO/[2×(Zx+Zd)]

    Hence:

    Ipf(L-L) ≅ [√(3)/2]×CmaxU0/(Zx+Zd) = [√(3)/2]×Ipf where Ipf is the bolted fault current across all three phases and neutral or PEN as above.

    Quite simply, because [√(3)/2] < 1, mathematically Ipf(L-L) < Ipf. Or in plain English, the line-line prospective fault current is less than the three-phase-to-neutral bolted fault current.

    Hopefully, this demonstrates why the maximum prospective fault current occurs not line-to-line, but between all lines and Neutral or PEN, and why U0 is used rather than U0×√(3).

  • Thank you both for the replies. very much appreciate it..

    Just to put some numbers in Zx = 0.02 and Zd = 0.15 

    Uoc = Open circuit line-to-neutral voltage

    Ipf(L-L) = UOC(L-L)/[2×(Zx+Zd)]   

    230 ÷ 0.17 x 2 =   230 ÷ 0.34 =676A

    I see this as the impedance of the winding plus R1e (External) multiplied by 2 to account for the neutral ?  but the neutral won't have a winding impedance , so I would have thought 2x Zd + Zx.
    Im obviously wrong in my thinking , just trying to grasp it...

    Ipf = 676A

    As you point out, UOC(L-L)=√(3)×UOC, and therefore we get:

    Ipf(L-L) = √(3)×UOC/[2×(Zx+Zd)] ≅ √(3)×CmaxUO/[2×(Zx+Zd)]

    1.73 x 230 ÷ 0.34 = 1171A    ≈  1.73 x1.1 x 230 ÷ 0.34 =  437 ÷ 0.34 = 1287A
    Ipf = 1287

    Hence:

    Ipf(L-L) ≅ [√(3)/2]×CmaxU0/(Zx+Zd) = [√(3)/2]×Ipf where Ipf is the bolted fault current across all three phases and neutral or PEN as above.

    0.86 x 1.1 x 230 ÷ 0.17 = 217.58 ÷ 0.17 = 1279A   = 0.86 x 1287 (?) = 1106A`

    √3 ÷ 2 x 1.1 =0.95  which is the factor for Cmin ??

    Ipf = 1106

Reply
  • Thank you both for the replies. very much appreciate it..

    Just to put some numbers in Zx = 0.02 and Zd = 0.15 

    Uoc = Open circuit line-to-neutral voltage

    Ipf(L-L) = UOC(L-L)/[2×(Zx+Zd)]   

    230 ÷ 0.17 x 2 =   230 ÷ 0.34 =676A

    I see this as the impedance of the winding plus R1e (External) multiplied by 2 to account for the neutral ?  but the neutral won't have a winding impedance , so I would have thought 2x Zd + Zx.
    Im obviously wrong in my thinking , just trying to grasp it...

    Ipf = 676A

    As you point out, UOC(L-L)=√(3)×UOC, and therefore we get:

    Ipf(L-L) = √(3)×UOC/[2×(Zx+Zd)] ≅ √(3)×CmaxUO/[2×(Zx+Zd)]

    1.73 x 230 ÷ 0.34 = 1171A    ≈  1.73 x1.1 x 230 ÷ 0.34 =  437 ÷ 0.34 = 1287A
    Ipf = 1287

    Hence:

    Ipf(L-L) ≅ [√(3)/2]×CmaxU0/(Zx+Zd) = [√(3)/2]×Ipf where Ipf is the bolted fault current across all three phases and neutral or PEN as above.

    0.86 x 1.1 x 230 ÷ 0.17 = 217.58 ÷ 0.17 = 1279A   = 0.86 x 1287 (?) = 1106A`

    √3 ÷ 2 x 1.1 =0.95  which is the factor for Cmin ??

    Ipf = 1106

Children
  • ah well the winding impedance is one of the many things that means the resistance of the 2 paths may not be quite divided as I suggested

    But this can also be estimated at least if you can read the rating plate - binoculars may help - an upper limit might be 5% volt drop at full load on the winding. (rather less on a modern low loss transformer.)

    Unless the TX is in the same building, usually the distribution cable dominates - i.e. after the first few tens of metres.

    Mike.


  • √3 ÷ 2 x 1.1 =0.95  which is the factor for Cmin ??

    In this case, 0.95 from the calculation you provided above is a mere coincidence.

    Cmin = 0.95 ["for supplies to ESQCR" I believe its how you will find it described in BS 7671 and IET Guidance] simply comes from the fact that in the UK, the public supply voltage variation according to ESQCR is 230 V + 10 % / - 4 % (and 5 % is roughly the same as 4 %). Cmin = 0.95 applies to both U and U0.

  • "according to ESQCR is 230 V + 10 % / - 4 % (and 5 % is roughly the same as 4 %). Cmin = 0.95 applies to both U and U0"

    Shouldn't that be 230V + 10% / - 6% ? Thus Cmin should actually be 0.94.

    Is 5% nearer 6% than 4%?

  • Yes, sorry ... long day yesterday. Upside down