Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/242671460
CITATIONS READS
10 780
3 authors, including:
Robert Madding
RPM Energy Associates, LLC
44 PUBLICATIONS 301 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Madding on 20 November 2017.
6
ohms, 230 amp load, the power loss is
13.2 watts. For a 10 mph wind, the
5 correction is about 3.5. You could
Correction Factor
4
multiply the measured temperature rise
A p p lie d P o w e r by this value to get the corrected value.
3 7 .9 W a tts
1 8 W a tts The following considerations are why it
2 2 7 W a tts
is difficult to get accurate temperature
rise corrections under windy conditions:
1
137.4°F
100
72.7°F
Figure 5. Thermogram/photo pair showing problem line side 23 KV OCB switch disconnects on B- and C-phases.
the left side. We also found the current beginning to become imbalanced in the A-phase switch which may indicate
an impending problem. We recommended all three switches be repaired or replaced.
Once you have determined the load, you need to find what percentage of maximum load it represents. To do this,
divide the measured load by the maximum load and multiply by 100 to get per cent.
In this case, we must consider two maximum loads. One is a “normal” maximum that can occur daily during hot
weather. The other is a “two feeder” maximum where due to other problems two OCBs are fed through these
switches. In the following section, we will use this as an example for load correction of temperature rise.
5. LOAD CORRECTION
There have been many attempts to derive a simple load correction factor where the temperature rise for a known
load is multiplied by a number to give the full load temperature rise. In this way, the severity of the problem can be
evaluated for full load conditions. Or, one could calculate the load that would give the maximum temperature rise
for safe operation.
The power dissipated as heat equals the square of the load times the electrical resistance (P=I2R). One might then
expect the temperature rise to vary as the square of the load. If the load doubled, the power dissipated increased by
a factor of 4, and the temperature rise increased likewise. For heat transfer by conduction alone, this is valid. But
heat transfer by radiation depends on temperature to the fourth power (T4 Stefan Boltzmann Law). Convection as
well is dependent directly on temperature rise only in limited regions. Both play an important role in electrical
problem heat dissipation. The square assumption predicts a much too high rise, and should not be used (2, 3).
One might assume the temperature rise (∆T) increases as some power of the current and so attempt to fit ∆T=InR,
where the current is raised to the nth power, n being determined by fitting data or modeling. Perch-Nielsen et al (3)
did some experiments and found n varied between 0.6 and 2 depending on conditions.
We used the power loss software (5) to calculate the effects of changing load for various emissivity targets, air
temperatures and background temperatures. We fit the resulting data to the above equation to find n for various
conditions. Our modeling shows there is no single value for n for all cases. There is no simple load correction
factor. We found a range of exponents (n-values) from a high of 1.6 to a low of 1.46. Our modeling considered a
low emissivity target (minimum of 0.6) to a high emissivity target (maximum of 0.95) with an air temperature of
about 70 F and background temperature ranging from 70 F to -13 F. The simulated target was 4” wide by 1” thick
by 6” tall. The value of n decreases as heat transfer by radiation increases due to its non-linear, T4, nature.
Strongest radiation occurs for high emissivity, low background targets.
Figure 6 shows our modeled estimates for limiting conditions that will give the thermographer a reasonable idea of
the multiplication factor to use for full load correction (values of n are given in the legend). These are “middle-of-
the-road” results compared to others referenced above. But they do represent the bounds of what we found with our
modeling. The factors are not small, and like the wind correction can make a huge difference in your severity
estimates. Figure 6 also shows that performing IR surveys under low load conditions leads to greater uncertainties
in predicting the temperature rise at full load conditions.
As the graph is in log-log format, it is a bit tricky to estimate the values between gridlines. For those mathematically
inclined, you can calculate the value as follows: Multiplier = (1/%load)n. For example, at 50% load, the maximum
correction (n=1.6) would be (1/0.5)1.6= 21.6=3.03. Many calculators have the yx function to do this type of
calculation. But as these are estimates, it is simpler to look at the chart and estimate the value.
Let’s use the load
correction chart to
estimate the
temperature rise of 10 10
the hot switch 9
components 8
7
shown in Figure 5.
6
Multiplication Factor
The B-phase
shows a 65.5 F 5
rise, the C-phase a 4
39.4 F rise. Wind
speed was 0 mph.
3
For the normal full Most Cases (n=1.6)
load condition, the High e, low Bkg (n=1.46)
load is about 70%. 2 Wind speed 0 mph
The correction
factor read from
Figure 7 is about
1¾, so the normal
full load corrected 1 1
temperature rises 100% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
would be about % Load
115 F and 69 F,
respectively. For Figure 6. Load Correction. Multiply temperature rise by factor
the two-feeder full given at measured % load to correct to full load conditions.
load condition,
load is about 40%
and correction factors range from about 3¾ to 4¼. Corrected temperature rises are then about 245 to 278 F for the
B-phase and 148 F to 167 F for the C-phase. Table 2 summarizes our estimates.
% Load B-Phase Initial C-Phase Initial B-Phase Corrected C-Phase Corrected
Rise in F Rise in F Rise in F Rise in F
70% (Normal) 65.5 39.4 115 69
40% (Two Feeder) 65.5 39.4 245-278 148-167
Table 2. Raw and full-load corrected temperature rises.
These corrected temperature rises give the thermographer excellent information about what to expect when the load
goes up. They can be used to help evaluate risk of going to higher loads.
So, even though we still don’t have the complete story on load correction, we strongly recommend thermographers
consider the range of values for temperature rise that could be realized as the load increases. The load correction
curves are for zero wind conditions. Trying to correct both for wind and load can be problematic as they are related.
We recommend not performing IR surveys in low load, windy conditions. You will miss some problems, and
correcting for those you do find can be difficult. If you must go out in those conditions, plan to return as soon as the
wind goes down and/or the load goes up.
6. SUMMARY
Wind speed and load are two important measurements in addition to your IR camera or thermal imager data when
working on electrical systems. Though written with substations in mind, the work is equally valid for other areas
such as distribution and transmission lines.
Measuring wind speed and load in a substation is a lot easier than correcting temperature rise data for them. This
paper shows the correction factors in both cases are large, so even though we do not have all the answers at this
point, the wise thermographer will do well to consider their significance. Further research and experimentation
needs to be done to help quantify these factors and provide thermographers with even better correction tools. Be
very wary of simple wind or load correction factors. They don’t exist at this time.
For a ring bus, or parallel circuits, problems found with IR should be backed up with load measurements of each
parallel leg. It can occur that a major problem is shunting so much current it appears cool whilst a smaller problem
in the other leg shows hot due to the high load it is carrying from the shunted current. Safe practice says measure
the load and be sure. The switch example illustrates this, though safety was not an issue in this regard as both legs
of the switch would open at the same time.
7. REFERENCES
1. Madding, Robert P. and Lyon Bernard R.; “Wind effects on electrical hot spots--some experimental IR
data”; pp 80-84; Proc. Thermosense XXII; SPIE Vol. 4020; April, 2000
2. Lyon, Bernard R. Jr.; Orlove Gary L. and Peters Donna L.; “The relationship between current load and
temperature for quasi-steady state and transient conditions”; pp. 62-70; Proc. Thermosense XXII; SPIE
Vol. 4020; April, 2000
3. Perch-Nielsen T., Sorensen, J.C.; “Guidelines to thermographic inspection of electrical installations”; pp 2-
13; Proc. Thermosense XVI; SPIE Vol. 2245; April, 1994
4. Madding, Robert P.; “High voltage switchyard thermography case study”; pp. 94-99; Proc. Thermosense
XX; SPIE Vol. 3361; April, 1998
5. Madding, Robert P.; “Finding Internal Electrical Resistance from External IR Thermography
Measurements on Oil-filled Circuit Breakers During Operation”; Proc. InfraMation; Vol. 2; October, 2001;
pp37-44
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Infrared Training Center at FLIR Systems and Carolina Power and Light for providing
the resources to make this work possible. We are also grateful for the support of CP&L operations and maintenance
personnel who provided additional data and information for this paper.
InfraMation 2002 ITC 035 A 2002-08-01