Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ieee007 PDF

    Uploaded by

    bangovan
    4 views8 pages

    Original Title

    IEEE007.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views8 pages

    Ieee007 PDF

    Uploaded by

    bangovan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    CONSIDERATIONS IN THE SELECTION OF PRIMARY OVERCURRENT PROTECTION FOR THREE-PHASE TRANSFORMERS Copyright Material EEE Paper No. PciC-94.08 ML. Bishop SR. Mendis ‘Senior Member, IEEE ‘Member, IEEE Cooper Power Systems Systems. ring Group Franksville, Wisconsin Abarat; Teansormer prvi he lta power tat dies tort industrial proceso ‘continuous service & ipietiot steatian may octer utroetre teen be Tehoved from service fo preveat damage to the transformer Sndlor connected equipment. Proper avercurrent protective devious are essential for the reliable operation ofthe plant. This fr dacosoes protective system phicsophies, and iastrates {he telectionalteraatives through examplee’ Transformer inrush Brn overond capably, the protective erie performance far diferent faut types, winding connections, and tre impact o» aperating concer wi be duce, "Thy capbaus wil be ot anstormers applied within an Industrial facility that are rated 43500 KVA and below, where the overcurrent device ls wormally a fase ‘Key_Words: Three-phase Transformer Protection, Current Limiting Fuse Application 1, INTRODUCTION A typical industrial facility normally serves a majority of the process loads through three-phase transformers. The protection devices used with the transformers have @ major effect on the operation and reliability of the system. The protection of these three-phase transformers involves the careful balancing of many protection and operating concerns. The transformer protection scheme used must allow the normal range of currents due to energization and heavy temporary loading periods, while protecting the transformer from extended periods of heavy overloads, and the system from a failed transformer. Limiting the It let-through levels for internal faults and minimizing the risk of tank failures in high available fault current areas on the system is very desirable. For safety reasons, some utilities or industrials have standardized on a current limiting (CL) fuse at every ‘transformer location, £. THREE-PHASE TRANSFORMER OVERCURRENT PROTECTION, ‘OBIECTIVES ‘The selection of overcurrent protection equipment for three-phase transformers serving industrial loads is performed by power system engineers considering various objectives. Some common objectives are: JF. Witte Member, IEEE KL. Leix ‘Member, IEEE Componeat and Bote Ea ponent ve Equipment Pewaukee, Wisconsin 1) Protecting the transformer from damage due to Jong time overloads and secondary faults as defined 2) Removing a faulty transformer from the power system, with minimal effects on the rest of the system ‘by maintaining and enhancing proper coordination With upstream protective devices. 3) Bo 1g a disruptive failure of the transformer due to high current faults inthe transformer. 4) Proper fuse selection to prevent fuse damage from high energization inrush currents. 5) Selection of secondary overcurrent devices to prevent transformer damage due to secondary faults and excessive overloads. In the case of a pad-mounted distribution transformer, fuses are the principal devices used for primary overcurrent protection. Different types of fuses are available from a variety of manufacturers in designs suited for various applications. The fuse type selected considers the degree to which the fuse performance meets the overall protection system objectives, One of the objectives of overcurrent protection is to protect the transformer from damage due to long time overloads by removing the transformer from service after a severe overload of a significant time duration. Secondary faults producing winding currents that are many times full Joad magnitude should also result in operation of the primary fuse before thermal or mechanical damage occurs to the ‘transformer. The time limits for winding current as a multiple of full load current are established in ANSVIEEE C57.109- 1993, IEEE Guide For Liquid-lmmersed Transformer Through Fault-Current Duration.{4] As a general guideline, the fuse Time Current Characteristic (TCC) curve should be below and to the left of the transformer through-fault-current protection curve, to minimize the loss of transformer life due to the mechanical and thermal effects of sustained through faults ‘The primary fuse is also expected to disconnect the transformer from the system in the event of an internal fault in the core/coil assembly of the transformer. Faults that may 1994 TEER '94-CH3451-2/94/0000-0087 $03.00 develop in the transformer primary windings might result in arcing that causes high pressures due to the energy released by the arc, This energy must be contained by the transformer tank. Depending on the fault current available, an expulsion fuse may be abie to clear an intemal fault. However, due to the operation of current limiting fuses in less than one-half ceycle for high fault currents, a current limiting fuse isthe only protection scheme that can minimize the energy input to the failed unit. Therefore, another objective in the selection of a primary fuse is that high current fauls are cleared in the shortest amount of time possible, minimizing the pressure that ‘must be contained by the transformer tank. The capability of a distribution transformer to withstand. an internal fault is @ function of many variables. An internal fault that establishes an arc under oil breaks the oil down into a variety of gases. ‘The generation of gases and the sudden pressure build-up caused by the arc can exceed the ability of the tank to contain the event. The pressure generated by the arc in the transformer tank during a fault is @ function of the energy delivered to the fault by the system. The energy delivered during an intemal fault is a function of the fault ‘current, the arc resistance (or arc voltage), arc length, and the fault time duration. The energy absorbed can be expressed as 4 value in kilowatt-seconds or kilojoules, In the case of a pad- ‘mounted distribution transformer, the tank is the mechanical system that must withstand the increased internal pressure ‘Benerated by the fault. The task of the protection engineer isto specify a protection scheme that will interrupt the source circuit before the fault results in a tank feture, ANSI C57.12.26-1987, Pad-Mounted, Comparimental- Type, Self-Cooled, Three-Phase Distribution Transformers for Use with Separable Insulated High-Voltage Connectors, High-Voltage, 34 500 Grd ¥/ 19 920 Volts and Below; 2500 AVA and Smaller (4), specifies that "the tank shall be of sufficient strength to withstand a pressure of 7 psig without Permanent distortion and 12 psig without rupturing or displacing other components of the transformer or affecting ity." A second standard, ANSI C57.12.25-1990, has similar ratings for smaller single phase units up to 167 KVA specifying 7 and 15 psig pressures respectively. No arcing short circuit tests are specified in these standards a5 ‘compared to the standards for pole-type transformer tanks. ‘The ultimate goal i the selection of a protection system that prevents eventful failures of pad-mounted transformers. Although let-through 1, 2 common unit of measure for a ‘current limiting fuse, is nota direct measure of energy into the ‘arc at the point of fault, let-through It is proportional to the fault energy, and the’ proportionality constant is R, the resistance of the arc. The arc resistance isa variable, typically a function of the arc length and the current itself, and is not a parameter effecting the fuse clearing time. One reference [1] includes test data showing the variation in arc energy as a function of 1%. The industry has relied on testing and operating experience to develop 1% thresholds for the application of current limiting fuses to minimize the risk of a pad-mounted transformer tank failure. These levels have ‘proven to be representative, ‘Another reference [2] studied industry test data and developed It limits based on the energy sbsorption capabilities of the transformers. Energy limits were established at 15 KWs asthe low risk category and 50 kWs as the moderate risk category. Based on typical arc resistance values from test data resulted in total clearing 1% values of 150,000 A%s at 15 kV for low risk and 500,000 A%s for moderate risk. ‘This is consistent with another reference [3] that, citing the results of tests, reported the I maximum value without “excessive transformer movement, oil spill, seam rupture, te." was 500,000 As for 15-KV_ class pad-mounted transformers rated 75 KVA and below. Severe deformation of the tank, evidenced by bulging might be a result of internal faults demonstrating these let through 1% values. ‘Another series of tests performed on pad-mounted transformer units resulted in a tabulation of It le-throvgh limits for CL. fuses protecting three-phase transformers (5]. Pressure relief devices are required to relieve pressures generated by low current faults. The tests resulted in UL. classification of R-TEMP® fluid-filled units and specifies It let-through values for three-phase units up to 10,000 kVA. ‘The smallest size, a 45 KVA unit, requires a CL fuse with a maximum I let-through of $00,000 A%s. A250 kVA pad- mounted distribution transformer requires a CL fuse with a maximum clear Jt of 2,000,000 A%s according to this reference [5]. These same studies have also looked at the withstand capabilities of other voltage class transformers. They suggest that, at best the limits stay about the same [2], or go down as, the voltage increases [3]. This may be a result of higher voltages driving longer, higher resistance arcs. This would result in higher arc energy being released inside the tank, from the same current and duration ata higher voltage. Pressure relief devices play a role in controlling this energy release. ‘They allow a controlled reduction in the total pressure in the tank. This allows protective devices to clear the fault, while the valve is venting, keeping the pressure within acceptable limits. In addition, the valve can reduce the total pressure in the tank before and during a primary fault. However, in the event of a low impedance primary fault, che pressure build-up can be so sudden, or so much pressure can bbe generated that the valve cannot vent the gases rapidly ‘enough to prevent the tank from failing. CL fuses control this ‘energy release, and when used with pressure relief devices effectively reduce the risk of tank failure. ‘This brief overview provides some background and supporting information conceming the significance of the 12 Jet-through values of current limiting fuses and the impact on transformer protection. For the purposes of this paper, an 1% ‘value of 500,000 As will be used as the limiting vaiue for the protection of three-phase pad-mounted transformer units against eventful failure forthe smaller kVA ratings. In all applications, the primary fuse of a pad-mounted three-phase transformer should maintain proper coordination with upstream protective devices, such as other fuses, reclosers, or relayed circuit breakers. If the distribution transformer fuse is not selected properly, or is expected to interrupt fault currents beyond it's rated interrupting current, then operation of an upstream device can result, which may ‘cause an outage to large number of plant loads. IML INRUSH CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS, ‘A primary fuse for a pad-mounted transformer is subject to energizing inrush transient currents, which should be accounted for so that the fuse is not damaged during these events, Typical inrush current magnitudes for three-phase transformers are 12 times full load at the 0.1 second point and 25 times full load atthe 0.01 second point. The application of three-phase transformers in the industrial environment, unlike the utility environment, may not consider cold load pick-up values in the selection of # protective device. Transformers applied to serve an industrial process normally would not be sized based on a certain amount of load diversity. Motor ssariing currents may be 2 consideration in the industrial application. ‘The protective device may need to pass current ‘magnitudes that are higher than normal fall load for many ‘eycles or seconds to start induction motors. General time- ‘current points for these situations need to be evaluated for individual situations. The inrush points and motor starting time-current point pairs form a TCC curve that should fall below and to the left of the primary fuse minimum melting TOC curve. 1V, WINDING CONNECTION CONSIDERATIONS ‘The transformer connection has an impact on the performance of the protective device for the different types of faults. As an example, consider a 20,000 ampere secondary fault ona grounded-wye-grounded-wye, versus a delta- grounded wye connected transformer as shown in Fig.1. With ‘a wye-wye connected unit the primary fault current magnitude is 696 amperes regardless of fruit type. With a delta- ‘grounded-wye connected unit the primary fault current ‘magnitude is 401 (14-gnd), 696 (38), or 802 (4-4) amperes depending on the type of secondary fault experienced. These values are 0.57, 1.0, and 1.15 times the three phase fault current magnitudes, respectively. The impact of the connection involves’ the fact that a fuse or other primary overcurrent protective device is sensing line current, not ‘winding current. The result is that a fuse will operate faster for a line-to-line fault, and slower for a line-to-ground fault for the same secondary fault current, if the transformer is ‘connected in delta-grounded-wye. This must be taken into account to properly coordinate a primary and secondary device, and should be considered in the protection of the transformer against damage due to sustained through fault snacone a ete vn even ras de oes EVA 5 Taaee-000/277 WTS Fig. 1, Fault Current Transformation Through Delt-Wye Versus Wye-Wye Connected transformers \V. TRANSFORMER OVERLOAD CAPABILITY Overload capability of the transformer must also be considered in the selection of the overcurrent devices. Electric utility applications normally consider fusing ‘transformer so that an overload capability of 140% to 300% of the nameplate KVA can be served. Industriel applications normally specify protective devices to allow overload capability of 100% to 150% of nameplate KVA. The allowable overload must be compared against the continuous ‘current capability ofthe fuse that is selected, considering any erating due to high ambient temperatures. VL. APPLICATION EXAMPLES The following application examples review different ‘ways to provide overcurrent protection for three-phase pad- mounted distribution transformers. Current limiting fuses are specified due to their ability to minimize the energy input to 2 failed transformer and, thus, increase the probability that the tank will safely contain the event. Following the examples is 1 discussion on the protection scheme tradeoffs for one application over another. The application examples discuss the selection of the primary overcurrent devices for three-phase pad-mounted transformers. Several transformer sizes that are typical industrial applications will be examined to explore the variety of options in the selection of overcurrent protection. In general, the larger size units result in fewer options for the protection engineer due to the availability of suitable protective equipment ratings. ‘The transformer withstand curves were developed using the category I or Il through-fault duration curves in ANSI C57.109-1985, previously discussed, The inrush points forthe transformer are shown in each of the figures along with the selected fuse TCC curves. Fig. 2, TCC Cures for» 1000 kVA Three-Phase Pad-Mounted Transformer Boles y 8 Bay-O-Ne Spl Expulsion Fase wit mn neal Bakcp ‘The first application considers the protection of a 1000 KVA three-phase pad-mounted transformer that is connected in delta on the primary side and grounded wye on the secondary side. The primary winding is served by a 13.8Y/7.96 kV four-wire system. ‘The full load rated current is 41.8 amperes. From ths value the inrush points are created ‘asshown in Fig. 2. Assuming a 5% nameplate impedance the ‘maximum primary fault current for a bolted three phase secondary fault is approximately 837 amperes. For this application an expulsion fuse was selected in ‘order to protect the transformer from secondary faults and long time overload currents. A Bay-O-Net style current sensing link was selected as shown in Fig. 2, A C14 link was selected for this application, which has a rating of 60 amperes. ‘The expulsion link bas a maximum interrupting rating of 2500 amperes symmetrical, when mounted in the Bay-O-Net holder. Fig. 2 shows two through-fault protection curves. ‘One is for three-phase secondary faults and one is for secondary single-line-to-ground faults. As shown in Fig. 1 a secondary ground fault results in lower primary currents as ‘compared to the same magnitude three-phase fault. shifted ‘curve for single-line-to-ground faults reflects the stress on the transformer that is created by the fault as viewed from the primary side. In order to limit the energy delivered to a fault that might oceur in the core/coil assembly a back-up under-oil current, Timiting fuse has also been selected. For this application the 175 ampere type ELSP fise was selected. The 15.5 kV rated 175 ampere back-up CL fuse has a minimum interrupting current of 1000 amperes. The maximum clear 1% is 368,000 As, which is below the 500,000 A?s value desired for even ‘the smallest pad-mounted transformers. application the Bay-O-Net mounted expulsion fuse provides load break/load make capability in an economical field replaceable unit. The expulsion link does not limit energy delivered to an internal transformer fault. ‘The back-up current limiting fuse provides that function. The intersection of the expulsion fuse clearing curve and the CL. fuse minimum melting curve is to the right of the maximum transformer through fault current. This provides fault differentiation and insures thatthe CL fuse will not operate for any faults occurring downstream of the transformer. The CL fuse also prevents the re-energization of a faulted unit with the expulsion link. Another altemative to this combination is an internal ‘expulsion link with the internal back-up current limiting fuse. ‘This application functions the same way as far as fault clearing is concemed. It does not offer the field replaceability of the expulsion link however. The TCCs for this application ‘would be similar to Fig. 2. ‘The second application is a 1500 kVA three-phase pad- ‘mounted transformer that is connected in delta on the primary side and grounded-wye on the secondary side. In this —o0— application the selection of a full-range current limiting fuse will be explored. A full range current limiting fuse, according, to the proposed ANSI definition is “a fuse capable of interrupting all currents from the maximum rated interrupting ‘current down to the minimum continuous current that causes ‘melting of the fusible elements), when the fuse is applied at the maximum cmbient temperature specified by the fuse ‘manifacturer.* Full range curreat limiting fuses interrupt low current fauits in different ways depending on the design of the fuse. One type utilizes a gassing spider to build up sufficient dielectric strength inside the fuse to clear the fault current. ‘The spider aids in clearing low current faults and is a support mechanism to wind the high current silver element. Depending on the fault current level, some gassing may be released outside of the housing during operation of the fuse. ‘This design is suitable for clip mount applications, however, is not recommended for drywell canister mounting. Another design utilizes a separate low current element and a non- gassing spider. The spider’s sole purpose is to provide a support mechanism to the element. During a low current operation, minimal gassing is expelled from the low current, element into the sand. The gassing for all fault current levels is minimal and is self-contained in the fuse housing. The second example for a 1500 KVA transformer uses @ non- gassing design, ‘A 1500 KVA three-phase pad-mounted transformer served by a 13.8 KV system has a rated fll load curent of 628 amperes. The 100A (parallel SOA. fuses) full-ange type ELX current limiting fuse selected allows a continuous overload of 116%, due to the derating ofthe fuse continuous current rating in this drywell canister application, The fuse TCC curves are developed through testing in air at a 25°C ambient temperature. Placing the fuse in a drywell canister requires derating the fuse by 12% plus 0.2% per degree C above 25°C. The TCC curves forthe application are shown in Fig. 3. If the unit has a nameplate impedance of 5%, 20 times full load current will flow during a bolted three-phase fat on the secondary terminals. This fault will result in 1255 amperes of primary curent through the use, resulting in fuse clearing in approximately 0.8 seconds. High current faults are interrupted in the current limiting mode, limiting the It let- though to 327,000 A%s inthis aplication, Fig. 3 displays two through-fault duration curves for the particular transformer application. This is due to the nature of fault current propagation through a delts-grounded-wye connected transformer. ‘The through-fault duration curve is plotted for three phase faults on the secondary of the ‘transformer as shown in the figure. A single-line-to-ground fault on the secondary will only produce 57.7 % of the ‘transformer rated winding current through the fuse on the Primary side of the transformer. This results in the fuse ‘operating more slowly for ground faults than for three phase faults on the secondary of the transformer. From the primary side, this effect can be viewed as a shift of the damage curve to the'left as shown for single-line-to-ground faults. This makes it more difficult to provide overload capability and ‘ground fault protection with fusing from the primary side of a delta-grounded-wye transformer. This problem is well documented in transformer protection literature. a = I on sss Fig. 3. TCC Cures for & 1500 kVA Thres-Phase Pad Mounted Transformer Froected by a Fullfunge Curent Lining Fuse Mounted fa Doel The full range current limiting fuse type applied in this application is available in ratings suitable for transformer protection up to 1500 kVA at 15 kV, and up to 3000 kVA at 34.5 KV. Fuse selections can allow 140% up to 300% loading, of the transformer. Derating factors should be applied to the ‘TCC curves due to operation in transformer oil that is greater than 25°C, A third application of a larger three-phase pad-mounted transformer, 2500 kVA , served by a 13.8 kV system with a full load rated current of 104.6 amperes, will be used in the next example, The delta primary ‘and grounded-wye secondary connection of the transformer will be assumed. A nameplate impedance of 5% will produce primery fault current of approximately 2092 amperes for a bolted three- phase secondary fault timited only by the transformer impedance. ‘The inrush points are not shown for this application in Fig. 4, since the plot is made on a secondary fault current basis. The primary fuse minimum melt curve is shown in Fig. 4, and is shifted to the secondary side for the three-phase, phaseo-phase, and single-line-to-ground fault ‘types. a Fig. 4. TOC Curves for 22500 KVA Three Phase Pad-Mounted Transformer Proiecied by « Cip Mounted Full Range Curent Liming Fuse. One selection available to the distribution engineer is a full range air insulated current limiting fuse, capable of interrupting low fault currents without the need for an additional device. In this example, elip-style mounting in air will be assumed. In the most common application, a separate fuse compartment is mounted on the side of the transformer, with the door interlocked with a disconnecting device. The fuse compartment is connected to the primary bushings of the transformer through insulated cables, resulting a deadfront transformer primary terminal compartment. For the 2500 kVA application a 15.5 KV, 160A (parallel 80A fuses) type NX fuse was selected. To determine the overload capability the fuse continuous current rating must be determined based on the expected ambient temperature in the enclosure. 1f 75°C is assumed a 20% derating factor would be applied, resulting in a continuous current capability of 128 amperes. This is 122% of transformer nameplate. Higher ambient temperatures would result in less overload capability for this application. The maximum let-through It for this fuse application is 1,380,000 As, Fig. 4 shows the TCC curves for the low voltage main overcurrent protective device on the secondary side of the ‘transformer. In addition, the primary fuse minimum melt and total clear curves are drawn far to the left of the low voltage breaker. The primary fuse curves must be shifted to a secondary current basis to perform the coordination with the low voltage secondary breaker and the transformer through- fault duration withstand curve. A different multiplier is used to shift the fuse from the primary to the secondary depending, ‘upon the fault type. The shift factor is 0.866 times the transformer line-to-line voltage ratio (13,200/480 = 27.5) for Jine-to-line faults, the transformer line-to-Hne voltage ratio for three-phase faults, and 1.732 times the transformer lineto-line voltage ratio for line-to-ground faults, The total clearing ‘curve has been shifted and plotted for each fault type in Fig. 4. Note that the total clearing curve is completely above the ‘through-fault duration withstand curve for line-t-ground faults. The fuse does not adequately protect the delta- ‘grounded-wye transformer for line-to-ground secondary faults. Selection of a lower ampere rated fuse to accomplish this objective would result in the possibly of fuse blowing for heavy overloads. The secondary device must be selected to provide adequate overload and secondary fault protection. Since the secondary device is sensing fault current and ‘winding current it can be selected to beuer accomplish these objectives. The primary device is relied upon to provide & backup function and clear faults upstream of the secondary device. IV, PROTECTION SCHEME TRADEOFFS, Each application example offers tradeoffs for_the distribution engineer to consider. All ofthe selections offer a high maximum interrupting rating, ie., $0,000 amperes. Very I any distribution system require fault clearing capabilities above this level. However, if properly selected, all applications can limit the let-through 1% levels and therefore limit the probability of a three-phase pad-mounted ‘transformer tank failure due to an internal fault. Current limiting fuses which fimit the let-through I% levels also serve to limit the probability that upstream overcurrent devices will ‘operate due to an individual pad-mounted transformer filure, The first application is an expulsion fuse in series with an under oil back-up current limiting fuse. The under oil Bay- (O-Net provides an economical, field replaceable expulsion fuse that is available ina variety of sizes. Current sensing and currenthhigh oil temperature fuse links are available, Deadtront construction is maintained with a device that offers load break/load make capability. The under-oil back-up current limiting fuse provides fault differentiation since it is coordinated to operate for internal, high current faults only. The CL fuse is not field replaceable, but does not need to be since it will only operate on intemal fauks which will require ‘transformer replacement. ‘The second and third applications involve the selection of full range current limiting fuses. Two selections wore examined offering different TCC curve shapes and mounting styles, Full range current limiting fuses can be mounted in a live front style with a clip mounted fuse, or in a dead front style in a drywell canister. This application provides both hhigh and low fault current clearing in one fuse unit. The high ‘current element provides fault current interruption through 50 KA. The entire fuse unit is replaced afer an interruption -2- climinating the concern of expulsion fuse/current limiting fuse coordination. The application does sacrifice the fault differentiation that exists with the first application V. CONCLUSIONS ‘There are many considerations in the selection of the protective devices fora three-phase pad-mounted transformer. In response to these convems, the industry has developed a variety of protective devices. Current limiting fuses were developed in response to high available fault current levels, produced by power systems and the need to limit fault current levels, specifically in pad-mounted transformers to prevent the tank from rupturing, Expulsion links are available as under- cil, weak link designs, or as Bay-O-Net mounted units. The ‘current limiting fuse designs are available for clip mounting or ddrywell canister mounting. A careful itemization of the protection objectives allows the selection and rating of pad-mounted three-phase distribution transformer fuses to meet the specified objectives. Under-oil back-up current limiting fuses sized for specific applications allow a minimum size fuse to be selected and thus makes upstream overcurrent device coordination easier while allowing for fault differentiation. The application of back-up current limiting fuses to work with expulsion fuses offers the protection engineer an avenue for a complete three-phase pad- ‘mounted transformer protection package. REFERENCES [1] WRHenning, A.D-Hemandez, W.W-Lien, “Fault Curent Capability of Distribution Transformers With Under-Oil

    You might also like