See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3695264

Surge protection of a large medium voltage motor - A case study

Conference Paper · June 1997

DOI: 10.1109/ICPS.1997.595985 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

6 1,972

1 author:

P.E. Sutherland
ABB
67 PUBLICATIONS   455 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Power System Protection View project

Harmonics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P.E. Sutherland on 03 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SURGE PROTECTION OF A LARGE MEDIUM VOLTAGE
MOTOR - A CASE STUDY

Peter E. Sutherland
Power Systems Energy Consulting
GE Power Systems
Schenectady, NY 12345 USA

Abstract - The raw mill motor in a cement mill had been damaged
by repeated switching surges and subsequently rewound. New
arresters were placed on the motor at that time. The surges coming in
to the motor were measured, and the surge protection was reviewed.
It was found that the original gapped silicon carbide surge arresters
on the motor had insufficient protective margin, while the new zinc
oxide arresters provided an adequate margin. The operation of the
surge capacitors in protecting the motor was analyzed. Surge
protection and insulation coordination should be reviewed in
comprehensive power system studies.
INTRODUCTION
This case study illustrates the importance of evaluating the
surge protection of a large, medium-voltage motor. The motor
that was analyzes had been damaged and rewound, with new
surge arresters installed. The purpose of the study was to
investigate the protection of the motor and determine whether
the new arresters would protect the motor in the future.
When Zinc Oxide surge arresters were introduced, the
advantages of the new arresters and the improved protection
which they provide, as compared to the old gapped silicon
carbide arresters, was widely discussed. [ 11 However, in many
cases, old arresters were not re-evaluated, but were left in
place until replaced in the normal course of events, if ever.
This is in contrast to the situation with circuit breakers, where
short-circuit studies are performed on a periodic basis in many
plants as levels of available fault current change and improved
circuit breaker technology becomes available. When surge
arresters are inadequate, the damage can result in expensive
repairs or replacement of equipment. To prevent cases such as
the one described here, industrial plants should have adequate
surge protection, which is re-evaluated occasionally.
Unlike other apparatus, a motor does not have a defined
Basic Insulating Level, which is used to determine surge
protection. However, a similar quantity, a Voltage Surge
Withstand level, may be calculated. This level is based upon
the motor’s nameplate voltage.
This paper does not intend to present any new concepts or
terminology, but to present an example of the application of
existing knowledge to solve an interesting problem in the
industry.
This paper is intended not only to discuss motor protection,
but to provide an example of insulation coordination for an
industrial plant. Inadequate surge protection can result in
damage to equipment just as surely as inadequate overcurrent
protection.
TRANSIENT ANALYSIS
A transient analysis was performed to determine the
magnitude and origin of transient overvoltages, which are
entering the power system under evaluation. Transient
voltages had caused the destruction of the mill motors.
To perform the analysis, disturbance analyzers were placed
on the incoming 4160V lines. The recorders were connected
to monitor the phase-to-phase voltages on the voltmeter
switches, and line and neutral currents on the phase and
ground overcurrent relays. The results were recorded for a
time of approximately one month.
69 kV Transmission Line
I I
1
N.C.,T ~ f,N.C.

4160V Bus
,
T
Switched
Capacitors

20 Surge Capacitors

4000 HP
Fig. 1 . Simplified One-Line Diagram

-1-

36
 The voltage transformer ratio in the switchgear is 4200/120, HQSE 2 3 IMPULSE
so that the 41 60V nominal voltage becomes 118.8V in the 181 U peak
69 phase post tion
recordings. The typical system voltage is slightly higher than 1.7 usec rise time
350 Joules (estimated), a t 50 ohms
that, 70.5 kV in the 69 kV system, or 4250V in the 4160V
PHRSE 2 3 IMPULSE
system. The peak voltage is 1.414 times this or 601 1V. The
typical system voltage as seen through the voltage transformers 200u
is thus 121Vrms,172V peak. ;_. - _- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ou
The frequency response of a typical voltage transformer
loaded by a digital transient recorder has been tested [2], and
__-_- __--
the ratio correction factor found to be within +3% of unity for
a frequency range of 60 Hz to 10 kHz.
-200u L ' '
'V
I ' ' ' ' ' ' '
162.4 MICROSEWNDS/DIUISION HORIZONTRL
'
Transient Overvoltages 500R

The recorded transient overvoltages appear to be caused by

capacitor switching, based on their magnitudes and their high
resonant frequencies, in the order of 5-20 kHz. These
frequencies could be caused by resonance with an inductance
in the capacitor connections and busbars in the order of
25 pWphase. The magnitude of the transient overvoltages are
in the range to 110-200 secondary Volts. With a nominal
115V signal having a peak of 163V, a 181V surge (as shown
in Fig. 2), is 11 1% of the peak value. These values are typical
of capacitor switching. The maximum peak voltage is
approximately twice the peak value of the incoming voltage
wave. For a 4.16 kV system, the peak voltage is 5.88 kV, and
thus the maximum peak voltage is twice this or 1 1.77 kV.
A typical event is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Note that in the upper waveform, the time scale is
magnified, and the period of the surge waveform is
approximately 200 p. The frequency of 5 kHz is thus within
the range anticipated.
BR
-250u -5000
-PHFISE 2 3 UOLTRGE -PHRSE 2 CURRENT
5.0 MILL I SECOND9DIUISION HOR I ZONTRL
Fig. 2: Transient Recording of Voltage Surge. Current values on the chart
should be multiplied by 10 to get system Amperes.
INSULATIONCOORDINATION
The purpose of the insulation coordination study is to
compare the protection provided by the surge arresters in the
system with the insulation withstand of the equipment. This
study was conducted because of the failure of the insulatiim in
the large synchronous motors. After that incident, the motors
were rewound and new surge arresters installed on the motors
and on the two 10 MVA transformers. This study will analyze
the protection of the system and make recommendations for
changes as needed.

TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICSOF STATION CLASS METAL OXIDE SURGE ARRESTERS

Location MCOV* 1 Second Front of Switching

Temp- Wave Surge
orary Protec-tive Protec-tive
Over- Level Level KV
Voltage kV Crest Crest
kV RMS @ 500A
SA1 I 57 I 85 ** I 191.8 1 136.6 147.3 I 154.9 I 162.0 I 174.4 I 193.1 I 219.2
SA3 I 3.7 I 5.3 I 13.0 I 9.0 9.9 I 10.3 I 10.8 I 11.5 I 12.9 I 14.8

Maximum 8/20 Discharge Voltage - kV at

Location Arrester Max.USA Max Max 1.5 kA 3.0 kA 5kA 10 kA 20 kA 4okA
Max. kV Std. FOW 1.2~50 Switching
Line- Spark-over Spark-over Surge
Ground kV Crest kV Crest Spark-over
kV Crest

SA2 4.5 16 15 15 7.4 8.7 9.5 10.8 12.3 15.1

-2-

37
 PROTECTION
OF SUBSTATION
TRANSFORMERS
The incoming 69 kV line is unshielded until it reaches the
metering point, about one mile from the plant entrance. The
metering point is protected by station class arresters. The line
past the metering point is shielded. The 69 kV substation is
protected by lightning rods on the towers, and by station class
arresters where the lines enter. At the primary terminals of the
10 MVA transformers new MOV station class surge arresters
are mounted (Table 1, SA 1). The purpose of placing arresters
directly on the transformer terminals is to limit the voltage
doubling effect when a traveling wave reaches the end of a
line. For the purposes of this study, only the transformer
primary arresters will be evaluated.
The transformer primary windings have a Basic Impulse
Level (BIL) of 350 kV. A transformer with a 350 kV BIL has,
according to IEEE Std. C57.12.00-1993 [3, Table 41, a
chopped wave impulse level of 400 kV crest.
The Maximum Continuous Operating level (MCOV) of the
arrester should be higher than the maximum possible line-
neutral voltage in the system. In a 69kV system with 5%
overvoltage, the line-to-neutral voltage is 42 kV, which is well
within the arrester MCOV rating.
The maximum temporary overvoltage (TOV) that the
arrester may experience is dependent upon the system w,
ratio (2.27), Rl/X1 ratio (0.692) and Rdxl ratio (0.976),
provided by the utility. These are used to calculate the
maximum voltage that may be experienced during a ground
fault. Other possible causes of temporary overvoltages include
ferroresonance, loss of ground, resonance, and open
conductors. These are less likely to occur in this system.
Using information provided in IEEE Standard C62.22- 1991
[4, Appendix B, Fig. B3], the overvoltage during a ground
fault was estimated to be 70% of the system voltage or 48 kV.
This is 114% of the normal line to neutral voltage. The
arrester has a TOV rating of 85 kV for Is, or 219% of the line
to neutral voltage.
The protective ratios and protective margins for lightning
and switching surges are determined as follows:
Protective Ratio #1 measures the ability to protect against a
chopped wave, which is a lightning surge tfuncated due to
insulator flashover. The chopped wave withstand (CWW)
capability of the transformer insulation is 400 kV. The Front
of Wave (FOW) protective level for the arrester is 191.8 kV.
Thus, the PR( 1) ratio is:
CWW
--
- 2.09.
FOW
The Protective Margin #1 is:
PM(1) = (2.09 - 1.0) x 100% = 109%.
This is much larger than the recommended minimum value of
20%.
Protective Ratio #2 measures the ability to protect against a
typical lightning surge characterized by a 5 kA, 8x20 ps wave.
The arrester discharge voltage at this current is called the
-3-
Lightning Protective Level (LPL) and is equal to 162.0 kV.
This is compared to the BIL of the transformer:
BIL 350
PR(2) = -= -= 2.1 6
LPL 162
PM(2) = (2.16 - 1.0) x 100% = 116%.
This is much larger than the recommended minimum value of
20%.
The switching surge protective ratio measures the ability of
the arrester to protect the transformer against switching surges,
which are much slower than lightning surges. The Switching
Surge Protective Level (SPL) of the arrester with a
500 Ampere discharge current is 136.6 kV. This is compared
with the Basic Switching Level (BSL) of the insulation IEEE
Std. C57.12.00-1993, [2, Table 51. For the transformer, this is
280 kV. The protective ratio and protective margin are thus:
BSL 280
PR(S) = -= -- - 2.05
SPL 136.6
PM(S) = 105%.
This is much larger than the recommended minimum value of
15%.
Note that these values are optimistic, and do not include the
effect of lead length, which may reduce the calculated
protective margins.
PROTECTION OF 4160V SWITCHGEAR, CABLES AND
DISTRBUTION TRANSFORMERS
This equipment is protected by arresters installed in the
switchgear. The BIL levels are as follows:
Switchgear 60kV
5 kV Cables 75 kV
Transformers 60 kV
Equipment BIL may be taken from nameplates (where
available) and ANSVIEEE standards. Much of this data is
tabulated in [SI. A 60 kV BEL will be used in this analysis.
The arresters are silicon carbide units with a maximum
continuous voltage rating of 4.5 kV. The transformer
secondaries are low resistance grounded, resulting in a
temporary overvoltage equal to the line-to-line voltage of
4.16 kV in the event of a single-line-to-ground fault. There is
thus no need to further analyze the temporary or continuous
overvoltage ratings of the arrester.
The FOW protective level is 16 kV, so:
)
PM(1) = -- 1 x 1 0 0 % = 275%
The LPL for this type of arrester (ANSI C62.2-1987) [6] is
the greater of the let-through sparkover (LT) for a 1 . 2 ~ 5 0ps
wave, which is 15 kV for this arrester (Table 2, SA 2), or the
lightning discharge voltage level for an 8x20 ps wave at a
selected discharge current. A conservative value of 10 kA was
selected, which is much larger than is likely to be encountered
in a shielded installation such as this. The discharge voltage at
38
10 kA is 10.8 kV. Thus the LPL is 15 kV and the Protective
Margin #2 may be calculated:
(;:
PM(2) = -- 1 x 100%= 300%
The switching surge sparkover for this arrester is 15 kV.
Thus the switching protective margin is:
All of these are well above the recommended values.
Note that these values are ideal, and do not include the
effect of lead length, which may reduce the calculated
protective margins.
Protection of Synchronous Motors
The synchronous motors are protected by surge capacitors
and arresters located in junction boxes immediately below
each motor. The capacitors are the 0.5 pF recommended for
this application. Their purpose is to slow down the rate of rise
of incoming surges. The original surge arresters used did not
protect the motors, which were damaged by incoming surges.
After the motors were rewound, new arresters were installed.
The motor has a voltage-time profile which graphically
illustrates its ability to withstand surge impulses. A machine
impulse withstand envelope may be plotted, as shown in
Fig. 3. This curve is presented in the IEEE Red Book [7].
*O
0 5
I
Time, ps
Fig. 3. Machine Impulse Withstand Envelope for 4 kV Motors where V is
the Machine Impulse Withstand Envelope and V, is the result of a
IS kV steep front surge being limited by a surge capacitor. [7]
The surge capacitors act to slow down the front of the surge,
so that the sloping front of the withstand curve will be
protected. The arresters will then protect the impulse
withstand envelope of the motor:
w = 1.25 0 4 5 . (2 v, 0 +I)
= 15.9kV
where VL is the motor line-to-line voltage, which is 4 kV.
This steady-state capability is the horizontal line on the top of
the curve, V, in Fig. 3. The withstand envelope is used instead
of a BIL for motors. Motors do not have a defined switching
surge impulse level. The slope of an incoming surve voltage
should be plotted on the graph as well, to see whether it
exceeds the withstand envelope, but the recording equipment
used did not produce detailed enough oscillograms in order to
do this. The dotted line, Vc, on the graph is a surge whose
slope is decreased by the surge capacitors. This is calculated
[5] based upon the assumption that a step front wave of
Voltage E, on a line of surge impedance Z, meets a capacitive
termination, C:
Vc=2.E
i -'j
1-e z-c
for this example, the applied voltage, E was the protective
level of the arresters on the bus, 15 kV, the capacitance OSpF,
and the surge impedance of the cable assumed to be 30Q
based on typical values given in the reference [5, Table 11.
The arresters in the switchgear may be similar to the original
silicon carbide arresters used on the motor, which have a let-
through sparkover of 15 kV, a 10 kA lightning discharge level
of 10.8 kV, and a switching surge sparkover of 15 kV. Thus,
these arresters have a protective margin of:
P E ( ~LTSO
- l ) x l o o %
= (z - 1) x 100% = 6%,
for lightning surges. This is less than the recommended 20%.
The PM(1) front of wave protective margin is not applicable
because of the presence of surge capacitors.
The new arresters used on the motor terminals (SA 3, Table
1 ) are a 4.5 kV metal oxide arrester with an MCOV of 3.7 kV,
one second TOV rating of 5.3 kV, 500 A switching surge
protective level of 9.0 kV, 10 kA discharge voltage of 1 1.5 kV
and Front of Wave protective level at 10 kA crest of 13.0 kV.
The PM(2) lightning protective margin is 38%, calculated as
10 follows:
[ &- 1) x 100%
PM(2) =
=(%- 1) x 100% = 38%
The switching surge protective levels of the arresters may
also be compared to the maximum expected capacitive
switching surge of 6.8 kV line-neutral. When this surge
reaches the motor, its magnitude doubles to 13.6 kV. The
expected surge magnitude is smaller than the 15 kV protective
level of the original arresters and larger than the 9 kV level of
the new. While there is no protective margin defined in this
case, the newer arresters provide a far better level of
protection.
-4-
39
 CAPACITORS
SURGE
The effect of the capacitors on an incoming surge is to
increase the rise time by adding a time constant equal to the
capacitance times the surge impedance of the cable. If the
cable has a typical 30Q surge impedance and the capacitors
are 0.5 pF,then the time constant is 15 ps. The equation for
this calculation [ 5 ] is that of an exponential rise:
where V is the voltage seen by the motor, E is the magnitude
of the incoming surge, t is time in micro-seconds (p),Z is the
surge impedance of the cable and C is the surge capacitor
capacitance in J.I.F. The effect of a vertical front surge of
15 kV magnitude as limited by the arresters in the switchgear
is shown in Fig. 3. The voltage will eventually rise to 30 kV
unless limited by the surge arresters. However, the initial
slope is gradual enough to stay within the motor withstand
envelope.
The protective margins above are best case conditions,
ignoring the effects of lead length. It is recommended practice
that the lead length to the capacitors from the incoming cable
be as short as possible. If the cable between the motor and the
surge arrester is taken into account, the protective margins will
be reduced. The amount of reduction depends upon the rise
time of the incoming current surge. The additional voltage
generated on the lead is calculated as follows:
di
V=L-
dt
Where V is the generated voltage in kV,L is the inductance of
the lead in pH, and di/dt is the rise time of the current in
kA/p. With a cable surge impedance of 3052, the current
surge will have a slope of 0.03 Wp. If the cable to the
motor from the arresters is 3’ long and has an inductance of
1.5 pH, a current surge with an assumed rise time of
0.1 W p s will generate a voltage of 0.15 kV. This must be
added to the protective level of the breakers. For a lightning
protective level of 11.5 kV, the voltage seen at the motor
would be 11.65 kV, and the protective margin would be 36%
instead of 38% with the cable not considered. Thus added
cable length reduces the protective margin.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented an example of surge protection in
an industrial plant, where an earlier generation of arresters was
not providing protection for a large motor. Voltage surges,
caused by the daily switching of a nearby capacitor bank in the
utility system, were believed to have caused the motor
insulation to fail. The motor was rewound, and new arresters
installed. The analysis was performed after the fact to
determine whether the motor was now protected. The analysis
showed that application of zinc oxide arresters provided the
protective margin necessary to be assured that such damage
would not occur again.
-5-
View publication stats
Where large motors or other apparatus are protected by
surge arresters, it is well to consider: (a) if any changes have
occurred which result in increased voltage surges, such as the
installation of capacitor banks? (b) If there are there still
silicon carbide arresters in the system and are they adequate?
(c) If an insulation coordination study would possibly prevent
future problems?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Mr. John Skliutas of the
GE’s Power Systems Energy Consulting, who assisted in the
preparation of the study which formed the basis for this paper.
REFERENCES
G.W. Walsh, A New-Technology Station Class Arreester
for Industrial and Commercial Power systems,
Conference Record of the IEEE Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Conference, May 9- 12,
1997, Pittsburgh, PA. Catalogue No. 77CH1198-I 1A.
D.A. Douglas, Potential Transformer Accuracy at
6 0 H z Voltages Above and Below Rating and at
Frequencies Above 60 Hz.,IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 3, March
1981, pp. 1370-1375.
IEEE Standard General requirements f o r Liquid-
Immersed Distribution, Power and Regulating
Transformers, ANSI/IEEE Std. C57.12.00- 1993
IEEE Guide f o r the Application of Metal-Oxide Surge
Arresters f o r Alternating Current Systems, ANSVIEEE
Standard C62.22-1991.
G.W. Walsh, A Review of Lightning Protection and
Grounding Practices, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, Vol. IA-9, No. 2, MarchIApril 1973.
IEEE Guide for the Application of Gapped Silicon-
Carbide Surge Arresters f o r Alternating Current
Systems, ANSMEEE Standard C62.2- 1987.
lEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power
Distribution in Industrial Plants (IEEE Red Book), IEEE
Standard 141-1993, Chapter 6, pp. 31 1-361.
Peter E. Sutherland (M ‘83) received the A.S. Degree in Electrical
Engineering Technology (‘79) and the B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering
(‘83) from the University of Maine at Orono. In 1986 he received the M.Sc.E
Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of New Brunswick
(Canada).
He has worked as a Test Engineer and a Design Engineer for Accutest
Corp. of Chelmsford, Mass.,a manufacturer of automatic test equipment for
the semiconductor industry. For a short time he worked as a Planning
Engineer for an Electric Utility Company. In 1987 he joined General Electric
Company, and has been employed as an Engineer in the Industrial Power
Systems Engineering Operation in Schenectady, NY, as an Instructor in the
Training and Development Center, and as a Power Systems Engineer in
Albany, NY. His current position is Senior Engineer in the Power Systems
Energy Consulting, where he performs a variety of power system studies for
industrial clients.
Mr.Sutherland is currently enrolled as a part-time student in the Ph.D.
program in Electric Power Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, NY. Mr. Sutherland is a member of Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi.
He is a Registered Profession& Engineer in Maine and in New York.
40