2001 Survey of Relaying Test Practices

A SURVEY OF RELAYING TEST PRACTICES
A report to the Power System Relay Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society prepared by working group I11
Abstract
The results of a survey of Relay Engineers concerning their practices for testing protective and other relays and their personnel requirements are presented.
Keywords
Power Generating Protection, Relay Testing, Protective Relaying, Test Practices
Members of the working group Edward Krizauskas - chair Robert P. Bentert Lawrence P. Lawhead Stanley I. Thompson William G. Lowe - vice-chair James W. Ingleson Mohindar S. Sachdev
Contents
1. 2. Introduction.. 1 Personnel Requirements 1 2.1 Personnel who Calibrate, Test and Maintain Relays.. 1 2.2 Education Level Required.. 2 2.3 Training Requirements .. 2 Relay Test Procedures.. 4 3.1 Resources Used to Develop Relay Test Procedures.. 4 3.2 How Normal Relay Testing is Accomplished 5 Allowable Relay Calibration Tolerances... 8 4.1 Determination of Allowable Relay Tolerances.. 8 4.2 Relay Applications that Require Tighter Tolerances. 9 4.3 Relay Applications for which Looser than Normal Tolerances are Permitted. 10 4.4 Documentation of Allowable Tolerances by the Relay Users. 10 Factors that Influence Relay Test Schedules 11 5.1 Basis for Test Intervals for Relays in T&D Substations 11 5.2 Rationale for Shorter Test Intervals 13 5.3 Rationale for Longer Test Intervals 13 5.4 Basis for Test Intervals for In-Plant Relays (Generator, Switchgear, etc.) 14 5.5 Test Intervals Actually Met in Practice.. 14 Relay Test Intervals.. 15 6.1 Actual Relay Test Intervals Presently Used.. 15 6.2 Comparison of Relay Test Invervals with the 1991 Survey.. 20 Relay Test Equipment.. 25 7.1 Acquisition of Test Equipment.. 25 7.2 Passive vs. Solid State Relay Test Sets.. 25 7.3 Dynamic Relay Test Equipment. 25 7.4 Power Swing Test Equipment. 26 7.5 Computer Controlled Test Sets.. 27 7.6 COMTRADE Compatibility and Usage. 27 7.7 Portability of Test Equipment. 28 Testing Protective Relays in a Particular Station.. 28 Protective Relaying Scheme Operational Test Conditions and Intervals.. 29 9.1 Operational Trip Testing. 29 9.2 Operational Trip Test Intervals.. 29 9.3 Personnel Who Perform Operational Trip Tests.30 Maintenance Program Effectiveness. 30 10.1 Criteria Used31 10.2 Correlation between Measurements and Failure Rates.. 31 10.3 Satisfaction of the Utilities Maintenance Programs.. 32 Bibliography.. 33
3. 4.
5.
6. 7.
8. 9.
10.
11.
This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Page i January 2002
1.
Introduction
In 1971, the IEEE Power System Relaying Committee reported the results of A Survey of Relay Test Practices [1], which reflected the responses of 125 electric utilities with a total of 1,157 generating stations, 5,096 transmission substations, and 17,849 distribution substations. In 1991, the IEEE Power System Relaying Committee reported the results of A Survey of Relay Test Practices [2], which reflected the responses of 146 electric utilities with a total of 1,229 generating stations, 9,814 transmission substations and 26,680 distribution substations. This present survey is based on 2001 data supplied by 79 electric utilities with an aggregate of 632 generating stations, 8,461 transmission substations and 12,499 distribution substations. Results of these surveys are compared to show significant changes in test practices and a trend toward longer test intervals. The figures included in this report are named to identify with the Section of the survey from which the results are compiled.
2.
2.1
Personnel Requirements
Personnel who Calibrate, Test and Maintain Relays
As a rule, the number of relay personnel is proportional to the size of the service area of the utility. Exceptions to this rule are those utilities having highly congested and heavily populated service areas which require significantly more relay personnel than do those utilities with an equivalent size service area that is less congested and not as heavily populated. 82 % of the respondents use specialists to calibrate, test and maintain their protective relays and associated equipment. 18 % of the respondents use non-dedicated personnel to perform relay testing in conjunction with other work such as circuit breaker, transformer, or battery maintenance. None of the respondents used any type of contract personnel for relay testing or maintenance.
90% Percentage of Respondents 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
82%
6%
8%
0%
4%
Specialists who Specialists who calibrate and also do test relays only functional testing of relay circuits
Non-specialists Outside who also work contracted relay on breakers, testers transformers, etc.
Other
Figure 1: Personnel who Calibrate, Test and Maintain Relays

Page 1 January 2002
2.2
Education Level Required
The survey indicated there is a broad mix of education levels employed as relay specialists across the industry. Figure 2 gives the percentage of individuals that fell into each education category.
60% 50%
Percentage of Respondents
52%
40% 30%
18%
20% 10% 0% Bachelor's Degree or Higher Associate Degree
19% 5% 3% 2%
Vocational High School Military Training Graduate Experience Other
Figure 2: Education Level of Existing Relay Test Personnel The survey also indicated this trend is not likely to change drastically due to current hiring practices. The only notable decline is in the hiring of personnel with Bachelor of Science degrees for the purpose of relay testing. Figure 3 gives a breakdown of the utilities minimum education requirements.
50% 45% Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Bachelor's Degree or Higher
46%
19%
22%
8% 4% 0%
Associate Degree Vocational High School Military Training Graduate Experience Other
Figure 3: Level of Education Required for Newly-Employed Relay Test Personnel 2.3 Training Requirements
The survey indicated that the amount of relay-specific in-house training that relay employees receive on an annual basis varied considerably from utility to utility. Figure 4 shows that most relay test personnel receive fewer than 16 hours of relay training per year.

Page 2 January 2002
50% 45% Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 16% 15% 10% 5% 0% None
31% 27%
46%
Relay Manufacturers Test Equipment Manufacturers Relay-Specific Independent Relay-Specific In-House

27% 23% 21% 16%16% 15% 12% 9% 6% 8% 8% 9% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1%3% 0%0% 14%
35%
36%
4% 3%
8 hours or less
8-16 hours 16-24 hours 24-32 hours 32-40 hours More than 40 hours
Other
Figure 4: Training Hours per Test Personnel Each Year
Figure 5 shows that the working group foreman or test team group leader concept is widely used for training purposes by most utilities. The idea behind this type of training is that groups of personnel are assigned to work under the supervision of various knowledgeable senior relay foremen. Periodically, the various groups of technicians are rotated to work for another foreman until all the technicians have worked for all foremen. This type of training has many advantages for management.
63%
70% Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Use Do Not Use
37%
Figure 5: Utilities that Use a Working Relay Foreman or Test Team Group Leader to Train Relay Test Personnel Significantly, 97 % of respondents utilize the same personnel to maintain both electromechanical relays and electronic relays, as indicated in Figure 6. Figure 7 indicates that most of the respondents require their personnel to have specialized electronics training, which is normally provided as on the job training.

Page 3 January 2002
100% 90% 80% Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%
Maintain Non-Electromechanical Relays
97% 96%
Test & Calibrate Non-Electromechanical Relays
0%
10% 0% The same personnel who calibrate electromechanical relays
0%
3%
4%
Personnel who do not calibrate electromechanical relays
Personnel with special training to calibrate this type of relay
Figure 6: Personnel who Calibrate and Maintain Non-Electromechanical Relays
84%
90% 80% 70%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Required Not Required
16%
Figure 7: Utilities that Require Specialized Electronics Training for Personnel who Calibrate and/or Test NonElectromechanical Relays
3.
3.1
Relay Test Procedures

Resources Used to Develop Relay Test Procedures
Figures 8 and 9 reflect the number of utilities who use In-House Procedures, Relay Manufacturers Data and/or Equipment Manufacturers Data for testing relays and their assessment of the value of each of these sources of data for test procedures.

Page 4 January 2002
100% 90% Percentage of Respondents 80% 70%
99%
99%
94%
In-House Procedures Relay Manufacturers' Material Test Equipment Manufacturers' Material
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Used Not Used
1%
1%
6%
Figure 8: Resources Used to Develop Relay Test Procedures
80% 70% 60%
In-House Relay Manufacturers Test Equipment Manufacturers
72%
48%
50% 40%
48%
44%
44%
27%
30% 20% 10% 0% Of little value Some value Very valuable
8% 1%
8%
Figure 9: Value of In-House and Manufacturers Materials in Developing Relay Test Procedures All of the respondents use the Relay Manufacturers materials as the basis for their testing, and many respondents also use test equipment manufacturers materials to develop their test procedures. 3.2 How Normal Relay Testing is Accomplished
Figure 10 shows that 86 % of the respondents noted that they test relays using test plugs and secondary values, while 10 % cleared the circuit and tested the relay circuit with secondary values. Only 1 respondent stated that his utility tested relays using primary quantities.

Page 5 January 2002
90% 80% Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Applying primary signals with the primary circuit cleared Applying secondary Applying secondary signals with the signals with test primary circuit plugs or drawout cleared relays Other
86%
10% 1% 3%
Figure 10: How Normal Field Relay Testing is Accomplished Figure 11 details the percentage of respondents who test other items during routine relay testing. It should be noted that 28 % of those responding indicated that they perform all of the items shown in Figure 11 during the relay calibration procedure.
90% 80% Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Fuse blocks CT/PT Continuity Insulation of wiring Phasing potentials Control circuits Meters Test tripping CT/PT Ratio Verify CT connections Other 0%
88%
42% 40%
42% 29%
45%
37% 38% 40% 16%
Figure 11: Associated Items Also Tested During Routine Relay Testing Figure 12 reflects that when field testing of electromechanical relays indicate that repairs are needed, 95 % of the respondents rely on field personnel to do the repairs and only 5 % rely on the relay manufacturer. For nonelectromechanical relays, 25 % of the utilities rely on their field personnel, 3 % on trained lab technicians and 72 % on the manufacturer. This is a major shift from the 1991 survey where 62 % relied on their field personnel, 12 % on trained lab technicians and only 26 % on the manufacturer.

Page 6 January 2002
90% 80% Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Field testing personnel Trained lab personnel Manufacturer
Non-Electromechanical
87%
72%
Electromechanical
25% 8% 3% 5% 0% 0%
Other personnel
Figure 12: Personnel who Typically Repair Relays when Field Testing Determines that Repairs are Necessary For use in testing non-electromechanical relays, Figure 13 indicates that 82 % of the respondents use test procedures developed especially for non-electromechanical relays.
90% Percentage of Respondents 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Using established Using special Remote initiation of Local initiation of procedures for procedures self-diagnostic self-diagnostic electromechanical developed for nonfeatures features relays electromechanical relays
82%
14% 0% 4%
Figure 13: How Field Testing is Accomplished for Non-Electromechanical Relays Figure 14 shows that performance of relays in service is evaluated for relay operations during faults by analysis of target, event recorder and oscillographic data by 46 % of the respondents, while 40 % rely on periodic relay test data. The 1991 survey revealed that 77 % evaluated performance of relays in service with operations during faults by analysis of target, event recorder, and oscillographic data and only 22 % relied on periodic relay test data. Note that the 1991 report stated that periodic relay testing seldom found problems with the relays.

Page 7 January 2002
50% 45% Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
46% 40%
6% 0%
Analysis of Periodic relay Staged Self-checking performance testing primary faults (internal relay after faults diagnostics) (targets, oscill., etc.)
8%
Other
Figure 14: How In-Service Relay Performance is Determined
4.
4.1
Allowable Relay Calibration Tolerances

Determination of Allowable Relay Tolerances
Figure 15 indicates that the majority of electric utilities surveyed use the protective relay Manufacturers recommendations (65 %), while Knowledge and experience of the relay test personnel represents a significant number of electric utilities that rely on personnel within their respective organizations (27 %) for relay tolerances.
65%
27%
30% 20% 10% 0%
Manufacturers' Knowledge and recommendation experience of relay test personnel Regulation requirement No established tolerances Other
1%
1%
6%
Figure 15: Determination of Allowable Relay Tolerances The survey data indicates that a majority of relay manufacturers provide sufficient relay documentation that is acceptable to most engineers and technicians for maintenance and training purposes.

Page 8 January 2002
The combined number of responses consisting of selections No established tolerance, Other means or practices, and No response to this question (12.8 %) indicates that the determination of acceptable tolerances is completed by an internal or external organization and the survey may not have been transmitted to that group. This observation is verified by the additional comments provided indicating that this function is either contracted out or accomplished by engineering. Relaying engineers that responded to other means or practices provided information explaining that relay tolerances were set by established company guidelines. 4.2 Relay Applications that Require Tighter Tolerances
The purpose of this question is to determine if utilities establish tighter tolerances based on the individual relay characteristic, user application, function in a particular protective scheme or some other defined criteria rather than just the individual relay type or manufacturer involved.
30% Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Non-electromechanical vs electromechanical relays Nuclear OverRelay Independent Type of and similar equipment application reaching vs power station application undervs over- protected by such as reaching Zone 1 or relay current and other inst. equivalent trips
30% 19% 16% 10% 17% 9%
0%
Other
Figure 16: Relay Applications Requiring Tolerances Tighter than Those Normally Required Although in the majority of cases non-electromechanical relays may have a more precisely defined pickup and dropout characteristic, only 19 % of the responses to the selection Non-electromechanical versus electromechanical felt that there is sufficient justification to warrant closer setting tolerances when using nonelectromechanical relays. User responses shown under the selection Impedance versus overcurrent (10 %) illustrates the concern of possible overreaching and the additional complexities associated with this type of relay. In general, the simple overcurrent relay has a larger allowable error setting tolerance due to its application. The response under selection Type of equipment being protected by the relay (16 %) most likely denotes the concerns regarding major damage to critical types of power system apparatus and facilities. It should be noted, however, that no distinction was made within the survey for the variety of more complex relays belonging to the overcurrent family of relays, such as those based on directional, negative sequence, or other defined supervising characteristics. The survey responses shown under the selection Relay application or other instantaneous trips (17 %) regarding application such as Zone 1 or other instantaneous trip functions indicates that closer tolerances are used for these application. Concerns regarding overreaching may be a major factor that directs testing philosophy for these applications.

Page 9 January 2002
Selection Overreaching versus underreaching (0 %) shows that an underreaching element is not more critical than an overreaching element. Utilities with nuclear facilities obviously have eminent concerns regarding certain regulatory procedures and perceived outage effects. Tolerances are more closely reviewed than for companies without nuclear installations, or those having more rural type of distribution networks. This is reflected under selection Nuclear power station application (9 %) of the utilities responding to this question. A large number of responses (30 %) indicated other. This may indicate that all relays are calibrated with equal tolerances. 4.3 Relay Applications for which Looser than Normal Tolerances are Permitted
The response to the survey question regarding the acceptability of looser tolerances for certain relay applications with respect to defined application is shown in Figure 17. Other than those responses under selection Non-tripping relays, it appears that from the selection Other (38 %) that, although no additional information was provided, many utilities may calibrate relays with equal tolerances.
50% 38%
11% 2%
Relays that trip Non-tripping relays after a time delay
Percentage differential relays
Other
Figure 17: Relay Applications Requiring Tolerances Looser than Those Normally Required A moderate percentage (11 %) of utilities indicated that Relays that trip after a time delay are not required to have a precise setting or other exacting factors that affect tolerances. The question does arise regarding the accuracy of the relay before tripping occurs if looser than normal tolerances acceptable with respect to its characteristic and those effects on the overall time delay. The response under selection Non-tripping relays appears that a relative number of surveyed relay users (50 %) did agree that non-tripping relays are not required to have as tight a tolerance as those assigned to actual tripping purposes. Relays used for alarm applications, auto test, or circuit breaker reclosing are most likely part of this category. 4.4 Documentation of Allowable Tolerances by the Relay Users
The response to the question of the survey regarding whether allowable relay tolerances are documented is provided in Figure 18 below.

Page 10 January 2002
58.4%
60% Percentage of Respondents 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Allowable relay tolerances are documented Allowable relay Allowable relay tolerances are tolerances are not partially documented documented
35.1%
6.5%
Figure 18: Documentation of Allowable Relay Tolerances The combined selections Allowable relay tolerances are documented and Allowable relay tolerances are partially documented (93.5 %) reflect that the majority of the polled users do indeed compile documentation on relay tolerances.
5.
Factors that Influence Relay Test Schedules
There has been a lot of pressure to increase the time period between relay test intervals. Increasing the test intervals obviously reduces direct testing costs. The probability that a failure will occur and exist undetected increases as the intervals go up. It is possible that relay crews will visit the less common relay systems so seldom that they will encounter delays while they have to relearn how to deal with them. This section of the survey was designed to investigate what are the most significant factors influencing selection of test intervals in the industry. 5.1 Basis for Test Intervals for Relays in T&D Substations
Figure 19 summarizes the respondents basis for selecting test intervals for relays protecting T&D substations. Nearly half of the respondents chose Analysis of past results and Voltage level of circuit. Manpower capability or limitations and operations or misoperations were also selected by a large number of respondents. It is interesting to note that all of the possible choices drew at least some selections, with More complex relay types selected by only two of the respondents.

50.0% 45.0% Percentage of Respondents 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%
45.6%
45.6% 40.5% 32.9%
43.0%
43.0% 36.7%
30.4%
31.6%
29.1%
19.0% 13.9%
20.3%
10.1%
2.5%
Figure 20 summarizes the most important factors in selecting the test intervals for T&D substation relays. While the results do not exactly correspond to those reflected in Figure 19, the two responses most frequently selected were again Analysis of past results and Voltage level of circuit.
19% 18%
Figure 20: Most Important Factors in Selecting Test Intervals for Relays in T&D Substations

An
ia er er th rit O lc na io eg R st le te ty lf ,s Se . pe h ty sc e, e s. Ag nc op a is en m nt or ai M ns tio ra pe e O tim e its ag lim ut r O e c. w re po s an er r M tu ac s uf y la an re M s ex ad pl lo of om y e C la nc re rta of po n Im io ct ru st y on la C re of l pe ve Ty lts e l su ge re lta st Vo
10% 8% 6%
6%
ay si An ay
Figure 19: Basis for Test Intervals for Relays in T&D Substations
pa
Ranked 1 15% 13% 12% 10% 10% 10% 8% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 0% 6% 13% 13% 12%
Ranked 2
Ranked 3
10% 9% 8% 9% 8% 6% 4% 3% 3% 1% 1%
8%
3% 1% 0%
3%
3% 3% 0%
ia er er th rit O lc na io eg R st le te ty lf ,s Se . pe ch ty s e, e s. c Ag op an is en m nt or ai M ns tio ra e pe O tim e its ag m i ut rl O e c. w re po rs an re M tu ac uf ys la an re M s ex ad lo pl of om y e C la nc re rta of po n Im tio c ru st y on la C re of pe el lts Ty ev l su ge re lta st Vo pa s si
5.2
Rationale for Shorter Test Intervals
Figure 21 shows that shorter test intervals were selected for relays protecting higher (EHV) voltage systems by 56 % of the respondents. The particular type of relay being tested was also frequently chosen to be a basis for using shorter test intervals.
60.0%
56.0%
50.0% Percentage of Respondents 40.0%
30.7% 21.3% 16.0% 2.7% 20.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Non-EM vs. EM Higher Voltage (EHV) Type of load Relay Types Self-checking Other
Figure 21: Reasons for Selection of Shorter Test Intervals for Relays in T&D Substations 5.3 Rationale for Longer Test Intervals
Figure 22 shows that 65 % of the respondents assign longer test intervals to T&D substation relays with selfchecking algorithms. Again, as in the previous question, the particular type of relay was also a significant factor in choosing longer test intervals.
40.0%
35.0%
24.7%
26.0%
38.4% 24.7%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
13.7% 6.8%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% Non-EM vs. EM Higher Voltage (EHV) Type of load Relay types Self-checking Other
Figure 22: Reasons for Selection of Longer Test Intervals for Relays in T&D Substations

5.4
Basis for Test Intervals for In-Plant Relays (Generator, Switchgear, etc.)
Figure 23 shows that a clear majority of respondents (almost 59 %) selected Maintenance schedule of protected equipment as a factor. The next two most frequently selected choices were Operations and misoperations and Analysis of past results. All of the possible choices drew at least some selections, with More complex relay types least frequently selected, consistent with the results collected for T&D substations.
60.0% 58.6%
50.0%
40.0%
32.9% 31.4% 27.1%
27.1% 22.9% 22.9%
30.0% 18.6% 20.0% 14.3% 14.3% 15.7% 15.7% 14.3%
10.0% 2.9% 0.0% 4.3%
Figure 24 summarizes the most important factors for selection of test intervals for in-plant relays. The most frequently selected choice was Maintenance schedule of protected equipment. 12 % of the respondents ranked it as their most important factor.
30%
sis ay An
e ltag Vo
t es lf t Se le sty e, typ e, . Ag h c es nc na . inte ps Ma iso m or ns tio era Op e im et tag Ou its m r li we po . an ec M sr rer ctu ufa an M ys ela xr ple m s Co ad f lo eo nc rta po lay Im f re no ctio tru ns Co ay rel of pe Ty
r he Ot ria rite lc na gio Re
el lev s ult res st pa
Figure 23: Basis for Test Intervals for In-Plant Relays
Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3

27% 22%
25%
20% 15% 15% 12% 12% 13% 10% 10% 9% 6% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 1% 6 %6 % 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 1%3% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 6% 9% 6% 4% 3% 1% 0% 44 %% 6% 4% 1% 0% 9% 12%
10%
5%
3%
Figure 24: Most Important Factors in Selecting Test Intervals for In-Plant Relays 5.5 Test Intervals Actually Met in Practice
A majority of respondents, 65 %, reported that their scheduled relay test intervals are actually met in practice.

An
er ria th ite O cr al on gi Re st te e lf yl t Se ,s pe . ty ch e, s Ag ce s. an op en is nt m ai or M ns tio ra pe O e tim e ag its ut lim O r we c. re po rs an M re tu ac uf ys an a l M re s ex pl ad lo m of Co e y nc la re rta po of n Im io ct ru st on y C la re of pe l Ty ve le lts ge su lta re Vo st pa s si
ay
6.
6.1
Relay Test Intervals

Actual Relay Test Intervals Presently Used
The purpose of this section is to determine the relay test intervals for both electromechanical and nonelectromechanical relays used in transmission, distribution, main generator, auxiliary bus, cogeneration and large industrial substations. The complete responses are given by the bar charts shown in Figures 25 through 36.
30% 25% Percentage of Respondents 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1 2 3 4 Years Overcurrent Impedance Differential Pilot Remote Trip Schemes Frequency 5 6 7
4% 3% 4% 3% 23%
28%
25% 24% 26%
27% 26% 26%
22% 22%
21%
22%
21%
18%
19%19%
18%
17%
14%
13% 12%
14% 12% 11%11%
12% 9% 8% 11% 9%
8%
6% 4%
7%
7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
>7
Figure 25: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical Relays on TRANSMISSION Circuits
35% 30%
24%
32% 29%
24% 23% 21%
25% 20% 15%

10% 10% 16% 14% 13% 13%
23% 22% 22% 22% 18% 16% 17% 21% 16% 15% 15% 15% 13% 15% 11% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 6% 5% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
10%
9%
10%
4% 3% 3% 1% 1%
5% 0%
<1
4 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Remote Trip Schemes
Frequency
Figure 26: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical Relays on SUBTRANSMISSION Circuits

30% 25% 20%
29% 27% 25% 23% 23% 21% 19% 18% 16% 13% 15% 15% 12% 15% 11% 13% 10% 9% 8% 8% 5% 3% 8% 5% 9% 10% 18% 18% 18% 18% 16% 15% 21%
15%
10%
13%
13% 12% 10% 8% 6%
12% 12%
10%
4%
5% 0%
3%
3% 0% 0% 0%
<1
4 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Remote Trip Schemes
Frequency
Figure 27: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical Relays on DISTRIBUTION Circuits
27% 27%
26%
23% 22% 21%
23% 21% 22% 21% 19% 18% 18% 18% 15% 14% 13% 11% 12% 11% 11% 9% 7% 5% 6% 5% 4% 2% 7% 4% 3% 7% 7% 13% 11% 10% 19% 22% 18% 16% 16%
9%
10%
4%
5%
1% 1% 0 %0 %
0% <1 2 3 4 Years Overcurrent Impedance Differential Pilot Remote Trip Schemes 5 6 7
0%
>7
Frequency
Figure 28: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Non-Electromechanical Relays on TRANSMISSION Circuits

30%
26%
25% Percentage of Respondents

21% 19% 18% 16% 16% 20% 19% 19% 19% 17% 17% 19% 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 11% 9% 9% 8% 7 %7 % 6% 15% 18% 18%
20% 15% 10%
18% 16% 15%
17%
17%
11%
7%
7 %7 % 7 % 7% 7%
5%
1%
2%2% 0 %0 %
2%
0% <1 2 3 4 Years Overcurrent Impedance Differential Pilot Remote Trip Schemes Frequency 5 6 7 >7
Figure 29: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Non-Electromechanical Relays on SUBTRANSMISSION Circuits
30% 25% Percentage of Respondents 20%

14% 14% 15%
28%
29%
25% 23% 20% 18% 19% 18% 16% 16% 17% 16% 16% 14% 15% 12% 12% 10% 9% 7% 10% 7% 5% 11% 10% 7% 5% 3% 5% 1 4 %1 4 % 21% 22%
25%
17% 16%
15% 10% 5% 0% <1 2 3 4 Years Overcurrent Impedance Differential Pilot 5
13%
3%
3% 3% 0 %0 % 0% 1%
3%
>7
Remote Trip Schemes
Frequency
Figure 30: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Non-Electromechanical Relays on DISTRIBUTION Circuits

35%
29% 28%
31% 29%
30% Percentage of Respondents 25% 20%
27% 25% 25% 22%
27%
22%
20%
2 0 %2 0 % 16%
19%
12%
15%
11% 8% 8% 7% 7%
12%
12% 10% 9% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
10% 5% 0%
2 % 2 %2 %2 % 0% 0 % 0 %0 % 0 % 0 %
<1
4 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Voltage
Frequency
Figure 31: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical Relays for GENERATOR Applications at Non-Nuclear Power Stations
30%
25% 25% 24% 23% 23% 2 2 %2 2 %
25% Percentage of Respondents 20%
23% 23% 20% 15% 23% 20%
18% 16% 16% 14% 13% 14% 11% 11% 10% 9% 8% 5% 5% 7% 5% 5% 3% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 10% 10% 9% 8%
15% 10% 5% 0% <1 2 3 4
5 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Voltage
Frequency
Figure 32: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical Relays for AUXILIARY BUS Applications at Non-Nuclear Power Stations


12% 8% 24% 23% 22% 21%
29% 29% 28% 25%
24% 24% 22% 22% 19% 21%
18% 15% 14% 1 2 %1 2 % 13% 10% 9% 7% 8% 8%
10% 5% 0%
7% 6% 4%
2 %2 % 2 %2 % 0% 0 % 0 % 0 %0 %0 %
<1
4 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Voltage
Frequency
Figure 33: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Non-Electromechanical Relays for GENERATOR Applications at Non-Nuclear Power Stations
30%
26%
25%
22% 21%
23% 22% 21% 19%19%
22% 18%
23% 19%
20%
17%
17% 15% 15% 13% 14%
15% 11% 11% 9% 7% 8% 6% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 10%
15%
9% 10% 6% 6% 11% 11%
13%
10% 5% 0%
<1
4 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Voltage
Frequency
Figure 34: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Non-Electromechanical Relays for AUXILIARY BUS Applications at Non-Nuclear Power Stations


11% 8% 22% 20% 20% 20%
29% 25% 2 4 %2 4 % 22% 22%
29%
18% 16%
17% 16% 16% 16% 15% 12%
15% 13% 12% 11% 8% 12% 13% 13% 14%
12% 10% 11%
10%
6% 5% 4% 2 %2 % 5%
7% 5% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 5% 4%
5% 0%
<1
4 Years
>7
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Voltage
Frequency
Reverse Power
Figure 35: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical and NonElectromechanical Relays for Substations Serving a LARGE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER
30%
27% 24% 24%
25% Percentage of Respondents

21% 18% 22% 22% 20% 19% 18% 2 0 %2 0 % 1 7 %1 9 % 20% 17% 15% 15% 15% 15% 18% 16% 15% 16%
20% 15%
1 7 %1 7 % 15% 15% 14%
18%
15%15% 15% 12%
12% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 4% 4%
10% 5% 0% <1 2 3 4 Years Overcurrent Impedance Differential Voltage Frequency 5

2% 2% 2% 2%
2%2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0%
>7
Reverse Power
Synchronizing
Figure 36: Time Intervals between Scheduled Relay Testing (years) - Electromechanical and NonElectromechanical Relays for Substations Serving an INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCER or Dispersed Source of Generation 6.2 Comparison of Relay Test Invervals with the 1991 Survey
Charts comparing maintenance and calibration intervals compiled during the 2001 survey as compared to the results of the 1991 survey is included in Figures 37 through 44.

Over the ten-year interval, 1991 to 2001, one can see a shift in longer test intervals. For example, electromechanical impedance relays used for protection of transmission facilities were tested every five or more years by 28.9 % of the electric utilities responding in the 2001 survey, as compared to only 10.1 % in 1991. A similar shift in maintenance test intervals is found in comparisons of the data compiled in the two surveys for other relay types as well as indicated in Figures 37 through 44.
50% 45% Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1 2 3 Years 4 >5
11% 14% 13% 12% 20% 20% 20% 19%19% 13% 11% 8% 7% 6% 4% 7% 13% 10% 12% 32% 47% 46% 48% 50% 38%
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 37: 1991 Survey Electromechanical Relays - Transmission
35% 30% Percentage of Respondents

25% 28% 26% 2 6 %2 7 %
31% 29% 29% 27%
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1

4% 3%3% 4% 13%
22% 23% 22% 21%
22% 21%
19%19% 18%
22%
18%
3 Years
>5
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 38: 2001 Survey Electromechanical Relays - Transmission

50% 45% Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1
17% 13% 14% 25% 37%
48% 45% 50% 40% 37%
20% 19%
20%
19% 15% 14% 12% 9% 8% 6 %6 % 7 % 3% 8% 9%
3 Years
>5
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 39: 1991 Survey Non-Electromechanical Relays - Transmission

27%
40%
40% 38% 35%
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1

1% 0%0% 1% 9% 21%
23% 22%
26% 22% 21% 18% 18% 18% 21% 19% 22% 19% 15% 24%
3 Years
>5
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 40: 2001 Survey Non-Electromechanical Relays - Transmission

37%
32% 32% 29% 28% 28% 25% 22% 21% 21% 22% 22% 23% 23% 21% 18% 19%
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1 2

3% 7% 8% 6%
18%
15% 12%
8%
3 Years
>5
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 41: 1991 Survey Electromechanical Relays - Distribution
60% Percentage of Respondents 50% 40%

29% 27% 25% 23% 23% 19%
56%
51%
55%
51%
31%
30% 20%
10% 13% 10% 6% 4%
16% 13% 12% 12% 12%
10% 0%
3% 0 %0 %0 %
<1
3 Years
>5
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 42: 2001 Survey Electromechanical Relays - Distribution

36% 33% 30% 27% 27% 24% 23% 23% 23%23% 22% 27% 23% 18% 19% 16% 15%
25%
19%
19%
19%
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <1 2 3 Years 4 >5

10% 7 % 6 %7 % 7%
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 43: 1991 Survey Non-Electromechanical Relays - Distribution

28%
65% 62% 58% 52%
36%
30% 20%
10% 9% 7%
23%
20% 15% 14% 12% 7% 10%
21% 18%
14%
16%
10% 0%
3% 0% 0 %0 % 1%
<1
3 Years
>5
Overcurrent
Impedance
Differential
Pilot
Frequency
Figure 44: 2001 Survey Non-Electromechanical Relays - Distribution

7.
Relay Test Equipment
The purpose of this section is to compare what type of test equipment is being used, and for what type of applications. In addition, desired maximum weight is considered for transportability. 7.1 Acquisition of Test Equipment
According to the survey, fewer companies are building their own test sets. Over 97 % of those surveyed said that they procure commercially available relay test sets. Less than 3 % said that they build their own test sets. 7.2 Passive vs. Solid State Relay Test Sets
Passive relay test sets are defined as manually operated test sets comprised of resistive loads, mechanical phase shifters, variable autotransformers, or phantom loads. Solid state relay test sets include electronically regulated voltage and current sources. The survey showed that over 98 % of the respondents have two or more solid state relay test sets. As shown in Figure 45, almost half of the respondents, 49 %, use both passive and solid state relay test sets, while another 49 % use solid state test sets only. Less than 2 % use passive test sets only.
50% 45% 40% Percentage of Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Passive Only Passive and Solid State
49%
49%
2%
Solid State Only
Figure 45: Percentage of Utilities that Use Passive and Solid State Test Sets The ratio of passive vs. solid state test sets has dropped significantly since the 1991 survey. In 1991, 50 % of the test sets in use were passive loads. Today, of those surveyed, 29 % of the total number of units in use are passive loads (861 passive test sets out of a total of 2,965 units). Therefore, it is concluded that as the older passive units are retired they are being replaced with modern solid state relay test sets. 7.3 Dynamic Relay Test Equipment
Dynamic test equipment is defined as test sets capable of providing pre-fault, fault, and post-fault outputs, with dc and harmonic components. As shown in Figure 46, 80 % of the respondents have equipment with this type of capability. This is a significant increase from the 1991 survey, when only 50 % of respondents said that they had dynamic test equipment.

80% 70%
80% 50%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 Survey 2001 Survey
Figure 46: Percentage of Utilities that Use Dynamic Test Sets 7.4 Power Swing Test Equipment
Utilities were asked if they have test sets capable of simulating power system disturbances such as power swings or frequency excursions. As shown in Figure 47, 79 % of the respondents have at least 1 test set capable of performing this type of test. This represents a 29 % increase from the 1991 survey.
80% 70% Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 Survey
50%
79%
2001 Survey
Figure 47: Percentage of Utilities that Use Power Swing Capable Test Sets

7.5
Computer Controlled Test Sets
This section of the survey focuses on the number of utilities who have purchased test sets with the capability of being controlled by a computer. As shown in Figure 48, 96 % of the respondents stated that they had test sets that could be controlled by a computer, an increase of 22 % from the 1991 survey. Only 73 % were actually using the computer to do automated testing, an increase of 21 % from the 1991 survey.
96%
100% 90% Percentage of Respondents 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 Survey 2001 Survey
74%
Figure 48: Percentage of Utilities that Use Computer Controlled Test Sets 7.6 COMTRADE Compatibility and Usage
IEEE Standard C37.111, also known as the COMTRADE Standard, specifies the machine readable file structure for transient recordings. Most modern commercially available relay test sets today have the capability to playback the recorded fault from digital fault recorders and other recording devices, including the relays themselves, which are in COMTRADE file format. As shown in Figure 49, 73 % of those surveyed said that they have test sets with this capability. However, of those who have the capability, 54 % are not using this feature. Of those who do use the feature, 7 % use it for routine testing, 41 % use it to analyze specific events (troubleshooting tool) and 13 % use it to evaluate new relays for purchasing. Some utilities commented that they have this capability, but have not had the opportunity to perform that type of testing. It is unknown what their intended use would be, but more than likely it would fall into one of the three listed above.
COMTRADE Capable
73% 54% 41% 13% 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Do Not Use COMTRADE
Troubleshooting
Evaluate New Relays
Routine Tests
Figure 49: Percentage of Utilities that Use COMTRADE Capable Test Sets

7.7
Portability of Test Equipment
Over 47 % of the respondents stated that they have relay test sets that require more than one person to carry. As shown in Figure 50, 50 % of the respondents said that the maximum weight should be 50 pounds or less. Another 47 % said that test sets that weighed from 50 to 80 pounds were acceptable, while 3 % said that test sets that weighed 80 pounds or more were acceptable.
47%
50% 45% 40% 35%
50%
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under 50 Lbs 50 to 80 Lbs Weight 80 or More
3%
Figure 50: Desired Weights of Test Sets
8.
Testing Protective Relays in a Particular Station
The purpose of this section is to determine how relay test crews are scheduled when relays are tested. About 64 % of the respondents test all relays in a station with a single crew in one concentrated effort. Another 27 % of the respondents test relays at different times by different crews according to voltage, criticality and relay complexity. The remaining 9 % use other methods to schedule relay testing. Utilities who use a single crew in one effort increased about 11 % since the 1991 survey, while utilities that use different crews at different times decreased about 6 % since the 1991 survey. This implies that relay testing at utilities is moving towards performing all relay testing in one effort. Figure 51 shows these results. 64.1%
26.9%
30% 20% 10% 0% All relays, single crew, one effort. Multiple crews, based on relay criteria. Different crews, different times. Other
3.8%
5.1%
Figure 51: Utilities' Approach to Scheduling Relay Testing

9.
Protective Relaying Scheme Operational Test Conditions and Intervals
The purpose of this section of the survey is to determine the conditions for which protective relaying schemes are operationally tested and the intervals at which these tests are performed. 9.1 Operational Trip Testing
Most individuals responsible for power system protection consider operational trip testing necessary to verify that all relays, power circuit breakers, station batteries and other equipment are performing correctly. This section addresses when these operational checks are performed, how often are they performed and who performs the operational check. Power circuit breakers are trip tested with their protective relays during various routine maintenance tasks and when a malfunction or misoperation is suspected. If a misoperation is suspected, a majority of respondents said they perform a trip check. For routine maintenance, operational trip checks of the power circuit breakers during both relay and breaker maintenance is a very common utility practice. The results are shown on Figure 52.
Dedicated time, fixed schedule. Complete Maintenance Shutdown of Facility. After Malfunction or Misoperation.
49.4% 22.8% 24.1%
During SCADA Testing.
74.7%
Routine Interupting Device Maintenance.
11.4% 25.3%
Other
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Figure 52: Other Testing Performed when Utilities Perform Operational Trip Testing 9.2 Operational Trip Test Intervals
The majority of relay schemes were operationally trip tested on a 1 to 3 year cycle. The results are shown on Figure 53.

25%
21.3%21.3% 18.7% 12.0% 9.3% 8.0% 4.0% 5.3% 0.0%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1 or less 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Years 5-6 6-7 7+ NA
Figure 53: Operational Testing Intervals 9.3 Personnel Who Perform Operational Trip Tests
As can be seen from Figure 54, maintenance and service personnel along with protection technicians are most likely to be performing these trip tests.
Other
1.3% 6.3% 77.2% 11.4% 3.8%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Protection engineers
Protection technicians Maintenance or service personnel Substation operators 0%
Figure 54: Type of Personnel Who Perform Trip Testing
10.
Maintenance Program Effectiveness
The purpose of this section was to determine how utilities decrease relay failures through their maintenance programs.

10.1
Criteria Used
As shown in Figure 55, Reliability was the chosen as the most common criteria used to measure maintenance program effectiveness, while the second most common selection was Productivity and Performance.
Other
3.8% 7.6% 43.0% 25.3% 13.9% 6.3%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
None
Reliability Productivity & Performance Performance
Productivity 0%
Figure 55: Basis for Measurement Criteria to Determine Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs 10.2 Correlation between Measurements and Failure Rates
As shown in Figure 56, 25.3 % of the respondents said that there is a relationship between their measurements and a reduction in failure rates. This is a 5.8 % increase from 1991 survey.
80.5% 1991 Survey 19.5% No Relationship Relationship 74.7% 2001 Survey 25.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Figure 56: Percentage of Utilities Who Identify a Relationship Between Measurement and Failure Rate

10.3
Satisfaction of the Utilities Maintenance Programs
In rating the effectiveness of their utilitys maintenance program, 25.3 % of the respondents were very satisfied, 58.2 % were satisfied, 13.9 % were unsatisfied and 2.5 % were very unsatisfied. The satisfaction level seems to be slightly lower then in the 1991 survey. Figure 57 shows the survey results.
Very Satisfactory
33.0% 25.3% 62.0% 58.2% 4.5% 13.9% 0.5% 2.5%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Very Unsatisfactory
0%
2001 Survey
1991 Survey
Figure 57: Utility Opinions on Effectiveness of Maintenance Programs in Reducing Relay Failures

11.
[1]
Bibliography
A Survey of Relay Test Practices, IEEE Power Systems Relaying Committee Report, IEEE Transactions Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 91, pp. 1191-1196, May/June 1972. A Survey of Relay Test Practices, IEEE Power Systems Relaying Committee Report, IEEE Transactions Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 1339-1351, July 1994.
[2]


2001 Survey of Relaying Test Practices

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2001 Survey of Relaying Test Practices

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A SURVEY OF RELAYING TEST PRACTICES

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Figure 1: Personnel who Calibrate, Test and Maintain Relays

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Education Level Required

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Relay Manufacturers Test Equipment Manufacturers Relay-Specific Independent Relay-Specific In-House

Figure 4: Training Hours per Test Personnel Each Year

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Maintain Non-Electromechanical Relays

Test & Calibrate Non-Electromechanical Relays

Personnel who do not calibrate electromechanical relays

Personnel with special training to calibrate this type of relay

Figure 6: Personnel who Calibrate and Maintain Non-Electromechanical Relays

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Required Not Required

Relay Test Procedures

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

100% 90% Percentage of Respondents 80% 70%

In-House Procedures Relay Manufacturers' Material Test Equipment Manufacturers' Material

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Used Not Used

Figure 8: Resources Used to Develop Relay Test Procedures

80% 70% 60%

In-House Relay Manufacturers Test Equipment Manufacturers

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

37% 38% 40% 16%

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Figure 14: How In-Service Relay Performance is Determined

Allowable Relay Calibration Tolerances

70% 60% Percentage of Respondents 50% 40%

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

30% Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

30% 19% 16% 10% 17% 9%

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Relays that trip Non-tripping relays after a time delay

Percentage differential relays

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Factors that Influence Relay Test Schedules

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

45.6% 40.5% 32.9%

20% 18% Percentage of Respondents 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Rationale for Shorter Test Intervals

30.7% 21.3% 16.0% 2.7% 20.0%

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

32.9% 31.4% 27.1%

27.1% 22.9% 22.9%

30.0% 18.6% 20.0% 14.3% 14.3% 15.7% 15.7% 14.3%

10.0% 2.9% 0.0% 4.3%

r he Ot ria rite lc na gio Re

el lev s ult res st pa

Figure 23: Basis for Test Intervals for In-Plant Relays

Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

Relay Test Intervals

27% 26% 26%

14% 12% 11%11%

24% 23% 21%

25% 20% 15%

Remote Trip Schemes

This is a special report of the IEEE Power System Relay Committee.

30% 25% 20%

13% 12% 10% 8% 6%

Remote Trip Schemes