Feasibility of a common, dry type interface for GIS and power cables of 52kV and above

26 March 2012

In Medium Voltage. The separable connector can then be supplied by one of several possible suppliers. such that a separable connector can be plugged in on the cable side.Rationale The interface between High Voltage cable and switchgear is defined by IEC 62271-209 and IEEE 1300. The insulator has standardised dimensions on the cable side. EN 50181. They define two types of the dry-type cable connections for gas insulated switchgear above 52 kV. With the above background a number of customers expressed interest in extending the principle of a common insulator interface to higher voltages with the potential benefits that cable connections from different manufacturers would be interchangeable in a single insulator. This is the reason why the CIGRE JWG B1-B3 33 was formed with the following TOR . The limit of supply of the cable termination manufacturer is the insulator. describes “Plug-in type bushings above 1 kV up to 36 kV for equipment other than liquid filled transformers”.

including supporting system (also called site issues) Consider the impact of large cross sections Consider safety during works Consider the testing procedures for GIS/ Terminations and cables at factory and on site (overlapping or missing items).Feasibility of a common. Define the relevant qualification procedures needed if any. Propose measures to reduce the potential consequences of the GIS insulation failure. Propose measures to reduce the potential consequences of the cable termination insulation failure Review the existing standards ruling the qualifications and extension of qualification procedures applicable to GIS terminations. . dry type interface for GIS and power cables of 52kV and above The scope shall be limited to GIS connections for extruded cable systems for AC above 52 kV The JWG shall: Examine the conditions around the switchgear and the installations issues. Identify the limit of suppliers’ responsibility to be consideredEstimate the overall technical and practical feasibility of the common design definition and qualification. insulator manufacturers' qualification and the cable manufacturers' qualification and the cost involved.

survey the market (manufacturers and end users) Recommend or not to go to a second step with the launching of a new WG B1.Feasibility of a common.. dry type interface for GIS and power cables of 52kV and above Once the feasibility window has been determined. . dimensions.XX to go in detail in the design of the standard components (shape. properties ..) Develop recommendations to IEC SC 17C for requirements to be covered by the standard The full report shall be made available for final review at the B1 and B3 annual meetings in 2013.

33 convenor) Nexans Members (IT) (DE) (USA) (FR) (CH) (SP) (UK) (NL) (DK) (KR) Prysmian Sudkabel G&W Electric Prysmian (B1-B3.33 secretary) Nexans Iberdrola Prysmian Prysmian Tennet (new member) LS Cable & System • B3 (substations) Mohammad Pasha Mark Kuschel Guilhem Blanchet Markus Keller Addition Thomas Klein Dirk Kunze (USA) (DE) (FR) (CH) United Illuminating Siemens Alstom Grid ABB (DE) (DE) Pfisterer Siemens Corresponding members B1 Christian Szczepanski (BE) Elia Engineering (new member) .Pierre Argaut Pierre Mirebeau Regular members • B1 (cables) Giuseppe Nicoli Johannes Kaumanns Milan Uzelac Franck Michon Pascal Streit Josu Orella Julian Head Henk Geene John Schrijnemakers DongYun Oh • (B1 chairman) (B1-B3.

23 2012 Shelton Next meeting(s): August 2012 Delft Versailles Berlin Paris . 22. 10th 2010 Kick Paris Jan.Meetings Meetings up to date Nov. 27th 2011 June 24th 2011 Nov. 15-16th 2011 March.

Where the plug in common interface is applicable 7. a. Qualification and others a. Experience : a. and have a first conclusion. 5. Actual installations including dimensions c. Range to cover c. . Field experience with all designs. Benefit and drawback b. Where the plug in common interface could be recommended a. 4. Conclusion Table of content The idea of this organisation is to start from the actual object in the field. Definitions 3. Where the plug in concept could be applicable. Survey of standards – qualifications requirements i. Technical requirements i. then include the feasibility and market acceptance aspect. Introduction and scope 2. and draw a refined conclusion. Definition feasibility (cost involved) b. Cable side ii. Different designs available b. Cable side ii. GIS side 6. then look to "administrative" aspect. Qualification feasibility 9. feasibility a. Market acceptance 10. Other requirements 8. and go to a recommendation.1. GIS side b. Implication in standard 11. Geometrical constraints.

Plug-In Types InnerCone Plug-In Type .

Differences in design of barrier insulator • Main circuit end terminal Interfaces GIS connector and houses male plug-in connector – May be incorporated in top insert or be separate component – Bore is designed for particular plugin connector Connects cable connector with end terminal – There are different types: • Spring • Tulip • Multicontact • Plug-in connector – May be fixed to either end terminal or to cable connector .

in some designs. provides mechanical stop for stress cone or/and cable connector – The design differs between manufacturers – Made of metal or epoxy with conductive coating .Differences in design of barrier insulator • This dimension varies between manufacturers • HV screen IEC Dimension Embedded in the insulator. Shapes electrical field and.

Differences in design of barrier insulator • Barrier Insulator – Material and fillers varies – Creepage distance varies – Bore shape and size depends on the stress cone Shapes electrical field at ground electrode – Shape depends on overall electrical design of the device – Number. size. strength and material – Shape and size varies – Sometimes not integrated in the insulator – As a function of requirements (watertightness) • With or without ground screen • Bottom inserts • Insulation shield break ring • Bottom surface finish .

Requirements for standardisation of a common interface • Under discussion in the JWG .

type of installation a type of installation b Geometrical constraints We consider case 1a case 1 Solution 1a Solution 1b case 2 Solution 2a Solution 2b .

: minimum free cable length in basement according to H bas.: minimum basement height = 20D + D L bas.Geometrical constraints • • • • D: cable diameter H bas. allowing a maximum vertical snaking Ls: available length due to cable snaking .

52 10.10 9.15 13.1 1.43 190 Cable 4 1600 Cu 220 kV 120 23 2. (m) L bas.5 1.9 1.68 7.6 2. bas ed on c ommon c ables w ith a screen made of aluminium foil bonded to the outer sheath: Cable type D (mm) Weight (kg/m) H bas. (m) Ls (m) Weight of cable to move (kg) Cable 1 630 Al 63kV 65 4.14 86 Cable 3 1000 Cu 220 kV 100 17 2.71 310 Cable 5 2500 Cu 500 kV 150 40 3.14 680 Under discussion impact of the cable stiffness and the installation temperature .36 5.3 1.93 33 Cable 2 630 Cu 110kV 80 9.9 0.6 1.Geometrical constraints Summary table ( rounded v alues).

• Considering the above. • There is a good balance between manufacturers and users.Conclusion • The group behaviour is fully satisfactory. we feel that we will complete the work on time .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful