Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations IDS on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

67N Vs 51N

NickParker

Electrical
Sep 1, 2017
418
If both 67N (directional ground fault) and 51N (non-directional ground fault) are available in a relay, which one would you prefer to use?
My colleague suggests that 67N is a better choice because it incorporates zero-sequence voltage, while 51N does not. As a result, 67N is less likely to cause nuisance trips and operates only for actual faults. What are your thoughts on this? Also, how do you typically test 67N (directional earth fault) during commissioning? Is it necessary to earth one phase of the system for testing, especially in a high-impedance grounded system?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Depends if you need the directional capability or not. My company uses 67N on networked transmission to prevent reverse fault tripping, 51N on distribution where reverse faults aren’t an issue.
Our techs simulate a ground fault with a Doble test set, often with the relay out of service but the breaker in service, so no changes are made to the actual system. It’s not a problem to simulate zero sequence voltages and currents.
 
wcaseyharman: 51N on distribution where reverse faults aren’t an issue.

Being a picky bastard, I find this wording just a bit unclear, depending on how one reads it . . .

51N may well suffice on some feeders, but the presence of distributed generation on a given feeder and its ability to supply a portion or all or even in excess of the load on the feeder may well dictate the use of 67N.
 
Our system protection group does not use 67N even when distributed generation is present. They don’t typically set an instantaneous element in the distribution breaker. Faults in the bus will be cleared very quickly by a bus differential or bus overcurrent relay, and faults on other feeders will trip faster due to the combined fault current from the system and the DG.
We had a misoperation where a fault on a nearby feeder tripped a 50N on a breaker that solely served a 10MW hydro. I advocated for new relays with directional settings. They did install new relays but didn’t set an instantaneous element, just used time overcurrent phase and ground.
 
Although 67N is more secure than 51N, the tradeoff is that it is less dependable. The 67N relies on extra measurement sources, and has the possibility of being incorrectly set to look in the wrong direction. I would only use the 67N where there is a specific reason that the directionality is needed.
 
Although 67N is more secure than 51N, the tradeoff is that it is less dependable. The 67N relies on extra measurement sources, and has the possibility of being incorrectly set to look in the wrong direction. I would only use the 67N where there is a specific reason that the directionality is needed.
Yes, we have configured the direction mode to "Non-directional" for this reason.
 
How is a "non-directional" 67N different from a 51N? Depending on your specific relay manufacturer, problems with the voltage measuring circuit may still cause unexpected response of a directional element programmed as non-directional during a loss of potential situation.
 
A non directional 67N would just be a 50N in my mind...

Not sure what you call a directional 51N though...

I do agree on bacon's point of only using the directional element if you need it.
 
A non directional 67N would just be a 50N in my mind...

Not sure what you call a directional 51N though...

I do agree on bacon's point of only using the directional element if you need it.
Since earth faults are always accompanied by zero sequence voltage; 67N has the voltage threshold in the protection. The difference with 51N is that we can discriminate real failures from nuisance trips as 51N is solely based on current.
 

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor