16 views

Uploaded by Milagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes

m

- NE6_nav_E
- 3082 Conductivity Meter Manual
- ECT & RFT - Tube Testing
- Temperature Effects on Resistance
- What is the relation between electric field and drift velocity.pdf
- Resistivity Method Telford-converted
- Electrical Survey Design
- Revision Notes on Current Electricity
- Temperature effects on resistance.pdf
- ASTM D257-1999
- 270252776 CT PT Calculations
- The Ultimate IGCSE Physics Guide
- IV
- Earthing IEEE80 Final Xls
- Series
- Elect 1
- Corriente de Arco Secundario
- IJARECE-VOL-3-ISSUE-3-347-350 (1).pdf
- Basic-EE
- Material Selection of Rf-mems Switch Used

You are on page 1of 7

IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 3, March 1983

Power Technologies, Inc.

Schenectady, N. Y.

effect of various system parameters on shield wire

fault current requirements. The effect of tower

footing resistances, generator excitation systems, dc

offsets and fault location are shown.

Current

splitting between shield wires in one span is examined,

and shield wire capabilities are presented.

1. 61 km

16.1 km

V.-

160 km

Station A

Station B

INIRDUCTION

fault current returns fram the fault point via

SWs (shield wires)

as well as earth.

Current

distribution between the SWs and earth depends on the

tranasission line characteristics as well as the

TFRs (tower footing resistances) adjacent to the fault

and along the line. The fault current is a function of

system impedances, generator excitation characteristics, fault location, TFRs and the X/R ratio at the

fault point.

the fault location. In subsequent spans, SW currents

decrease as one moves away fram the fault location

because more and more current is shunted through

towers-to-ground. Therefore, unless otherwise noted,

the SW currents presented in this analysis are the

currents in the first span adjacent- to the faulted

tower. Although the SW and fault currents are phasors,

it is the phasor magnitude which is important, and only

the magnitudes are reported.

is usually dictated by lightning considerations rather

than 60 Hz fault current. However, when fault levels

exceed about 20 kA, SW current can exceed current

carrying capabilities. When this occurs, larger

conductor sizes are necessary to prevent SW damage and

possible burndown.

of various system parameters on SW current magnitudes,

and to present information which can be used to more

accurately predict the expected SW currents. This

information can then be used to select SWs capable of

withstanding the current during faults.

function of the fault location along the line (Figure

2). The effect of TFR varies depending on whether the

fault is located close to or remote from the station.

However, as will be discussed, care must be taken to

carefully consider possible TFR combinations around the

fault location before making a judgment as to their

effect on SW current.

I

SW Capability

CALCULATION PROCEDURE

Size

SW current, a mathematical analysis was used to

simulate the system. Using an ABCD coefficients

approach, the phase conductors, shield wires, earth

effects, sources, station grounds and tower footing

resistances as well as faults were all represented.

(Appendix B). Ihe single line diagram indicating the

line, equivalent system and fault locations is shown on

Figure 1. The equivalent at Station A represents a

strong generating station while Station B reflects the

remainder of the system.

and to occur at a tower. While mid-span flashovers are

possible, they are extremely rare and were not

considered.

82 SM 341-6

A paper recommended and approved by the

IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee of the

IEEE PES 1982 Summer Meeting, San Francisco, California,

July 18-23, 1982. Manuscript submitted February 27, 1982;

made available for printing April 14, 1982.

4-J

- A

0)

-B

SI

-C

=I

80 km

Station

A

Fig. 2.

Faults Close to

Station

B

vs.

capability

Station

located 1.61 km froan Station A. Similar results would

be obtained for a fault at the first tower away frcan

the station. Twenty ohm TFRs and 7#8 AW (Alumoweld)

SWs were simulated. The currents are given in percent

on a total fault current basis. As shown, each SW on

the station side carries about 46 percent of the total

fault current.

As the TFR increases in magnitude, more fault

current will return through the SWs than through the

tower and earth. Figure 4 shows the effect of TFR on

SW currents for three SW types - 3/8 inch EHS, 7#8 AW

573

46%

C

4%

away frcm the station, SW current tends to split more

evenly between the station and remote side of the

faulted tower. Figure 5 illustrates this effect for

7#8 AW SWs and 20 ohm TFRs. The conditions are

identical to those shown on Figure 3 except that the

fault is now located 16.1 km frcm the station. Similar

results would be obtained for faults located in the

middle of the line. Comparing the results for the

close-in fault (1.61 km) and the remote fault (16.1 km)

shows that the highest SW current, as a percent of

total fault current, is significantly reduced - frcm 46

percent to 26 percent. These results seem to imply

that a significant reduction in SW current carrying

requirements for SWs out on the line is possible.

*-

46%

-88%

4%

>S

12%

n,g.

ut

current which occurred in any SW as a percent of total

fault current. The fault was located 1.61 km fran the

station. The results illustrated on Figure 3 are

included on Figure 4. On Figure 3 the highest SW

current is 46 percent of the total fault current. This

46 percent value is plotted on the 7#8 AW SW curve

opposite the 20 ohm TFR value.

assumed to be a uniform 20 ohms all along the line.

Now consider the case where all the TFRs are 20 ohms

except for one or two towers having low TFRs. For

example, if two towers having 3 ohm TFRs immediately

preceded the faulted tower on the station side, the SW

currents would be as shown on Figure 6.

26%

20%

26%

50

81%

20%

hE

19%

Mirnorca ACSR

40

14

0 CL

05

20

1

10

100

Fig. 4.

for this condition has now risen to 37 percent of the

total fault current. This is not a trivial case

because it is possible for there to be a few low TFRs

out along a line which predominately consists of high

TFRs. As the ratio between the high and low TFRs

increases, the SW current on the span between the

faulted tower and the the towers having low TFRs will

increase.

three important points.

1) For faults close to a station, most of the SW

current is carried in the SWs on the station side

of the fault.

2) For ACSR and AW the shield wire current is higher

than for EHS. This effect is more pronounced

with lower TFRs.

3) For TFRs higher than about 15 to 20 ohms, most of

the fault current is carried in the SWs.

lowering high TFRs close to the station. Lowering the

TFR fram 20 ohms to 3 ohms, for example, reduces the

3/8 inch EHS SW requirements by about 30 percent. This

could well make a difference in SW size requirements

near a

station.

are low? Figure 7 illustrates this condition for 3 ohm

TFRs. As before the fault is at 16.1 km and 7#8 AW SWs

were simulated.

The highest SW current is now 24 percent of the

fault current as opposed to 34 percent for the same

configuration when the fault was 1.61 km away fram the

station (see Figure 4). Would the last case (low TFRs

along the line) be influenced by a few towers having

high TFRs?

spans before being shunted by low TFRs, but the highest

current in the spans adjacent to the faulted tower

would be essentially no different than that shown in

Figure 7.

574

11%

37%

37%

81%

resultant SW burndown. But because there are so few

cases of SW failure attributable to this effect, there

is little reason to believe that large resistances

differences are cormmon. However, because there could

undoubtedly be other effects which would contribute to

a other than a 50/50 split, it seems prudent to use a

55/45 split to account for any other unknown effects.

11%

SW is

influenced by the magnitude and duration of the SW

current. The preceding sections have discussed what

portion of the fault current can be expected to be

carried by the SW. This section discusses the effect

of various parameters on the fault current magnitude

and duration.

4%

Fig. 6.

Having Low TIs

derived from the more even SW current split between

With

spans immediately adjacent to the faulted tower.

low TFRs along the line the highest SW current is on

the order of 25 to 30 percent. With high TFRs along

the line, coupled with the possibility of an occasional

low TFR scattered along the line, the highest SW

current could be expected to be on the order of 35 to

45 percent of the total fault current.

24%

81%

20%

%%S

19%

Tower

of the fault

the effect of

fault clearing

it dictates the

Additionally,

EHV systems the fault clearing time can range

few cycles, for primary clearing time, to as

15 to 20 cycles, for backup clearing time.

It

considered prudent to base the required SW

On

fram

a

much as

is

capability

on

Subsequent to fault

occurrence,

generator

reactance changes with time. In the first few cycles

the generator

subtransient

following the fault,

reactance,

X"d, accurately reflects the generator

reactance. After a number of cycles have passed

(dependent on the machine time constant), the transient

reactance, X'd, can be used to represent the generator.

Historically, the SW has been rated for backup clearing

times and the X'd value has been used to determine the

fault current. There is some error in this approach

because the effective current applied to the SW should

reflect the higher fault current present during the

first few cycles.

However, if the machine time constant is low the error is small.

Fast Excitation Systems

12%

Faulted

clearing time, system reactance and

generation excitation. Of these the

time is the most significant because

characteristic effect of the other two.

any dc offset is also important.

System Reactance

20%

24%

Fig. 7.

FAULT CURRENTS

19%

Towers

indicate that the current being carried on one span

essentially splits evenly between the two SWs. The

tower resistances between the faulted conductor and the

two SWs were set equal, while the tower gecmetry was

accurately represented (see Appendix B).

Therefore,

the results indicate that tower geonetry and geanetric

nonsymetry due to fault location do not influence the

current split in the two SWs.

between the SWs and the faulted phase

were

substantially different? In the extreme case, one SW

could be well isolated fran the tower (perhaps due to

corrosion). In that event the remaining SW would have

to carry all the current.

This event would likely

systems results in additional complications. With

older excitation systems the fault current did indeed

track the change in generator reactance. This was true

because although the machine reactance changed with

time, the voltage behind the generator reactance did

not change very rapidly. With fast exciters, however,

the generator voltage does increase rather rapidly with

time and, in fact, does contribute appreciably to the

effective fault current. This effect is illustrated in

Figure 8.

Figure 8 shows the results of a dynamic simulation

Two fault current curves are

following a fault.

shown - the lower one indicates the fault current when

fast exciters are not usedr while the upper curve shows

the influence of fast exciters on the fault current.

The

results

indicate

that

the

fast

exciters

do

current flowing in the SWs.

The

proper

approach

for

system following a fault and accurately define the

575

1.8

1.7

I rms -

Fast Exciters

Fault Initiation

1.6

ac, rms

1.5.

---1-.onventional

Exciters

K

1. 4-

1.3

Time

30 Cycles

1.0_2

I2R analysis of the fault current, it appears

reasonable, as an approximation, to simply calculate

the fault current using X'd to represent the generator

reactances. This approximation should result in an

effective current relatively close to the actual value.

100

10

Time (cycles)

Fig. 9.

Effect of DC on SW Current

an

DC Current Contribution

of dc offset. The magnitude of the offset is most

likely to be high near generating stations, however,

with very low resistance SWs the *effect could be

The

appreciable for quite a distance along the line.

dc contribution is a function of the X/R ratio as well

as the point on the voltage wave at which the fault was

initiated.

station most of the 60 Hz fault current flows in the

SWs. Although not rigorously analyzed, based' on

resistance.considerations around the fault and station,

it also seems reasonable to assume that most of the dc

will' also flow in the SWs. Thberefore, the curves shown

on Figure 9 indicate the effective SW current (current

applied to SW heating) as a function of X/R ratio and

fault duration. The derivation for the data presented

may be found in Appendix.A. It should be noted that

the data-is based on the assumption that the fault was

initiated at, the worst'possible time - the time which

results in the largest dc offset.

The results indicate,' for example,' that for a

fault clearing time of 10 cycles and an X/R of 20, the

ac, rms fault current should be multiplied by 1.15 to

determine the heating -current effectively applied to

the SWs. This current is actually the true rms current

reflecting..the SW heating contribution frdm the ac and

the dc' currents.

Summary

It is suggested that SW requirements be determined

based on backup clearing times. If fast exciters are

not used in the system, then the X'd value may be used

to determine the fault current, although the higher

fault current during the first few cycles should be

taken into' account. If fast exciters are used, then

accurate dynamic simulations should be used to

determine the fault current. Alternatively, the X"d

reactance value could be used to approximate the

results. It is further suggested that the effect of dc

offset be considered for faults near stations.

the SW material to heat. Above a certain temperature,

dependent on the material, the conductor will sustain

damage and/or lose mechanical strength.'. Therefore, the

purpose of capability calculations is to determine for

a given current the maximum fault duration beyond which

the conductor will be damaged or lose mechanical

capability.

number of material characteristics including resistivity, mass,' specific heat, density and temperature

It is also a function of

coefficient of resistance.

the initial and final operating temperatures.

Ihe characteristic equation describing' SW current

carrying capability isl:

I

{JA2Ds/pct l/t

ln[l +

(0

0.)]} /2

(1)

where

P is the resistivity in ohm-cm

J is a constant - 4.185 Joules/calorie

A is the conductor area in cm2

s is the specific heat in calories/gmvOC

D is the density in gn/cc

is the temperature coeff. of

resistance in /PC

# is the final temperature OC

1)

2)

3)

4)

The conductor is infinitely long.'

The amount of radiated heat is negligible.

The specific heat is constant over the temperature range.

The

resistivity is

function of temperature.

To reflect

the effect -of specific heat as a

function of temperature would complicate the equation.

However, it 'is known that if specific heat as a

576

would have a slightly higher capability than that

predicted by Equation 1. Therefore, the predicted

capabilities inherently contain some conservatism.

and ACSR SW types, and the'results are shown on Figure

10. Table 1 suggests parameters to be used' for

evaluating the expression, and these values were used

to generate data presented on Figure 10.

TABLE 1

A~W

8.53x10-6 15 .9xlO-6

0.0036

0.0035

400.

400.

40.

40.

6.66

7.86

0.118

0.118

P (ohm-cm)

a (/OC)

0 (OC)

go (OC)

D (gm/cc)

s (cal/grrC)

40

a'

- -

T = _

--

1o

1 1

0.01

_77

REFERENCES

1932.

2. L. F. Roehmann and E. Hazan, "Short-Time Annealing

Characteristics of Electrical Conductors,". IEEE

Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,

Vol. PAS-69, pp. 1061-1068, Dec, 1963.

3. "Current Carrying Capacity of Skywires," Ontario

Hydro Research Quarterly, Fourth Quarter, 1965.

~~IZ

can be described by:

L

i(t) a VV2

.1..0

10

contributions, can substantially increase SW currents

and requi red capability.

APPENDIX A

EFFECr OF DC COMPONENT

l-1

0.1

5

L~~~-4

_i:S

--

currents in one span is prudent.

1(

A_ _ 1141-

a'

2.87xlO-6

0.0040

200.

40.

2.70

0.210

AST_

2- CGuinea

U4

ACSR

EHS

current is on the order of 40 percent of the total even

for the more critical cases. Required SW capabilities

out along the line may be significantly reduced fran

that necessary near a station. Thus, it may be

econamical to utilize two different SW sizes on one

line.

15 20

seconds

cycles

[sin (t + $) - sin(/)eat]

where a =

VIV

Fault Duration

Fig. 10.

experimental data presented in Reference 3 and on

conductor manufacturer's literature. The EHS data is

essentially that normally used for steel. The data

suggested for AW represents -parameters reflecting a

combination of aluminum and steel. The ACSR data is

based on-aluminum since the steel core apparently plays

little part in the heating phenomenon.

400C ambient was chosen because above about 4000C the

conductor galvanization is subject to melting.

Based

work presented in Reference '3,

on

the maximum

temperature allowed for AW and ACSR was set at 4000C

and 2000C. These values were selected' because the

conductors begin to lose significant strength when

heated above the selected levels.

R + jwL

+i

Fiqure 1A

The rms

current is:

irms - [ Vt i2 dt11/2

When , = f71/2 the fully offset dc

represented and the integral result is:

'rms

ac,rms

carried in the SW's on the station side span. With low

TFR's (3 ohms), each SW carries about 30-40 percent of

the total fault current. With higher TFR's (20-100

ohms), each SW carries about 45-48 percent.

Vm sin ut

e2 -t

CONCLUSIONS

the current

condition

rut + Tr

f2w

-4

-eat

sin

is

2

t

a cost

wt)

=I

k

ac,rms

The value "k" has been evaluated for

a and T, and the results are given in

the paper.

various values of

the main body of

577

APPENDIX B

SYS[EM DATA

The source impedances used for the analysis were:

Station A

Station B

0.4 Percent

infinite bus

transmission line spans were represented in the

vicinity of the fault. Tle number of represented

towers varied depending on the TFR. -For low TERs only

towers one to two.miles away fram the- fault location

were rigorously simulated.i With high TFRs many more

towers had to be represented in order to obtain .a

satisfactory representation. The number of towers

actually used was determined by increasing the number

represented until further additions-had no effect on

the SW current adjacent to the faulted tower.

For the transnission each conductor, phase and

ground, were individually represented 'in a span. A

typical 500 kV, horizontal tower configuration was used

which. consisting of three Cardinal ACSR conductors per

phase (457 inm bundle, spacing). At the tower the. phase

spacing-was 9.76m, and the pbase conductor height. was

27.9m. Shield wires were located at a height of 37.4m

with a spacing of -21.3m. .Tfhel

earth resistivity

represented was 100 ohm-i. For 3/8 ENS SW's, the characteristic series and shunt matrices are shown on Table

1B. ' The individual- conductors are numbered, to

correspond with the-numbering shown on Figure lB.

SW 5

<R

0

0 3

represented as shown on Figure 1B. With switch "S"

open the representation is for a unfaulted tower while

with "S" closed a faulted tower was represented. RR

was varied.frcm 3 to 100 ohms.; RI and R2 were set-.to

the same value and varied from 0.1 ohms to about 1 ohm.

The lower values were used with low RTFR values while

the higher values were used when the RTFR was set at

100 ohms. Station grounds were represented in a manner

similar to towers. and with effective values of about

0.3 ohms. Snall variations in this value had no

significant effect on the results.

TABLE 1B

0.07752

jo.66073

0.05683 0.07753

jO.33937 jO .66071

jO .28723 jO.33937 jO.66073

jO.31321 jO .31152 jO.28587 jl.49740

jO .28587 jO .31152 jO.31321 jO.33457 jl .4 9740

SW 4

R2

1

0

S 0 1

0.2

>

RTFR

Figure 1B

Tower and Fault Representation

CONDUCTOR

CDNDUCIOR

-jO .25838

578

Discussions

Donald T. Jones (Copperweld Bimetallics Group, Pittsburgh, PA): The

capability of a shield wire to carry fault currents safely is becoming increasingly important as fault current magnitudes increase. The author,

therefore, is to be commended for undertaking his study and sharing his

findings in this paper.

The values of fault current vs. fault duration for EHS steel obtained

by the use of equation (I) in the paper do not, in the opinion of the discusser, seem to agree with the values shown in Figure 10. It appears that

the calculated values are appreciably lower than Figure 10 indicates.

The author's comments regarding this apparent difference between

equation (1) values and Figure 10 values for steel will be appreciated.

Also, reference (3) of this paper provides fault current data resulting

from tests performed on steel, aluminum-clad steel and ACSR shield

wires. The test values for the aluminum-clad steel agree fairly closely

with those values shown in Figure 10 of the paper. However, the values

provided for the EHS steel in reference (3) are significantly lower than

those shown in Figure 10. This difference would seem to confirm the

discrepancy between the values calculated by equation (1) and the plotted values of Figure 10. The author's comments would also be welcomed on this point.

Manuscript received August 12, 1982.

The author has done. a fine job of relating several parameters to consider for shield wire size and fault current aspects. My first question

deals with Figure 3 of the paper and the illustration of 0% fault current

going to ground through the structure. It is true that small amounts of

fault current do go to ground especially near stations, but in making a

similar computation as the author did and trying to use all of his

parameters as possible, then the 0% current to the structure base was

not realized. The input and results are given in Table A and this shows

that the minimum percentage going into the structure for a 20 ohm

tower is about 41/2%. The computer program used was part of an EPRI

research program.1 There was also disagreement with percent flowing

to generating station A vs. flowing to station B via the overhead shield

wires. Using Rudenberg's method2 then there also is shown to be a

small percentage going to the structure base and not 0% as indicated by

the author in Figure 3.

The case of Figure 5 was also duplicated but the results are very

similar to the author's results.

In Figure 8 there is no value given for the fault current values. Is this

a general case that is true in all situations or was this case particular for

only one system?

Would the author elaborate on the quantitative aspect of significant

strength loss when shield wires are heated above 2000 or 400 (ACSR,

AW). The reason for this is that many shield wires are never subjected

to their ultimate strength in operation and many times can afford to

have some loss of strength incorporated into the design. This loss of

strength can be as much as 30/40% depending upon the ultimate

strength of the conductor and the original design. Would the author

comment on his coice of 40C ambient temperature for the shield wires

as this appears unrealistic for most considerations.

In the author's Appendix B dealing with system data he lists the RI

and R2 terms from .1 to 1 ohms in connection with low footing

resistance and high footing resistance. The author's comments on why

they chose this particular variation would be useful. Does the author

have a basis for the values of the resistance values of Rl and R2 based

on any actual tests?

Results

TFR Case

20 ohm

10 ohm

3 ohm

.300 + j .010

.100 + j .010

Self-Impedance Phase Conductors .079 + j .667 ohms/km

Self-Impedance 3/8" AW (twc) .812 + j .667 ohms/km

Source Terminal Voltage 500 kV

To Sta. B

7532

8193

8197

km from Sta. A

1494-1 Final Report, prepared by Safe Engineering Services Ltd.

August 1982.

2) R. Rudenberg, Transient Performance of Electric Power Systems,

Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1967, pp. 355-366.

Manuscript received August 17, 1982.

sincerely appreciated. Regarding Mr. Niles' comments, the current

through the tower (Figure 3) is not identically zero. Obviously there is

some flow, however, the physics of the problem certainly indicates it to

be small for close in faults. Notwithstanding the difference between the

results in the paper and that of Mr. Niles, a few percent is not significant to the conclusions especially considering all the possible unknowns

existing in the field.

The results shown on Figure 8 can indeed be considered general,

assuming that fast excitation systems are used. Such results not only

have an impact on shield wire selection but also on other station equipment, switchgear in particular.

Regarding Mr. Niles' comment on raising the acceptable upper shield

wire temperature limit and accepting a loss of strength, the approach

could result in disastrous consequences if not carefully considered.

Because some conductors lose strength rapidly while others demonstrate a more gradual degradation, caution should be observed before

attempting such an approach. Furthermore, EHS shield wire galvanization melts at about 4000C, occurring rather as a step function. More detailed information may be found in Reference 3 of the paper. The 40C

may be excessive for some applications but not for others. This is ultimately a decision to be made by the engineer.

Regarding Mr. Niles' last comment on contact resistance, the values

were selected based on the opinion of the author and others

knowledgeable in the field. No actual test data is available.

Mr. Jones' comment is most appreciated, and he is correct. When the

paper was being prepared, EHS data was computed with conductor

areas taken from Table 3.3.11 of the "Red Bookl." Unfortunately, the

conductor area column (Table 3.3.11) is in error. The correct area may

be calculated by multiplying the number of strands by the strand area

obtained from the strand diameter column in the same table. (Note that

the strand diameter for 2 inch EHS is 0.165 inches not 0.105 inches.)

These results yield the data shown in a corrected Figure 10 below.

30

^ 40

30

-~~~i

I

Guinea

.,,

20

-Minorca,-

111711Y6A

11]

~~~~7#6AW

LI

II

_

inc

1.

EH

10

iI

Lu8

______

f~~~

T

inch

3/j inc

1: EHS3

0.1

EFault Duration

.800 + j 10.0

1.6 + j 20.1

To Sta. A

16481

15165

12988

REFERENCES

0.01

TABLE A

To Structure

1145

1922

4304

with tower spacing 322m.

4i

Input

Gen A

Gen B

Total Fault

25111

25245

25413

10

15 20

1.0 secads

cycles

Figure 10

REFERENCE

1. Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV and Above, Electric

Power Research Institute, 1975.

Manuscript received September 16, 1982.

- NE6_nav_EUploaded bymedooman
- 3082 Conductivity Meter ManualUploaded byEquipDoc
- ECT & RFT - Tube TestingUploaded byquyettd0706
- Temperature Effects on ResistanceUploaded byLaurence Michael
- What is the relation between electric field and drift velocity.pdfUploaded byJonathan Majaw
- Resistivity Method Telford-convertedUploaded bySitti Lasmi Manginsih
- Electrical Survey DesignUploaded byJavedkhana
- Revision Notes on Current ElectricityUploaded byanon_763758579
- Temperature effects on resistance.pdfUploaded byLaurence Michael
- ASTM D257-1999Uploaded bysam0107
- 270252776 CT PT CalculationsUploaded bydanish
- The Ultimate IGCSE Physics GuideUploaded byArsala Khalid
- IVUploaded byMavathavieu
- Earthing IEEE80 Final XlsUploaded byPrashant Pandey
- SeriesUploaded byZulaikah Blitarian
- Elect 1Uploaded byภูเก็ต เป็นเกาะ
- Corriente de Arco SecundarioUploaded byAlejandro Ramirez Benites
- IJARECE-VOL-3-ISSUE-3-347-350 (1).pdfUploaded bybehzad
- Basic-EEUploaded byKim Angelo Gonzales
- Material Selection of Rf-mems Switch UsedUploaded byMeenakshi Sundaram
- Limitaions of the Ruling Span Method for OL Conductors at High Operating TemperaturesUploaded byQvixote Eléctrico
- 03 ElectricityUploaded byAkshay Patel
- ElectricityUploaded byHarsimran Singh Kapoor
- Unidad 3 norma IEEE.pdfUploaded byBryan Andres Reyes Caamaño
- 0004 Modeling of Overhead Transmission Lines For Lightning Studies.pdfUploaded bygino
- Physics 0625 w06 qp 6Uploaded byHubbak Khan
- 1409 ElectricityUploaded bySeon Gunness
- chpt6supUploaded byAviral Agarwal
- Dry Band Formation and Its Influence on Electric Field Distribution Along Polluted InsulatorUploaded byJ.92Flom
- Science F3 Chapter 7 Electricity-Paper 2 AnswersUploaded byRebecca Choong Xin Hui

- Conectores Para DistribucionUploaded byeleazar207
- Informe Convocatorias 7 de Mayo de 2014 fUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Arandela 5-8Uploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- MO 00055 CO-GI PRLUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- P1AE00271 - 120 kNUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Round wahser 7-8 inUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Ansinema c29!7!2015 WatermarkedUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Aislador poliméricoUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- 5REGULACIONDEVOLTAJEUploaded byBoris Miranda
- CablesdeBajaTension.pdfUploaded byGiovanny Poveda
- Procables CatalogoProductos 2017 WEB FINALUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- ficha_ivpUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Campos Electromagneticos EPRIUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Arandela 5-8.pdfUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Catalogo Sheath Voltage LimiterUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- ELT_220_1-OHL_solutions_for_a_changing_industry_R.STEPHEN-JUNE_2005ID20VER20.pdfUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Pernos Rosca Corrida Hubbell 1 PulgadaUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Tuer CasUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- PLSCADD ProbabilisticUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- LN 2 - S025069S2000 cadena 2094 mmUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- LN 1 - S025047S2000 Cadena 1545 mm.pdfUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Corona AntiescalatoriaUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Aislador poliméricoUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- Manual de Señalizacion Vial 2015.pdfUploaded bymed_martha
- Understanding Insulation CoordinationUploaded bysulemankhalid
- Line poste 3 inUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- CREG 025-95Uploaded byOscar Leonardo Rincon Pulido
- Round wahser 3-4 in.pdfUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- CORONA_ANTIESCALATORIA.pdfUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes
- arandela de presión 1 in.pdfUploaded byMilagros Mercedes Olmos Cervantes

- Pro 2Uploaded byJuan Rodriguez C
- high impedanceUploaded byDEADMAN
- gek-100682d.pdfUploaded bybagus adhitiawarman
- mbcisalesenUploaded byhhh81sg4120
- 7SJ80xx_Catalog.pdfUploaded byyesfriend28
- IEC 60909 0 2001 Short Circuit Current_ResumenUploaded byOscar Ordoñez Velasquez
- psys prtctnUploaded bysrinu250
- Devive Function NumbersUploaded bySherleanne Pinto
- dat_swg_en_160729.pdfUploaded bySMART REFILL
- Grounding and JumperingUploaded byferreiramarco56
- energies-06-04246-v2 IGBT.pdfUploaded byDoDuyBac
- GCB Application GuideUploaded byEkoFujisyahMaulwanto
- b30Uploaded byvsrikala68
- AUTOMATIC METHOD OF PROTECTING TRANSFORMER USING PIC MICROCONTROLLER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE FUSE PROTECTION TECHNIQUEUploaded byInternational Jpurnal Of Technical Research And Applications
- FALLA KILOMËTRICA.pdfUploaded byjdeloyola
- Series Reactors in CLP NetworkUploaded byAmberMeerab
- First benchmark model for computer simulation of subsynchronous resonanceUploaded bySherif Helmy
- 6 Tech Spec AMOC Final V2Uploaded bybvdb
- Fault CodeUploaded byIsoscell Isoscell
- Marcel.dekker.protective.relaying.theory.and.Applications.2nd.ebook TLFeBOOKUploaded byMahesh Singh
- EasypactMVS_UserManualUploaded byAries d
- Transformadores Tipo SubestacionUploaded byRobert Lira
- Micom P211 OC & EF RelayUploaded bysatya1417
- ibm-error-reportUploaded byMahesh Gulbarga
- EE_SET_1_GATE_2015Uploaded bycheshankar
- Alstom - RPC - Switching of shunt capacitor banks.pdfUploaded byDaniloGarciaMuñoz
- switchcircfusesUploaded byhiddenhidden16
- Distributed Generation.pdfUploaded bypitia
- Earth Fault Protection Part 2Uploaded byDEADMAN
- HVDCUploaded byRamachandran Unnikrishnan