Ringmaster: Distribution Transformer Protection Benefits of Circuit Breakers

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 4

Concentrated efficiency

Ringmaster C

Distribution
Transformer Protection
Benefits Of Circuit Breakers

Introduction:
In medium voltage networks throughout the UK, oil filled ring main units and switches were the
established mechanism for accessing the MV secondary distribution system during fault restoration. In
capital cost terms per switch function, these devices are considered cost effective, however, ownership
cost is proving to be a controversial issue.

The demand for safer equipment, offering considerably reduced maintenance, has driven most utilities
towards SF6 designs in Europe and the rest of the world. Both manufacturers and users have been quick
to exploit the technological benefits of SF6 switching devices and this in turn has led to the development
of a range of outdoor, sealed for life, telecontrolled switches/RMUs and sectionalising circuit breakers.

This new generation of products has resulted from radical re-thinking in regard to management of the
11kV distribution network, with emphasis on improving consumer service and reducing operating costs.

MV Transformer Protection Past and Present

Back in the 1930s, switchgear manufacturers developed re-wireable 11kV fuse circuit-breaker
equipments for use as a reliable means of automatic circuit breaking for low capital cost systems. These
devices were limited in fault breaking capability and as fault levels increased they became progressively
pushed aside by fully rated OCBs incorporating CTs and time limit fuses (TLF) for time/current grading.
Such equipments were a popular choice for ground mounted distribution protection up until the 1960s.

The development of the MV fuse in the late 1950s led to the creation of the fuse-switch, and eventually
the highly successful oil ring main unit.

In moving to oil fuse-switches from oil circuit-breakers, the loss of earth fault protection was not regarded
as a major problem. Neither was the current limiting aspect of the MV fuse considered a significant
advantage for this application, although it is a useful inherent feature to have. The loss of relatively close
co-ordination with both the upstream and downstream protection was however, more serious, but on
balance the oil fuse-switch made good economic sense.

When SF6 ring main units began to emerge in the 1980s, it soon became apparent that designs
incorporating circuit breakers could be considered sealed for life and were, therefore, more attractive
than designs using air insulated fuses when ownership costs were considered. Furthermore,
manufacturing cost proved to be similar.
Even on these new technology equipments, the TLF was retained for reasons of cost and reliability. As
an option, versions fitted with a self powered numerical overcurrent and earth fault relay to IEC standards
were made available. This powerful combination of state of the art switchgear and advanced self
powered protection produces a reliable integrated solution which has considerably extended the
traditional role of the ring main unit.

Transformer/LV Busbar Zone Protection Quality

In 1981 a national working party concluded that automatic fuse-switch equipment is not a particularly
suitable device for use in protecting transformer and LV busbar zone circuits. This conclusion was based
upon National Fault and Interrupting Report Scheme (NAFIRS) statistics, in relation to the relative fault
rates of fuse switches and transformers, together with data recorded in respect of incorrect operations of
MV current limiting fuse links, due to inherent shortcoming in their time/current characteristics.

Although these fault statistics have since been challenged, it has had to be accepted that there are many
instances on record where an MV fuse link has failed to respond quickly enough to a phase to earth fault
within the LV busbar zone, or has maldiscriminated with the LV fuse links by operating on a downstream
LV cable fault.

Statistics collated by one utility showed the following categories for fuse switch fault operation:-

No. of Fault Operations % of Fault Operations


Cause of Fault Operations (per annum) (per annum)

HV cable and cable box faults 42 46.7


Overhead line faults 8 8.9
Switchgear faults 2 2.2
Overloads 1 1.1
Transformer faults 6 6.7
Maldiscrimination 7 7.7
Unknown (maldiscrimination)
24 26.7

Total Fuse Switch Fault Operations 90 100

An analysis of transformer fault statistics was made by Blower et al (Ref. 1) from which it was concluded
that a sample size of 163,500 transformers monitored over a five year period yielded a total failure rate of
0.17%. Only 0.052% was found to be as a result of electrical failure within the transformer tank.
According to these statistics, only 7% of fuse-switch fault operations occur due to transformer failure.

Difficulties in selecting MV fuse links to reliably discriminate across the complete fault spectrum have
long since been accepted and detailed studies have been carried out which conclude that the probability
of maldiscrimination can be minimised by careful co-ordination.

Nevertheless, there is now a strong feeling that if local protective devices are to be employed, then they
should be capable of offering more than just a compromise characteristic.
Fuse Link Co-ordination

To illustrate the difficulty, consider the common case where a 11000/


433V, delta/star, 1000kVA transformer is to be protected by an automatic
fuse switch incorporating MV current limited fuse links.
The selected fuse link must, of course, co-ordinate with both the
downstream protection on the LV side of the transformer and the
upstream feeder protection. It must also withstand a transformer
magnetising inrush current of ten times primary full load current of 0.1 s
and should withstand periodic overload as specified in ESI 41-12, ESI
12-8 provides guidance as to fuse link selection by specifying time-
current envelopes, but beware as careless selection can lead to
embarrassingly long operating times.

Current limiting fuse links generally have inverse time/current


characteristics, which means that, although they are fast acting at high
currents, they are slow acting at low currents. In this respect they are

not ideal for protecting transformers against the type of fault where the current is severely limited, i.e. a
phase to earth fault in the LV terminal zone.

Assuming a factor of 0.6 for arc voltage, such a fault on the LV terminals of the transformer under
consideration would be seen as an MV line current, in two phases, of 362 A. Under such conditions the
operating time of a typical oil fuse link could vary from 1.7 to 17 s, whereas the operating time of the
equivalent air fuse link can be anything from 10 to 90 s. In practice, such a sustained fault would most
likely develop into a phase to phase fault and would be cleared in a much shorter time.

However, in the case of the air fuse link, it is possible that the upper limit of the characteristic band may
overlap the feeder protection curve and in this extreme case the fault would be cleared by the upstream
circuit breaker. For this reason, ESI 12-8 specified a maximum operating time of 1 s for three-phase
faults, restricted by arc voltage, in the terminal zone of the transformer secondary winding.

Oil-immersed fuse links are, generally, faster acting than air fuse links at these lower fault currents and
as such are better suited for the protection of transformer circuits. The characteristic of a modern oil fuse
link can discriminate well up to the maximum point for discrimination. However, since the MV and LV
fuse link characteristics converge as the fault current increases, there is a danger that the characteristics
of less well designed links may overlap at currents below this point.

As the demand for non-oil technology increases some manufacturers have resorted to incorporating air
fuse links in their new designs of ring main units and, for the reasons outlined above, this could be
considered a retrograde step.

To alleviate these difficulties, the inherent advantages of the expulsion fuse have been re-exploited.
Fundamentally, this type of fuse has a time/current characteristic which is better suited to the protection
of transformer circuits. It has a good load breaking current capability and when used in series with a
current limiting fuse produces a protective device with a full fault range clearance capability.

In recent times some manufacturers have ingeniously mounted both types of fuse within the same
envelope (so called full range fuse). However, as with all types of fuse links employing relatively lengthy
elements in a confined space, the I2R loss has tended to limit potential development in respect of high
normal current ratings.

Time Limit Fuses


A 10 A time limit fuse fed from 100/5 A CTs gives an operating time for an LV phase to earth fault of
about 0.7 s and as the referred MV and LV characteristics do not tend to converge at higher currents,
even closer co-ordination is possible without risk of maldiscrimination.
Conclusions

It is important to remember that although distribution transformer protective devices are installed to deal
with a very rare incident of a transformer fault, their primary function is to provide operator safety through
fast protection of LV bus zone faults.

In these days of continual improvement of customer service, it is also just as important to provide good
quality discrimination so as to minimise customer minutes lost through unnecessary incorrect
disconnections.

Current limiting fuses by their very nature have lower let through energy which offers benefit in the case
of a rare full fault level transformer fault. Circuit breakers take longer, but work carried out by the UK
Electricity Council in the 1980s showed traditional style transformer tanks perform relatively well under
catastrophic failure conditions with fault currents of several cycle duration.

The case in favour of circuit breakers is therefore clear and can be summarised by the following
advantages:

Improved protection co-ordination, with source breaker and LV fuses leading to better
operator safety and reduced customer minutes lost.
Very low I2R leading to reduced system losses (fuse switches on 1000kVA transformers can
dissipate 100 W).
No ongoing cost of replacement fuses (90 per set plus logistics costs).
Low maintenance costs due to environment free insulation system (GIS principle).
Proven outdoor service experience.
High normal current rating allowing sectionalising circuit breaker use.
Small size enabling optimisation of compact package substation design.
When using self-powered relays the CB RMU can easily be reset simplifying equipment
operation.

References
1. Blower, R.W. et al, Trends in Distribution Transformer Protection, 3rd International Conference on Future
Trends in Distribution Switchgear, IEE Publication 318. 7-11.

2. Report on HV fuse links for the protection of ground mounted distribution transformers, ACE Report 86,
1983.

3. The application of fuse links to 11kV and 6.6kV/415V distribution networks, ESI 12-8, 1986.

4. Distribution Transformers, ESI 35-1, 1977.

You might also like