1592 IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. Vol. 7. No. 3.

July 1992

Full Scale Lightning Surge Tests of Distribution Transformers and Secondary

Systems
Gary L. Goedde,Member, IEEE Roger C. Dugan, Sr.Member, IEEE Lawrence D. Rowe

Cooper Power Systems

Thomas A. W o n Technical Center
Franksville, WI 53126

Keywords: Low-sidesurges, DistributionTransformers,Secondary appears to be subjected to a sudden current surge injectedintoits

Surges. unprotected low voltage (secondary) terminals. This current
may induce a high voltage in the primary winding causing,
U Low&& : surges ale known to CsUIse failulw of disaibution typically, a layer-to-layer insulation failure. The Task Force on
transformers. They also subject load devices to overvoltages. A Low-side Surge Requirements for Distribution Transformers of
full-scale model of a residential service has been set U in a the IEEE Transformers Committee was commissioned to study
laboratory and subjected to impulses approximating ligitning this problem and a report has: been recently prepmd[ IO]
strokes. ’Ibe tests were made to determine the impulse
characteristics of the secondarysystem and to test the validrty of Low-side surges are actually driven by the voltage developed
previous analyses. Among the variables investigated were across the service cable in re onse to lightning currents flowing
stroke location, thebalance of the surges in the service cable, and through the service cable. %us, any element connected in the
the effectiveness of arrester protection. Low-side surges wee secondary system is exposed to surgesas well as the transformer.
found to consist of two basic components: the natural frequency There continues to be considerable interest in this subject from
of the system and the inductive response of the system to the theend user viewpoint due to the increased attention being given
stroke current The latter component is m p s i b l e for transformer to power quality. (111 Sensitive electronics in modern load
failms while the formermay be responsible for discharge spots equipment are more subject to failure and misoperation due to
often found around secondary bushings. Arresters at the service transient “spikes” on the secondary thanolder electromechanical
entrance are effective in diverting most of the energy from a equipment. An@ystsworking in this area typically assume that
lightning strike, but may not protect sensitive loads. Additional lightning surges are cou led to the secondary through the
local protection is also needed. The tests affirmed previous interwindingcapacitanceopthe distributionm f o m r . ~lthough
simulations and uncovered additional phenomena as well. it may not matter to the end user how the spikes originate, one
thing that will be shown in thispaper is that the low-side surges
seen by the transformer and the spikes appearing at the load are
closely related and are likely due to surge currents flowing on
There has been considerable interest in the subject of lightning- service cable neutral.
induced surges on 240/120-volt secondary circuits within the
last decade. Electric utilities have generally not provided This paper describes recent full-scale tests of a residential 240/
overvoltage rotection for this class of service beyond that 120-voltsewice. The urpose ofthe tests was to more accurately
providedby J$spark gaps in the revenue meter. The expense for identify and d e b alfthe phenomena associated with low-side
providing protection has not been consideredeconomical except surges that had been observed previously and to evaluate the
in special cases with persistent failure problems. Thus, both the effectiveness of protection options for secondary systems as a
distribution transformer and load devices are exposed to surge whole.
voltages that arise on the secondary.
DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
Martzloff [11 was one of the first to analyze surges on the
secondary and propose test waves for sensitive load devices. Figure 1shows aschematicdiagram of the test circuit used in the
This work was mostly done from the perspective of the load full-scale tests described in this paper. It consists of a IS-kVA
looking back into the utility system. More recently, there has distribution transformer with a tank-mounted surge arrester and
been considerable analysis of these surges by transformer a mock-up of at i d residential service. For the tests described
manufacturers and interested utilities in lightning-proneregions here, the transgmer was a core-type design with interlaced
withhigh ftansformerfailure rates. [2-101 Thisgrouphascoined secondaries. The primary of the transformer was terminated
the phrase “low-voltage-side cumnt surges” or, simply, “low- with a 500-ohm resistor to represent the surge impedance of the
side surges” to describe the phenomena that cause dstribution overhead line. The pole ground was represented by a 16-
I transformer failures. From the perspective of the transformer, it microhemy inductorin serieswith aresistorthat was varied from
3 to 25 ohms, depending on the case bein represented. The
inductor represents the inductance of the pofe ground lead from
This paper was presented at the Transmission the transformerto the ground,estimated at 0.4 to 0.5 microhenry
per foot. The service entrance ground was represented by a
and Distribution Conference in Dallas, Texas resistance, with about 6 ft. of leads attached No other intentional
from September 22-27, 1991 at the Dallas Con- inductance was added.
vention Center. Sponsored by the BEE Power
The transformerwas connected tothe service entmnce using 150
Engineering Society. ft. of standard No.6 AWG triplex cable. A standard meter base
cabinet was used along with an actual meter, which contains
spark gaps as indicated on the figure. Two 120-volt feeders, one

about 60 ft. and the other about 66 ft. in length, consisting of 12/
2 Type NM cable, were run from the service entrance to load
locatrons. Various loads were attached to the ends of these
cables, including standard lamp sockets, 120-volt outlets, and
simple resistors.
With the test circuit in place, the surge generator was connected
to various places as indicated to represent the effects of strokes
to different locations. The surge generator consists of a large
capacitor bank tbat was charged sufficiently to deliver
a proximately5000amperesina4xIOmicrosecondwaveshape.
As was decreased at times when surge voltages became too
high and increased at other times when attempting to produce
, failures of devices. The surge generator was placed in three
different locations:
1. Primary phase conductor
2. Primary neutral conductor
3. Neutral conductor at the service entrance
These arebelieved to be the most common locations for lightning
strokes. The fust two repwent strokes to the overhead line
structures. The third re resents either a direct stroke to a
P
grounded prticWr of tbe oad structure or simply a stroke to
ground in the vicinity of the service entrance ground.
Since the low-side surge phenomena result from cumnt flowing
011 the triplex neutral conductor between the load and the
transfomer,the grounding resistances were ad'ustedto pull most
of (he surge current toward the end of the triplex cable opposite
the surge generator. The grounding resistance on the end being
surgedwas set to 25 ohms, which is the typical assumed value for
a single driven ground. The other end was set to 3 ohms, which,
in the case of a residentialload, might represent 811 exceptionally
good ground achieved by connection to a water system. For
strokes to the serviceentrance, one justification for using 3 ohnis
at the distribution transformer would be to assume that the
transformerwas cable-fed with the neutral of the cable providing
an excellent ground. This is, in fact, the suspected mechanism
for many padmounted transformers that have been observed
having the signature of a low-side surge failure. This procedure
resultedin apeak surge current in the cable of approximately 80
percent of the peak of the surge generator current. (The peaks
generally do not coincide.)
Both voltage and current measurements were made using special
iostrument current transformers designed for laboratory surge
1593
work. For voltage measurements, a resistor was placed across
the point to be measured and the CI'was placed around the
resistor lead, which passed through an insulating tube. This
techoique permits the meassuremat of voltage difkencesbetween
two points in the circuit while providing sufficient insulation
between the metering instruments and the test specimen. The
mistor-CT combination was c a l i i by floating an o s c i l l v
to line potential to measure the actualdifferentialvoltages. This
techni ue is more accurate than using two conventionally-
groungd dividers and subtracting the two measurements: the
voltages to ground are very high at some points in the circuit and
it is difficult to retain sufficient accuracy by obtaining the
difference between two nearly equal voltages.
OPEN-CIRCUITVOLTAGES
Figure 2 shows the typical waveforms of the open-circuit
voltage appearing across the load (black wire-to-white wire).
The two shotsshown were taken at reduced surge current levels
(2.6kA) tokee thevoltagesinthe 10-15kVrange. Therewere
two different c L e s of waveforms observed: one for strokes to
the primary side of the circuit and another for strokes to the
service entrance side. Surges to either the primary phase or the
primary neubal produced essentially the same waveform, although
strokes to the phase wire produced slightly higher magnitudes.
Surges to the service entrance produced a waveform containing
lower natural frequencies.
The open-circuit voltage waveforms consist of two basic
components:
1. The higher frequency oscillations due to the natural
frequencies of the circuit, and
2. A lower-frequency component that is essentially the
inductive and resistive voltage drop along the neutral of
the triplex.
The main higher frequency component is about 2.5-3.0 M H z for
suokes to the primary side and about 800 kHz for strokes to the
service entrance. These frequencies have been attributed to the
parameters of the lines and cables in the circuit. The role of the
transformer capacitance has not been fully investigated, but is
believed to be minimal.
The lower-frequency component is the root of the low-side
surge failure problem in transformers and has been the subject
1594

of much of the previous work, which typically neglected the
higher -eocy components. [5,6,9] Early test circuits were
intent only on &tennining transformer withstand cvability pnd
it was not uatil recently that measFment eqwpment and
~ l s ~ o f a c a u a t e y lcneuqeryfw
*-s d e ~
componeat were applied.
These voltage waveforms taken at the load show the natural
ikquency oscillations to be very high in magnitude. The
zr tuciewasverysensitive totheadditionofsmallindu-
capacitances to the circuit. Note that there is significiitit
difference between the magnitudes on the two sides of the
circuit. This is attributed to the fact that one run of the 12./2 Type
NM cable was slightly longer (about 6 ft.) than the other and was
laid in a different route to the termination poitit. The cable
lengths chosen for this test result in reinforcement of some
frequencies present in the natural oscillations of the secondary
tank leaving small pits in the paint. The result can be readily
observed in many transformers by removing the cover and
inspecting the low-voltage bushings.
There is no evidence at present that the voltages causing these
discharges a damagingby themselves,although there is concern
that they couldprecipitatearm-to-twnMumwithin the secondary
if repeatedly applied. However, it Seems likely that they are
accompanied by low-side surges, indicating that the transformer
has been in a location that is particularly susceptible to low-side
srirge phenomena. This would suggest that secoodary arrester
protection would be prudent for transformers in this location.
Variables that might make aparticularlocation more susceptible
include high lightning exposure, long triplex runs, use of o n-
wire secondary, or a much better ground on one side
service cable.
04elhe
I

system. Thrs may or may not be representative of an actual The high frequency component has, perhaps, more potential for
installation where there are many more cables of much more
varied lengths. Nevertheless, it serves to indicate the type of
voltages present under lightning surge conditions.
damage to sensitive electronic load equipment. Its
Tis
such that it requires a fast-acting surge su pressor to c amp the
voltage. A suppression technique that u d z e s a series inductor
The lower-frequency component is balanced in both sides, as
would be expected for a system containing an interlaced core-
to block high
2 encies should be more successful than a
simple MOV. AI o u p not shown, cases have been recorded
where thepeak of the tugh-frequencytransient voltage to remote
type transformer. This couldbeSeen if one were to draw a curve (true) ground to be in excess of 20 kV. Thus, any electronic
through the average of the higher-frequency oscillations. equipment referenced to another, remote ground point, such I
through TV cable, is particularly vulnerable to experiencing
The high-frequency component of low-side surge phenomena insulation failures.
was not investigated until discharge spots were noticed around
the secondary bushings inside of transformer tanks (see Figure
3). Tesu&m of failed transformers have suggested a correlation
with the appearance of these spots and failure of transformers
due to low-side surges. Also, our laboratory tests had reviously
ikerminectimt a very large low-si& current w e , wit! suecient
rateof change, could cause flashover of the secondarybushings.
However, there was considerable burning observed with these
tests. It is our hypothesisthat the discharges are due to the high
!hquencycompooentof the voltage, alargepercentageof which
IS dropgd across the inductance of the transformer secondary
when re is a path for current to flow. There is little ener
involved and the distance across the bushing is too great for 1%
volts to suslain a power follow arc. Therefore, low energy
spitting occurs off sharp edges on the secondary leads inside the

P
In
STROKE TO
SEWCE ENTRANCE

I I I I I I I I I
TlME z MICROSEC/DIV

Figure 3: Typical disclmrge spots (discolored area above

Figure 2: Open-circuitvoltages appearing at the load for and to the I& of the bushing on the lep) often found around
surges to the primary and surges to the service entrance. secondary bushings in distribution tran~omersin lightning-
vrone areas. Spots are aligned with tlie sharp points on the
secondary lead connectors.
c
The interaction of the secondary system elements involvedin the
high fie ency ringing has not yet been thoroughly studied.
Besides lengths of the cable, the type of service cable also 8
F a t l y influences the amount of ringing obsemd.When Type
SEU cable, which has more capacitance, is used instead of
triplex, the high-ffaquency componentis evenmoreproaouaced. pl
SHORT-CIRCUJT CURRENTS
Figure 4 shows the currents resulting in the Circuit with a short
circuit across the load In the particular case shown, lamp
sockets containing 25-Watt incandescent bulbs flashed over. 8
Thus, the cumnt increases at a relatively low rate for about 1 a
microsecond until the flashover occurred ’ h i s explains the
apparent discontinuity at the beginning of the waveforms. The
surge was applied on the primary phase conductor. Therefore
there is a minor difference in the cumnts in the 120-volt sides of 5
the circuit due to the bias caused by the arrester discharge
voltage.
Note that the currents are nearly void of the high-frequency
nts observedin the open circuit voltage. The induaances
FE= crrcuit elements suppress the flow of current at those
frequencies and sigai6icantly reduce the rise time of the lower
frequency component of the current as well, as notedearlyin the
investigation of low-side surge phenomena [2]. Thereby, the
often-measured “low-sidecurrentsurge”is created. In the short-
circuited load case, most of the high-frequency voltages appear
near the end of the triplex where the surge was applied
8 entrance arrester clamps the lower fiequency component to the
w
TIME 5 MICROSEC/DIV
Figure 4 . Currents tlirough the triplexfor a short circuit at
the load for lightning stroke to the primary.
WITH RESISTIVE LOAD
1 Figure 5 shows voltage and current waveforms measured at the
indicated locations in the circuit for a “normal”case where there
is a resistive lighting load of 400 W on each 120-volt side of the
circuit. For a 5-kA surge, 4.5 kA goes to ground through the
triplex neutral and load circuits. The currents in each half of the
triplex aks at approximately 600 Am s, differing by about 20
Amps. R e load voltage reaches 9.4 kgand displays the higher-
fkquency component noted in the open-circuit voltage, but
significantl7 more dam d If this voltage were able to persist
longer at thls level, the g p socket is likely to flashover, which
it did in subsequent tests.
1595
2
e
’I
8
$
f
Figure 5. Surge voltage and current waveformsfor a 5-kA
stroke to the primary with a 400-watt (balanced) load.
W E
Figure 6 shows several waveforms throughout the circuit for the
typical case with MOV-typearresters at the service entrance.
For the usual 5-kA test wave applied, the surge currents in the
two 120-volt sides of the circuit reach 880 and 816 amps,
respectively. They differ slighrly due to the bias of the primary
arrester discharge. For strokes to the primary neutral, they
would be expected to be almost exactly equal, assuming the
service entrance arrester is sound
With no load present for damping, the voltages at the load (6b)
are dominatedbythe higher-frequency component. The seFice
expected value, but is not able to control the higher-frequency
component that appears at the load. This is due to both the
characteristic of the arrester and the response of the system. It
is, perhaps, a classical case of the arrester not being close enough
to the element to be protected for the frequency involved to be
effective. This voltage transient did not cause a flashover in this
test, but robably would have if a conventional light socket or
electricloutlet had been installed at the load. Such events did
occurin subsequent tests after such a transient persisted for about
1-2 microseconds. A voltage of this magnitude is certainly of
concern for sensitive electronics, which, at the least, might
inteTret this as an interferiog signal. Therefore, there i s tbe
contmuing need for localized transient suppression even if a
serviceentrancearresterispresent. Thepresence of asignificant
resistive load (light bulbs, 120-volt heaters, etc.) can damp the
high ffaquency component appearing at the load; however,
inductive loads (motors, lam s with ballasts) will probably not
be helpful because of the hi$: frequency.
The voltages across the transformer low side (6a) in this case,
measured Xl-X2and X3-X2,also exhibit a significant amount
of the higher-frequency component. In fact, there is a much
higher Srepuency present at the bansformer for which the metering
was inadequate to capture properly. The lower frequency
component is of the niagnitude and waveshape that would be
ex cted for an interlaced transformer subjected to a nearly
bacedcurrent surge. The separationofthevoltage waveforms
is again due to the primary arrester discharge being reflected
 1596

ALANCED SURGES
The preceeding has described tests in whichthe surge currentsin
both 120-volt sides of the circuit were nearly balanced The
inductances in the circuit, articularly in the transformer, tend to
force this condition. &n the surge current through the
transformer is balanced, interlaced secondaries offer natural
protectioaforthe~,essreaialEypy0fferioglessindudance
to the surge current than would a non-mterlaced design. It can
be showninthelabonrtoIythatsut#cting anioterlaaxidormer
to an unbalanced surge, on only one half of the secondary
wioding, will result in a signature low-side surge faiIure,[7]
Tear-downs of some failed transformershave shown breakdown
patterns cone ondine to the volta e distributionanticipatedfor
an unbalance?low-slde surge. k e is also the additional
r
evideooe that non-interlaced @amformers with secondary amster
protection have lower failure rates than unprotected interlaced
transformers. This has led to the hypothesis that the existence of
unbalancedsurges in the SeCoMbry system explaiosthe umpeded
lightning failures of transformers with interlaced secondaries.

( a )Transformer Voltages
The laboratory tests have shown that unbalanced surges do
generate some very high voltages, but effortsto induce a failure
in the interlaced transformer were thwarted by laboratory
limitations. On two OccasioLls the circuit fhhed over to h a d u c e m
causing damage to expensive digital oscilloscopes and other
metering. The t of damage would suggest the existence of
some very high& ency transients, ossibly due to arcing
phenomena, but this is conjecture since waveforms were not
captured because of the fadures. Subsequent unbalanced surge
shots were performed with conservatively low values of surge
current to prevent further instrumentation damage.

The worst cases of unbalanced surges seem to occur when one

I- -I 120-volt leg of the circuit is protected by a transient surge
suppressor (outlet protector) while there is neither load nor
protection on the other side. Figure 7 shows the voltages
appearing at the transformer terminals and the current in the
triplex for one such case. A 5-kA lightning surge was applied at
the service entraoce in this case. The, 120-volt outlet protector
allows the current to build in one side for about 2 microseconds

- 1 and then the meter gap on the other si& flashes over. The
secondaryvoltages at the transformer initially swing in opposite
- polarities, as expected, until after the flashover when the surge
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 current returns to a more balanced equilibrium. Then the
voltages track more closely together, yet not as they would For a
TIME 2 WK#OSEC/ON perfectly balanced surge. There is still some imbalance in the

(b)Load Voltagesand Triplex Currents surge current in the transformer because the lightning current in
one side goes straight across the meter gap while it must travel
a circuitous route through the outlet protector in the other side
Figure 6. Voltage and current wavefomsfor a 5-kAstroke to (see Figure 7).
the primary with a MOV-type arrester at the service entrance.
Load is open-circuited. Although the investigation of unbalanced surge phenomena
could not be completed as planaed, one interesting findin was
through the turns ratio. There is ooe interesting anomaly with that ~nbalaa~ed surges genedy cause m u d higher overvoftages
these waveforms: the sudden increase that occurs at about 12 thao balanced surges. Besides the oscillographic evidence, lab
microsecondsinto the surge. This hasbeen traced to the turn-off personnel also observed that flashovers frequently occurred in
of the service entrance arrester and the resulting change of multiple locations in the system during unbalanced shots. Perhaps,
current in an inductive circuit. There is some concern that this one flashover would precipitate the others. Such pheoomena
mi t cause additional voltage stresses inside the transformer seemed to be worse when the outlet protector failed, typically by
a$tfithereb, precipitate turn-to-turn failures in the secondary puncturing an MOV disk. Therefore, it would seem prudent to
winding. Simulationshave indicated that the voltage magnitude try to force the surge current to be more balanced between the
of the turn-off transient stays relatively constant with varying two 120-volt sidesofthesecondatysystem. Heavy-duty arresters
lighming stroke magnitudes and is primarily a function of the in the service entrance would be one way to help ensure a
arrester discharge voltage and the ductances of the system. balanced condition.
There have been no failures attributed to this transient, but
investigations are continuing into this phenomenon.
1
SeWb ouikt
Entrance Protector
TAANSFOWER
TIME 5 HICROSEC/DIV
't x1
TRIPLEX
cu- 1 current is forced into the service entrance iurestet and h e outlet
w should be more separation between the service entrance and the
I slower wavefront than the test wave, requiring more inductance
Figure7:Voltageandcurrentwavefofonnsresultin~oman
unhhncedsurgecurrentcreatedby astroke totlieservice
entranceandonel20-voltoutletprotectoratthe load.
ARRESTER APPLICATION
These laboratory tests have served to c o n h the low-side surge
phenomena previously identified by analysts through simulation
and some testing. [2,5,6,7] Therefore, the arrester rating
recommendations of reference 7 still apply. For the 150 fi. of
triplex cable used in this test, it was found that approximately
115 of the current that flows toward the opposite end of the cable
would flow through the arresters. As the triplex cable length
increases, the current through the arrester at the transformer and
at the service entrance can approach 113 of the lightning stroke
ament. To properly coordinate with a 1oo-kA plimary distribution
arrester requires a device capable of 33-kA surge current.
Regarding other issues in the coordination of arresters in the
secondary system, we have found that some outlet protectors,
when used alone, are basically one-shot protectors, fading for as
little as a l-kA surge. In some cases, the varistors appear to
survive the surge but the fuses in series operate. Other types,
particularly those with multiple varistors appear to be more
robust. However, even the weaker ones survived our tests quite
1597
Table I
sharin of SurgeCurrents
Between48OVfkrviceEntrance Arrester
and l50V Outlet Protector
for a nominal 5-M,4x 10Surge
Length of S.E.Arrester Outlet Protector
3 .O
well when used in conjunctionwith a heavy-duty service entrance
arrester. There must be enough cable se arating the two devices
so that the cable's inductance forces the & u k of the surge energy
through the serviceentrance arrester before the current has time
to build to a damaging level in the outlet arrester. Table I shows
the results of current-sharing tests performed for two shorler
lengths of cable than the 60 ft. used m our usual tests. It should
be noted that this was for one type of surge current waveform (4
x 10 microseconds) to the service entry anester. Other waveforms
will give much differentresults because of the circuit constants.
For even as little as 10 feet with this surge, most of the surge
protector was able to survive this test. In practice, however,there
outlet protector to be more certain of safe coordination. Many
low-side current surges, while usually less than 5 kA, have a
to limit the current.
Some outlet protectors were able withstand a higher current
level under these conditions than when there were no service
entrance arresters. The difference appears to be related to the
current waveform. Once the service entrance arrester clamps the
voltage, it appears that the outlet protector is being charged by
adcvoltagesourcethroughaninductance.Thecunentwaveform
resembles a ramp function. Thus, with the service entrance
arresterpresent, the outlet protectorsees neafiy the same waveform
for every low-side surge, differing in magnitude only due to the
duration of the surge. Without the arrester, the current rises more
steeply, sometimes causing puncture failures of MOVs in the
outlet protectors.
Another interesting observation is that serviceentrance arresters
virtually guarantee that the lower-frequency component of the
low-side surge will be balanced Thus, they will contribute to
the ability of interlaced transformers to survive low-side current
surges. They would also significantly reduce the possibility of
the secondary circuit being subjected to the extremely high
voltages that were encounted in the laboratory when attempting
to analyze unbalanced surges. Non-interlaced transfoFers
would require coordinated protection.
Switching-surgeandpower frequency arrester coordination were
not specifically tested, however, several of the lower-rated
arresters began conducting well below the switching surge
protective level of the primary arrester reflected through the
transformer. Since there are many common switching events on
power systems that cause voltages to swell well above normal for
several cycles, it would seem likely that some of these devices
will fail thermally. Therefore, we favor a higher-rated arrester
than the standard 175V secoodary anester for the seMce entrance.
A 480V arrester developed for low-side surge protection of
 1598
distribution transformers performs acceptably and has a lower
discharge voltage than a 650V mster. If Figure 6b is typical of
the voltages reaching the loads, the dischar voltage of the
service entrance amster is not very critica ras long as it is
maintained in the 1-2kV range.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-side surges fyp‘callyconsist of two major components: a 7.
component ranging m fhquency from 0.8to 3 M H z anda slower-
changing corn nent that represents the inductive response of
the system to g r a t e of change of the lightning stroke current in
the triplex cable. The tests confirmed earlier analyses of low-
side surge phenomena in transformers and verified that the 8.
phenomena affecting the transformer can be analyzed by simply
considering the inductances in the secondary system, neglecmg
the cable capacitances. The
its greatest impact is
Arresters at the service entrance are useful for forcing low-side
surges to be balanced and for diverting most of the surge energy
away from outlet protectors withlessewrgy-handlingcapability.
Unbalanced surges were found to generate much higher surge
voltages in the secondary system and are,therefore, undesirable.
Balaocing the surges between the two 120-volt side also aids in
the ptectim of tramfoxmm with interlaced secondaty windings.
Non-interlaced transformers subject to low-side surge failure
sbould be protected with arresters in accordance with previous
a=b=.
The service entrance arrester in all ratings studied (175V to He has been with Cooper Power Systems, Franksville, WI,
since 1969.Hisexperience has beeninsemiconductordevices,
insulation and transformer core evaluations. He has been
practical lengths of secondary circuit feeder cable would be
sufficient to force most of the energy from a low-side sur e
through the service entrance arrester and, thus, help prevent tie
failure of the local protective device. One area that remains open
to investigation is the effect of the turnoff transient of MOV-t
arresters in load circuits on the transfomler. Another is t
switchingsurge andpowerfrequency coordinationof arresters in
T C. -(M
the secoadacy Circult.
REFERENCES
1. F. D. Martzloff, T h e Propagation and Attenuation of
Surge Voltages and Surge Currents in Low-Voltage
AC Circuits,” ZEEE Transactionson Power
. Apparatus and Systems, Vol PAS-99, Jan/Feb 1980,
. 129-133.
2. F“Susceptibility
J. McMillen, C. W. Schoendube, D.W. Caverly.
of Distribution Transformers to Low
Voltage Side Lightning Surge Failure”. ZEEE
Transactionon Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.
PAS-101,No.9,Sept. 1982,pp. 3457-3470.
3. Surge Cltaracteristicsand Protection of Distribution
Transformers. Electrical Power Research Institute
Final Re rt EL-3385,Jan. 1984.
4. C. J. M c k l e n , C. W. Schoendube, D. W.Caverly.
“Scaled Low-Voltage Side Surge Current Tests on a
Model Distribution System”. IEEE Transactionson
Power Delivery, Vol. 3,No. 2, April 1988.
5. Roger C. Dugan, Stephen D.Smith. “Low-
Voltage-Side Current-Surge Phenomena in Sin e-
Phase Distribution Transformers Systems”. ZEfE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 3,No. 2,
April 1988,p ~637-647.
.
6. J. L. Pun, et al. ‘‘Ligbtninf Induced Failures In
Distribution Transformers’ . IEEE Transactionson
Power Delivery, Vol. 3,No.4,October 1988.
Roger C. Dugan, Stanley S.Kershaw, Jr., Stephen
D. Smith. “Protecting Distribution Transformers
from Low-Side Current Surges”. ZEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Oct 1990, pp.
1892-1901.
M. Darveniza, D. R. Mercer. “Lightning Protection
of Pole Mounted Transformers”. IEEE
Transactionson Power Delivery, April 1989,pp.
1087-1095.
9. D. R. Smith, J. L.Puri. “A Simplified Lumped
Parameter Model for Fmdhg Distribution
Transformer and Secondary System Responses to
Lightning”,IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery.
July 1989,p . 1927-1936.
10. IEEE TransPormers Comminee, “ScondafY (LOW-
side) Surges in Distribution Transformers, Task
Force Report, submitted for presentation at the
lEBE T&D Exposition, Dallas, TX, Sept. 1991.
11. -
J. Burke, et. al., ‘Tower Quality Two Different
Perspectives,” ZEEE Transactionson Power
Delivery, Vol5., No.3,July 1990,pp 1501ff.
mJ.O~eceivedhisBSdegreeinElectricalEngioeering
Technology at the Milwaukee School of Engineering in 1980.
involved in the development of ceramic-boded varistors,
electrical porcelain and has been responsible for projecls that
include mechanical, electrical, and ultrasonic testing. He is
currently theproject leader of an extensive capacitor fuse study
roject and is involved in electricaldistribution system testing
for devising improved protection techniques. Gary has co-
authored four ublications and has five U.S. patents. He is a
P
Registered pro essional engineer in Wisconsin.
’73,SM ’82)received his BSEE degree
from OhioUniversityio1972andhisMas~rofEngrinElectric
Power Engineering from RPI, Troy, NY,in 1973. Since then
he has been with the Systems Engineering department of
Cooper Power Systems, first in Canonsburg, PA, and recently
transfenin with the dtpartment to Thomas A. Edison Technical
Center in kaaksville, WI. Recently, his main interests have
been in the computer simulation of power systems, transient
response of transformers, and power quality issues such as
harmonics and low-side surges. He is a member of both the
Power Engineering Society and the Computer Society. He
currently serves on the Computer and Analytical Methods
Subcommittee of the Power System Engineering Committee.
ace D.Rowe received his A.A.S Degree in Electrical
Engineering Technology from the Milwaukee School of
Engineeringin 1989.He hasbeen with CooperPowerSystems,
Franksville, WI,since 1980.His ex rience has been in testing
and data acquisition in the High Vogge Labs. Thistesting has
beenperformedinsupportofvariousproductlinesaodnsearch
projects. He developed the data aquisition roceduze for cbe
secondary surge testing performed since 19&.

Discussion
R. Hartana, J. Skliutas,R. Walling, (GE Industrial and Power Systems,
Schenectady, NY): The authors have presented an interesting study of
secondary-side surges. We do not disagree that there may be benefit to
certain customers of applying arresters at the service entrance, although
there may be controversy in the industry as to whether this arrester
installation should be the responsibility of the utility or the customer.
Numerous tests and studies have shown the susceptibility of non-inter-
laced transformers to secondary surges, and the discussers agree that
application of transformer secondary arresters is necessary for these
transformers. We do have concern that some of the statements in the paper
could be interpreted as justification for applying secondary arresters to
interlaced transformers for the purpose of protecting the transformer.
1. The authors state that tear-downs of failed transformers have shown
evidence of unbalanced secondary surges, and they also state that
non-interlaced transformers with secondary arresters have lower failure
rates than unprotected interlaced transformers. The authors cite no
reference nor do they offer any data to support this contention. The
discussers do not believe such statements are appropriate for publica-
tion without substantiation.
2. The magnitudes of the unbalanced surge currents produced by the
authors’ tests (Figure 7) are inconsequential in that they are far below
that required to fail an interlaced transformer. The authors note their
difficulty in testing at higher discharge currents due to uncontrolled
flashovers in the test circuit. We have performed extensive study of
secondary surges with profound load imbalance, both simulation using
a sophisticated wide-bandwidth transformer model and full-scale power
laboratory testing, and conclude that secondary flashovers inherently
balance unbalanced surges before they approach the magnitude endan-
gering primary-winding layer-to-layer insulation. Our results indicate
that current unbalance does not exceed 1 kA,which is less than 50% of
the critical magnitude. The authors observe that unbalanced surges
create high voltages, and this is the underlying reason why the flashovers
result.
3. For an arrester application to be prudent, the present worth of savings
in equipment failures must exceed the investment required for the
arrester. Because the failure rates of interlaced transformers are very
low, it is very questionable if any incremental reduction achieved by a
secondary arrester could justify its installation. Using the economic
factors shown in Table 1 of this discussion and applying the procedures
described in Reference [I], the failure rate of an interlaced transformer
would need to be reduced from the typical .2%/yr level to minus
.OS%/yr to justify a $25 investment in the secondary arrester. Further-
more, there are a number of distribution transformer failure modes,
such as excessive overload, which are not affected by secondary
arrester installation. Although the economic factors may vary between
utilities, we have seen no evidence that justifies the installation of
arresters on the secondaries of interlaced transformers for the purpose
of protecting the transformers.
Reference
[I] D.J. Ward, “Evaluating Product Reliability Costs”, IEEE Transac-
tions on Power Delivery, April, 1990, pp. 724-729.
R. Hartana, J. Skliutas. R. Walling (GE Industrial and
Power Systems, Schenectady, NY) - The authors have
presented an interesting study of secondary-side
surges. We do not disagree that there may be benefit
to certain customers of applying arresters at the
I service entrance, although there may be controversy in
the industry as to whether this arrester installation
should be the responsibility of the utility or the
customer.
Numerous tests and studies have shown the
susceptibility of non-interlaced transformers to
secondary surges, and the discussers agree that
application of transformer secondary arresters is
necessary for these transformers. We do have concern
that some of the statements in the paper could be
interpreted as justification for applying secondary
1599
arresters to interlaced transformers for the purpose
of protecting the transformer.
1. The authors state that tear-downs of failed
transformers have shown evidence of unbalanced
secondary surges, and they also state that
non-interlaced transformers with secondary
arresters have lower failure rates than unprotected
interlaced transformers. The authors cite no
reference nor do they offer any data to support
this contention. The discussers do not believe
such statements are appropriate for publication
without substantiation.
2. The magnitudes of the unbalanced surge currents
produced by the authors’ tests (Figure 7 ) are
inconsequential in that they are far below that
required to fail an interlaced transformer. The
authors note their difficulty in testing at higher
discharge currents due to uncontrolled flashovers
in the test circuit. We have performed extensive
study of secondary surges with profound load
imbalance, both simulation using a sophisticated
wide-bandwidth transformer model and full-scale
power laboratory testing, and conclude that
secondary flashovers inherently balance unbalanced
surges before they approach the magnitude
endangering primary-winding layer-to-layer
insulation. Our results indicate that current
unbalance does not exceed 1 M , which is less than
50% of the critical magnitude. The authors observe
that unbalanced surges create high voltages, and
this is the underlying reason why the flashovers
result.
3 . For an arrester application to be prudent, the
present worth of savings in equipment failures must
exceed the investment required for the arrester.
Because the failure rates of interlaced
transformers are very low, it is very questionable
if any incremental reduction achieved by a
secondary arrester could justify its installation.
Using the economic factors shown in Table 1 of this
dlscussion and applying the procedures described in
Reference [l], the failure rate of an interlaced
transformer would need to be reduced from the
typical .2%/yr level to minus .08%/yr to justify a
$25 investment in the secondary arrester.
Furthermore, there are a number of distribution
transformer failure modes, such as excessive
overload, which are not affected by secondary
arrester installation. Although the economic
factors may vary between utilities, we have seen no
evidence that justifies the installation of
arresters on the secondaries of interlaced
transformers for the purpose of protecting the
transformers.
Reference
1. D. J. Ward, ”Evaluating Product Reliability Costs”,
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, April, 1990,
pp. 724-729.
Table 1
Economic Factors Used in Failure Rate Evaluation
Transformer Cost $600
Failure Changeout Cost $400
Fixed Charge Rate .17
Discount Rate .12
Escalation (Inflation) 4X/yr
Economic Life 30 yr
Manuscript received October 16, 1991.
Gary L. Goedde, Roger C. Dugan, Lawrence D. Rowe: We wish to
thank the discussers for their excellent comments and questions on this
paper. We will address the three major points individually.
Point I: We have performed tear-downs on several batches of failed
distribution transformers from utilities in Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio. A
typical batch consisted of 10 transformers, of which 5 to 7 were found to
have indication of low-side surge failure. We agree that the lightning-re-
lated failure rate of interlaced transformers is lower than that of non-inter-
laced designs. If our samples were a valid indication, the rate is approxi-
mately one-third as much.
Failures of non-interlaced transformers due to low-side surges are easy
to detect: they have a “signature failure” due to an inherent weakness to
low-side surges. They are also more prone to showing “spotting” around
the secondary bushings. Interlaced transformers have been found to ex-
hibit a variety of failure modes compatible with theoretical modes of
failure for low-side surges. We have seen units with failures between
secondaries, turn-to-turn in the secondary, layer-to-layer in the primary,
and with discharges from the edge of the coil to the core. The latter two
primary winding failure modes occur in locations where unbalanced
low-side surges would be expected to produce high voltage stresses. We
have at least one clear example of each failure mode from our relatively
small sample and we believe that other investigators should easily be able
to verify that independently.
The point is that there is a measurable failure rate of interlaced
transformers due to low-side surge phenomena; they are not immune as
some would contend. Our comments concerning the relative failure rates
of arrester-protected non-interlacedtransformers and interlaced transform-
ers come from our internal data that has been reported in various IEEE
Transformer Committee forums for several years. The best failure rates
we have seen for interlaced transformers installed in lightning-prone
regions vary from 0.2%/yr to 0.4%/yr. From 1986 to 1988, our company
produced nearly 25 OOO non-interlaced transformer protected with MOV-
type secondary arresters. The annual failure rate of these units as of 1989
was 0.05%. Interestingly, this is very similar to the failure rate reported
by Horton, et. al., [l] for a region of the country with low lightning
incidence and, sometimes, no arrester protection at all. It is possible that
this is the achievable failure rate if the transformer can be completely
pnHeaed from lighting.
Point 2: The magnitudes reported in Figure 7 are indeed inconsequen-
tial because the surge generator charge was reduced to levels the system
would tolerate. However, when operated at higher levels, numerous
flashover events occurred. Shortly before this paper was presented if was
learned that the 15-WA interlaced transformer used in the test incurred a
non-typical extended-creep failure in the secondary. We believe that this
occurred during our attempts to generate an unbalanced surge since those
were the only events in our entire test series that generated any significant
voltages at the transformer secondary terminals. It is possible that one
cannot rely on absolute differences in peak current values to define the
severity of an “unbalanced surge”. Rates of rise exert an important
influence and the timing of the peaks may be another factor: in the
example we present, the peaks do not occur at the same time.
Point 3: First, there seems to be no question that it is economically
justifiable to apply arrester protection to non-interlaced transformers in
lightning-prone regions. The question is concerning the justification of
interlaced transformers.
Our calculations using the economic factors suggested by the discussers
in their Table 1 yield a cost justification of about $8.50 for each 0.1
percent of improvement in the failure rate. The discussers suggest that the
failure rate for interlaced transformers is 0.2 X . Of the published data on
transformer failure rates from utilities with significant lightning, that is the
lowest rate we have seen. Most of the typical failure rates are closer to
0.4%. Assuming that a failure rate of 0.05% is achievable with secondary
arrester protection, protection costing less than $30 should be justifiable
for utilities in lightning-prone regions. For non-interlaced transformers,
the economic value of adding secondary arrester protection would be
expected to be 2-3 times greater.
It is sound engineering practice to install low voltage distribution
arresters at the service entrance just as it is at the transformer. It is
particularly important to do so when interlaced transformers or secondary
arrester-protected transformers are used.
Reference
111 W. F. Horton, S. Goldberg, and C. A. Volkmann, “The Failure
Rates of Overhead Distribution System Components,” proceedings
of the 1991 IEEE Power Engineering Society Transmission and
Distribution Conference, Dallas, TX, 1991, (91CH3070-0).
Manuscript received January 21, 1992.