Abstract

The distribution transformers are among the most expensive and critical units in
a power system. Transformer failures are sometimes catastrophic and almost
always include irreversible internal damage. Consequently, it is very important to
install protection systems to the transformers of an electric power system.
An industrial solution (equipment) for lightning and surge protection of distribution transformers named Rayvoss transformer protection system is proposed .The
proposed protection equipment has been installed at 100 distribution transformers
(sample) of the Public Power Corporation (PPC) of Greece . The estimation of the
future transformer failures, considering two di erent cases has been performed:

(a) transformer without the proposed protection system

(b) transformer equipped with the proposed protection system
Moreover, the satisfactory sample size of transformers in which the protection
system has to be installed in order to be able to obtain statistically reliable results
using the proposed protection system has been calculated. The results show that
the proposed method is an excellent means for lightning and surge protection of
distribution transformers, since zero transformer failures have been observed so
far during the whole period of its operation of 29 months.

Contents
1

Introduction
1.1 Distribution transformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Lightning and switching surge voltage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
1
3

Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor (TVSS)

2.1 Working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Surge Protector Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Challenges to Conventional Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
6
7
8

Strikesorb Surge Protection Module

10
3.1 Protector Requirements and Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Protector Mechanical Design Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Protector Electrical Design Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4 Electrical Veri cation Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.5 The Rayvoss Transformer Protection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 Implementation of Rayvoss Transformer Protection system

16
4.1 Historical Data of Transformer Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Failure Estimation of Transformers Without the Proposed Protection
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3 Failure Estimation of Transformers Equipped with the Proposed Protection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
4.4 Sample size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
4.5 Duration of Transformer Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
5 Conclusion
References

20
21

List of Figures
1.1
1.2

Distribution transformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E ects of lightning surges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2
3

2.1
2.2
2.3

Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Working of Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors . . . . . . . . . . .
Location of Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors . . . . . . . . . . .

6
7
8

3.1 Strikesorb surge protection module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10
3.2 Construction of Strikesorb surge protection module . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Zinc Oxide Varistor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
3.4 Current distribution in (a)Conventional varistor, (b)Strikesorb module 12
3.5 Rayvoss Transformer Protection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.6 Connection diagram of Rayvoss transformer protection system. . . . 14
3.7 Rayvoss protection system being installed at a distribution transformer 15
4.1 Transformer failure cumulative probability computed without the proposed protection system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

List of Tables
4.1 Yearly failures due to lightning and switching surges in the sample of
100 transformers before the installation of the proposed protection
system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Statistics of transformer yearly failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Transformer failure cumulative probability (%)computed without the
proposed protection system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
4.4 Determination of number of monitoring years . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19

Chapter 1
Introduction
Lightning is responsible for a signi cant amount of unscheduled supply
interruptions in electrical overhead lines, often causing permanent damages to
equipment such as distribution transformers. There are various ways by which
lightning can disturb high (HV) and low voltage (LV) lines. Transients may be
caused by direct strokes to the HV or LV line conductors, by lightning induced
overvoltages, and by surges transferred through the distribution transformer. [3]

1.1

Distribution transformer

A distribution transformer is a transformer that provides the nal voltage transformation in the electric power distribution system,stepping down the voltage
used in the distribution lines to the level used by the customer. The invention of a
practical e cient transformer made AC power distribution feasible a system using
distribution transformers was demonstrated as early as 1882.
Distribution transformers normally have ratings less than 200 kVA,although
some national standards can describe units up to 5000 kVA as distribution
transformers. Since distribution transformers are energized for 24 hours a day
(even when they don't carry any load), reducing iron losses has an important role
in their design. As they usually don't operate at full load, they are designed to
have maximum e ciency at lower loads. To have a better e ciency, voltage
regulation in these transformers should be kept to a minimum. Hence they are
designed to have small leakage reactance.
Distribution transformers are classi ed into di erent categories based on
certain factors such as:
1. Mounting location pole, pad, underground vault
2. Type of insulation liquidimmersed or drytype
3. Number of Phases singlephase or threephase
4. Voltage class
5. Basic impulse insulation level (BIL).

1.1.1 Construction
Distribution transformers are made using a core made from laminations of
sheet steel stacked and either glued together with resin or banded together with
steel straps. Where large numbers of transformers are made to standard
designs, a wound Cshaped core is economic to manufacture. A steel strip is
wrapped around a former, pressed into shape and then cut into two C shaped
halves, which are reassembled on the copper windings.
The primary coils are wound from enamel coated copper or aluminum wire and
the high current, low voltage secondaries are wound using a thick ribbon of
aluminum or copper. The windings are insulated with resinimpregnated paper. The
entire assembly is baked to cure the resin and then submerged in a powder coated
steel tank which is then lled with transformer oil (or other insulating liquid), which is
inert and nonconductive. The transformer oil cools and insulates the windings, and
protects the transformer winding from moisture, which will oat on the surface of the
oil. The tank is temporarily depressurized to remove any remaining moisture that
would cause arcing and is sealed against the weather with a gasket at the top.

Figure 1.1: Distribution transformer

Formerly, distribution transformers for indoor use would be lled with a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) liquid. Because these liquids persist in the environment and
have adverse e ects on animals, they have been banned. Other reresistant liquids
such as silicones are used where a liquid lled transformer must be used indoors.
Cer-tain vegetable oils have been applied as transformer oil these have the
advantage of a high re point and are completely biodegradable in the environment.
Polemounted transformers often include accessories such as surge arresters or
protective fuse links. A selfprotected transformer includes an internal fuse and surge
arrester other transformers have these components mounted separately outside the
tank. Polemounted transformers may have lugs allowing direct mounting to a pole,
or may be mounted on crossarms bolted to the pole. Aerial transformers, larger than
around 75 kVA, may be mounted on a platform supported by one or more poles.A
threephase service may use three identical transformers, one per phase.
Transformers designed for belowgrade installation can be designed for periodic
submersion in water. Distribution transformers may include an o oad tap changer to

allow slight adjustment of the ratio between primary and secondary voltage, to bring
the customer voltage within the desired range on long or heavily loaded lines.

Padmounted transformers have secure locked and bolted grounded metal enclosures to
discourage unauthorized access to live internal parts. The enclosure may also in-clude
fuses, isolating switches, loadbreak bushings, and other accessories as described in
technical standards. Padmounted transformers for distribution systems typically range
from around 100 to 2000 kVA, although some larger units are also used. [4]

1.2

Lightning and switching surge voltage

Both lightning and switching surge voltages are large magnitude traveling
waves, which travel at the speed of light. The distribution transformer is designed
and manufactured with a user-speci ed basic impulse level (BIL) rating. The BIL
rating determines the level of lightning and switching surge voltages that the
transformer can withstand without damage.
Surge and transient voltage Surge are temporary rise in voltage and current on
an electrical circuit. Their voltage ranges are greater than 2000 volt and current
ranges are greater than 100 ampere. Typical rise time is in the 1 to 10 microsecond
range. Transient or surge is the most common power problems and its compacts are
caused signi cant damages such as electrical or electronic equipments failure,
frequent downtime, lost data, lost time and business downtime, etc.
In general a surge is a transient wave of current, voltage or power in an
electric circuit. In power systems in particular and this is likely the most common
context that we relate surges to a surge, or transient, is a subcycle overvoltage
with a duration of less than a half-cycle of the normal voltage waveform. A surge
can be either positive or negative polarity, can be additive or subtractive from the
normal voltage waveform, and is often oscillatory and decaying over time.
Surges, or transients, are brief overvoltage spikes or disturbances on a power
waveform that can damage, degrade, or destroy electronic equipment within any
home, commercial building, industrial, or manufacturing facility. Transients can
reach amplitudes of tens of thousands of volts. Surges are generally measured in
microseconds.
Every piece of electrical equipment is designed to operate at a speci ed
nominal voltage such as 120 Vac, 240 Vac, 480 Vac, and so on. Most equipment
is designed to handle minor variations in their standard nominal operating
voltage however, surges can be very damaging to nearly all equipment. [3]

Figure 1.2: E ects of lightning surges

1.2.1 Sources of Surges/Transients

A common source for surges generated inside a building are devices that switch power
on and o . This can be anything from a simple thermostat switch operating a heating
element to a switch-mode power supply found on many devices. Surges that originate
from outside the facility include those due to lightning and utility grid switching.
Transients can originate from inside (internal sources) or outside (external sources)

a facility:
1. Internal Sources:
(a) Switching of Electrical Loads
The switching (on and o ) and operation of certain electrical loads whether
due to intentional or unintentional operations can be a source of surges in the
electrical system. Switching surges are not always immediately recog-nized
or disruptive as larger externally generated surges but they occur far more
frequently. These switching surges can be disruptive and damaging to
equipment over time. They occur as part of every day operations.

Sources of switching and oscillatory surges include:

i. Contactor, relay and breaker operations
ii. Switching of capacitor banks and loads (such as power factor
correc-tion)
iii. Discharge of inductive devices (motors, transformers, etc.)
iv. Starting and stopping of loads
v. Fault or arc initiation
vi. Arcing (ground) faults
vii. Fault clearing or interruption
viii.Power system recovery (from outage)
ix. Loose connections
(b) Magnetic and Inductive coupling
Whenever electric current ows, a magnetic eld is created. If this magnetic eld extends to a second wire, it will induce a voltage in that wire.
This is the basic principle by which transformers work. A magnetic eld
in the primary induces a voltage in the secondary. In the case of
adjacent or nearby building wiring, this voltage is undesirable and can
be transient in nature.
Examples of equipment that can cause inductive coupling include:
Eleva-tors, heating ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC
with variable frequency drives), and uorescent light ballasts, copy
machines, and com-puters.
(c) Static electricity
Electrostatic discharge (ESD) phenomena, or static, can generate electromagnetic elds over a broad range of frequencies up to low gigahertz
range. The term ESD event includes not only the discharge current, but
also the electromagnetic elds and corona e ects before and during a
discharge. ESD results in a sudden transfer of charge between bodies of
di ering electrostatic potentials. ESD induced onto the electrical
distribution con-tains a great deal of high-frequency noise.

An electrostatic discharge event can cause equipment malfunction as

well as physical damage. Equipment malfunction might include
corruption of data and equipment lock-ups. Physical damage might
include equipment damage and even loss of life. In order to achieve
meaningful ESD immu-nity, the design of an entire system must be
considered, both for direct discharge and for elds.
The minimum voltage necessary for a person to be aware of his or her
involvement in an electrostatic discharge is approximately 3000 V.
Never-theless, electrostatic discharges that occur below this threshold
of human perception can contain su cient energy to cause upset or
damage to elec-tronic equipment. In fact, the faster initial slopes of
current waveforms that result from ESD events at these low voltage
levels can make such discharges even more disruptive than ESD
events originating at higher voltages.
The voltage on a human body or on a mobile object can vary widely from
one environment to another. It can remain well below 5 kV in controlled
humidity situations involving only antistatic or static dissipative materi-als.
It can range from 5 kV to 15 kV in low humidity environments with
synthetic materials. The equipment victim is in close proximity to the ESD
event and can be upset or damaged by the electromagnetic elds
generated by the discharge between the intruder and the receptor.
2. External Sources:
The most recognizable source of surges generated outside the facility is
light-ning. Although lightning can be somewhat infrequent in certain
regions, the damage it can cause to a facility can be catastrophic. Other
areas are subjected to thunderstorms and lightning much more frequently.
The surges that are the result of lightning can either be from direct contact
of the lightning to a facilities electrical system or, more commonly, indirect
or nearby lightning that induces electrical surges onto the power or
communication systems. Either scenario can be immediately damaging to
the electrical system and/or the connected loads.
Other external sources of surges include utility-initiated grid and capacitor bank
switching. During the operation of the electrical grid, the utility may need to
switch the supply of power to another source or temporarily interrupt the ow of
power to its customers to aid in clearing a fault from the system. This is often
the case in the event of fallen tree limb or small animal causing a fault on the
line. These interruptions of power cause surges when the power is
disconnected and then reconnected to the customer loads.
Power quality disturbances can be delivered during the normal operation of the
electric power system. Electric utilities produce electricity from a number of powergeneration facilities and allocate the power to speci c grids of users. Because the
equipment used to produce power runs most e ciently at a constant speed, the
utilities adjust the allocation of power, rather than making constant adjustments to
the power facilitys generation equipment. As utilities switch the supply of power
from one grid to another, power disturbances occur, including transients or spikes,
and under- and over-voltage conditions. These activities will cause transients to be
introduced into a system and may propagate into end-user equipment and may
cause damage or operational upset.

Chapter 2
Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressor (TVSS)
A surge protector (or surge suppressor) is an appliance/device designed to
protect electrical devices from voltage spikes. A surge protector attempts to limit
the volt-age supplied to an electric device by either blocking or by shorting to
ground any unwanted voltages above a safe threshold.
The terms surge protection device (SPD), or transient voltage surge
suppressor (TVSS), are used to describe electrical devices typically installed in
power distribu-tion panels, process control systems, communications systems,
and other heavy-duty industrial systems, for the purpose of protecting against
electrical surges and spikes, including those caused by lightning. Scaled-down
versions of these devices are some-times installed in residential service entrance
electrical panels, to protect equipment in a household from similar hazards.

Figure 2.1: Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors

2.1

Working

Surge protector diverts the excess voltage and current from transient or surge
into grounding wire and prevents it from owing through the electrical and
electronic equipments while at the same time allowing the normal voltage to
continue along its path. This excess energy can cause damages in electrical and
electronic equipments, process control instruments equipments.

Figure 2.2: Working of Transient Voltage Surge

Suppressors Two main functions of the surge protector are
1. Provides low impedance path for conducting a lot of current to eliminate the
extra voltage.
2. Absorbs and diverts the extra current to ground for protecting the e ects of
transient or surge

2.2

Surge Protector Location

Surge Protector is typically applied at several points throughout a facility. ANSI/IEEE C62.411991 standards de ne three categories of surge level, based on
strate-gic location within a facilities wiring network, where power problem may be
encoun-tered. They classify the surge protector type, the potential impact of
transient surge or spikes, and location as follows:
1. Category A: De ned as any outlets and long branch circuits extending more
than 10 meters (30 ft.) from category B location or 20 meters (60 ft.) from
category C. Surge protector for this location category is applied at the
outlets or individual circuit level for individual protection of a speci c piece of
equipment such as computers, weighting bridges, measuring equipments,
process control equipments and DC power supplies, etc.
2. Category B: De ned as all major subfeeders, bus systems, and short branch
circuits such as distribution panels, industrial busses and feeder systems,
heavy appliance circuits, lighting systems in large building. The protection at
this location is very e ective in suppressing the much more frequent internally
gen-erated transients, everchanging transient conditions, especially, sensitive
equip-ments and equipments which are fed from the substations.

3. Category C: De ned as outside and main service entrance which includes

main supply lines, transformer, service connections, and feeder line to main
service entrance panels, any overhead or subfeeders lines, underground
lines to well pump. This surge protector type is applied to protect against
externally caused power disruptions. This installation will help guard against
lightning strike entering a facility via the power line.

Figure 2.3: Location of Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors

2.3

Challenges to Conventional Technology

1. Poor design parameters and misleading assumptions

Poor mechanical design can lead to one individual suppression component always having to withstand more energy than its neighbors during a surge event.
As a rule, an electrical transient takes the shortest and most conductive path
that is available. In addition, when it goes around corners, it exerts (Lorentz)
forces on the current carrying conductors. The net result is that for large
transient currents, such as those produced by lightning, TVSS devices can fail
violently or even explode as these forces and energies dissipate through one
component rather than being equally shared by all of the parallel components.

2. Inadequate rating
It is extremely important to properly identify the threatening aspects of transient surge events. Failure to do so results to improperly applied TVSS
equip-ment. TVSS manufacturers routinely make product claims that are
pointless and are not supported by actual testing. They ultimately lead to
the purchase of TVSS equipment that will not perform as anticipated. For
example, man-ufacturers of silicon avalanche diode (SAD) based surge
suppressors routinely boast their products exceptionally fast response time.
They neglect to explain that while that may be true at the component level,
the true response time of the nished suppressor product deteriorates
dramatically after leads are at-tached to the individual suppression
components to allow for their placement on PCBs and as fusing is
incorporated in the suppression circuits to prevent failure modes.
3. Lack of testing or inappropriate testing
Very few claims made by TVSS manufacturers are tested. Most manufacturers
have only limited test equipment and laboratories. TVSS equipment is generally
tested to 10kA 8/20s surge current waveforms. However, the test results are often
extrapolated and quoted in very high overall kA ranges. It is common for TVSS
manufacturers to report their products surge current capacity at 500kA, or even
higher. . Inappropriate testing is often performed while testing parameters and test
results are misquoted. For example, testing to UL 1449 o ers no indication at all
that any useful transient suppression can be obtained.

4. Fusing
The reason for fusing conventional surge suppressors is twofold. One is to
allow the TVSS to protect itself from being damaged by intense surge currents
and two is to preclude the suppressor from starting res should it fail. TVSS
suppression circuits are typically fused to provide a means for the product to
electrically remove itself from the AC power distribution should they be called
upon to conduct surge current values that exceed their capabilities. Fusing, as
it is applied to surge suppression circuits, can certainly be an indication of a
products inadequate surge current handling capability.

5. End of life Failure mode

Even though it is not the best course of action, the electronics industry accepts
the end-of-life for a surge protection component to be an open circuit. Therefore, the failure mode for conventional TVSS components has been routinely
designed towards open circuit conditions. Typically, a fuse is utilized to disconnect the TVSS from the circuit under adverse current conducting situations. It
is alarming that a critical load, which is supposed to be secured by the TVSS,
is left to deal with the full force of the power surge without protection simply
because the protector has managed to protect itself by opening its fuse. Protected equipment loads are better served with surge protectors exhibiting the
exact opposite end-of-life mode. They should be designed towards short circuit
conditions and should they fail, they should do so in a shorted state.

Chapter 3
Strikesorb Surge Protection
Module
The Strikesorb surge protection module is designed to meet the above
requirements. The Strikesorb technology is protected worldwide by several
patents. Strikesorb uses a compressed distribution grade Metal Oxide Varistor
(MOV). The innovative de-ployment of eld proven, large diameter MOVs, allows
Strikesorb modules to provide premium performance under extreme conditions.
Independent test data con rm that a Strikesorb 40 module can withstand 140 kA
strikes without degradation in perfor-mance characteristics. The Strikesorb 80
module can withstand strikes up to 200 kA thus, safeguarding critical electrical
and electronic infrastructure against any poten-tial threat. [1]

Figure 3.1: Strikesorb surge protection module

Strikesorb is a general purpose surge protection module that is used
worldwide in a wide range of applications including telecommunications,
renewable energy, indus-trial, medical, residential and governmental sectors.

3.1

Protector Requirements and Features

The requirements for a reliable surge protector are the following:

1. The protected equipment should never be exposed to damaging
transients/-surges regardless of the condition of the protector.
2. The protector should operate in such a way as to preclude safety risks with
regard to smoke, re, and explosion without sacri cing any of its performance
capabilities.

3. The reliability and lifetime of the protector has to be greater than those of
the equipment being protected.
4. The protector should be able to continuously protect critical equipment
under all abnormal line conditions and at all times.
These requirements mean that the protector should have the following features:

1. No ammable material should be used in the protector. For example, no

potting material.
2. The protector must be physically robust in order to sustain high amounts of
energy without disintegrating.
3. The protector should not require any internal fusing in order to meet the UL1449 safety standard.
4. The protector should become a short circuit at its end of life.
5. The protector should exhibit a life span of several years in a surge exposed
environment without maintenance requirements.
6. The protector should be able to dissipate absorbed transient/ surge energy
safely without undue heating.
7. The protector should exhibit minimal internal dynamic resistance and
minimal inductance.

3.2

Protector Mechanical Design Features

Each Strikesorb protector (Fig. 1) is constructed with a single 40 mm or 80 mm

distribution grade zinc oxide varistor that is housed inside a robust, hermetically
sealed metal casing. No potting or other ammable materials are utilized by the
protector or contained within the casing. The zinc oxide varistor is placed between
two electrodes that exhibit high thermal capacity and conductivity characteristics.

Figure 3.2: Construction of Strikesorb surge protection module

The disk is not rigidly placed between the electrodes, but held under a high
pressure to overcome the Piezoelectric and Lorentz forces that occur during surge

events. The heat generated within the zinc oxide varistor disk e ciently dissipates
into the environment.
The high thermal conductivity of the materials used ensures that any temperature
rise within the varistor is minimal. Strikesorb modules are designed to remove 1000
times more thermal energy than conventional SPD products. The lower temperature
rise in the Strikesorb suppression component dramatically extends the product life
expectancy and prevents the zinc oxide material ageing. [1]

3.2.1 Zinc Oxide Varistor

The Metal Oxide Varistor or MOV for short, is a voltage dependant resistor in
which the resistance material is a metallic oxide, primarily zinc oxide (ZnO)
pressed into a ceramic like material. Metal oxide varistors consist of
approximately 90% zinc oxide as a ceramic base material plus other ller
materials for the formation of junctions between the zinc oxide grains.

Figure 3.3: Zinc Oxide Varistor

As with the normal varistor, the metal oxide varistor starts conduction at a speci c
voltage and stops conduction when the voltage falls below a threshold voltage.

3.3

Protector Electrical Design Features

Strikesorb is designed to accommodate minimal inductance connections while

at the same time maximizing the capacitance of the varistor disk.

Figure 3.4: Current distribution in (a)Conventional varistor, (b)Strikesorb

module

Its design is characterized by coaxial symmetry that results in a device that

ex-hibits minimal impedance characteristics and minimal response time.
Conventional varistors that utilize thin wire leads and even thinner electrodes
are plagued by current hogging phenomena resulting from their uneven current
paths. Their surge current capacity decreases and they are prone to developing
hot spots that ultimately cause them to fail as they are stressed by surge events.
On the other hand, the thickness of the electrodes employed by Strikesorb
ensures that the current conducted through the varistor is planar/parallel
(uniform), consequently no current hogging occurs.
In conventional MOV components, the lengths of the current paths that are employed by the individual current laments vary considerably, leading to the following e
ects: current owing towards the outer edge of the varistor is restricted due to more
resistive current paths in that region. The transit time of the current traveling through
the longer paths is higher. The MOVs surge current capacity is reduced below the
levels it should be able to support. Current conducted through the com-ponent is
more intense between the connection pins, as it is unable to take advantage of the
total volume of the varistor. As a consequence, higher clamping voltages are
realized as the MOV deteriorates and until it ultimately fails. On the other hand,
Strikesorb overcomes this de ciency by essentially equalizing all current conduction
path lengths to allow evenly distributed current ow throughout the entire conduc-tive
surface area of its zinc oxide varistor. For all practical purposes, the Strikesorbs
varistor conducts current evenly at all frequencies and utilizes the entire disk surface
volume during current conduction conditions.

3.4

Electrical Veri cation Testing

Reputable independent laboratories test reports indicate that Strikesorb veri es

all its safety and performance claims. The testing has been conducted in
accordance with established and broadly accepted international standards
including, but not limited to, those de ned by IEEEC62, IEC61643-1 (EN 6164311), UL-1449 3rd edition and NEMA-LS1.
Strikesorb is currently the only UL Recognized SPD that has successfully
gone through the complete revised testing procedure of the new UL-1449 3rd
edition stan-dard, including abnormal overvoltage testing at low and intermediate
short circuit currents up to 1000 A rms for 7 h.
In order to prove their worthiness, Strikesorb modules were initially deployed
in environments that were plagued by the worst possible power quality, worst
case light-ning scenarios and where conventional SPD products were unable to
survive. This strategy resulted with a signi cant number of units being put into
service throughout South America, Southeast Asia, and in notoriously
troublesome locations in North America and Europe. Due to enormous success
stories that were reported back from the eld, Strikesorb modules were deployed
on a much wider scale, with hundreds of thousands of protectors currently
installed worldwide. After several installations worldwide, the eld experience has
proved that Strikesorb is able to withstand large amounts of surge energy while
preserving its performance characteristics for several years and after multiple
lightning and power surge events. [1]

3.5 The
System

Rayvoss

Transformer

Protection

The proposed Rayvoss transformer protection system uses three

Strikesorb 80 modules for the protection between the phases and the ground.

Figure 3.5: Rayvoss Transformer Protection System

It is installed parallel to the low voltage (LV) terminals of the transformer,
according to the connection diagram.

Figure 3.6: Connection diagram of Rayvoss transformer protection

system.
Moreover, medium voltage (MV) surge arresters are installed at the MV
terminals of the distribution transformer. Field experience has shown that if only
MV surge arresters are installed, without Rayvoss protection (SPD at LV), then
the peak of the overvoltage arising at or transferred to the LV side of the
distribution transformer may exceed the corresponding insulation level.
On the other hand, the simultaneous installation of MV surge arresters at the
MV side and SPD (Rayvoss protection) at the LV side signi cantly reduces the LV
side overvoltages.These modules protect against overvoltages and overcurrents

that appear in the three phases relative to the ground, which are caused either
by lightning surges or by endogenous factors of the power supply system, e.g.,
switching surges.

Figure 3.7: Rayvoss protection system being installed at a distribution

transformer

Each Strikesorb 80 module o ers 200 kA protection from direct lightning

stroke current (waveform 8/20 according to NEMA LS-1) and 25 kA protection
from indirect lightning stroke current (waveform 10/350 according to IEC 1643-1
class I). The above modules, together with special type fuses (VSP) that can
withstand lightning currents, are placed within an IP65 environmental protected
metallic board with dimensions 400 X 400 X 200 mm.

Chapter 4
Implementation of Rayvoss
Transformer Protection system
The proposed protection equipment has been installed at 100 distribution
transform-ers (sample) of the Public Power Corporation (PPC) of Greece.

4.1

Historical Data of Transformer Failures

The Table 4.1 shows the historical data of eleven years (2000 to 2010), for the
failures due to lightning and switching surges of the 100 distribution transformers
(sample), and Table 4.2 presents the statistics for the failures of Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Yearly failures due to lightning and switching surges in the sample of
100 transformers before the installation of the proposed protection system.

Table 4.2: Statistics of transformer yearly failures

The high rate of failures due to lightning and switching surges (8.36 average
transformer failures per year in the sample of 100 transformers during the
eleven-year period of historical data) is a real challenge for any protection
system; that is why, after agreement with PPC, the proposed protection system
was decided to be installed in January 2012 at this sample of 100 transformers.
Among the 92 failures of Table 4.2, 75 failures are due to lightning surges and the
rest 17 failures are due to switching surges. It should be noted that the selected sample
of 100 transformers during the eleven year period faced in total 115 failures, out of which
92 failures are due to lightning and switching surges, while the rest 23 failures

are due to other reasons (short circuits, overloads, internal transformer faults, and
other causes). Consequently, lightning and switching surge related failures are quite
signi cant as compared to other failures for the selected sample of 100 transformers.

4.2 Failure Estimation of Transformers Without

the Proposed Protection System
Three methods are used for the Failure estimation of transformers without the
pro-posed protection system namely,
1. Monte Carlo Simulation
2. Poisson Distribution
3. Binomial Distribution
1. Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo simulation(or Monte Carlo experiments) are a broad class of
com-putational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain
numeri-cal results. They are often used in physical and mathematical
problems and are most useful when it is di cult or impossible to use other
mathematical meth-ods. Monte Carlo methods are mainly used in three
distinct problem classes: optimization, numerical integration, and
generating draws from a probability distribution.
The data for the Monte Carlo simulation are the following: the average
value of failures per year is 8.36, standard deviation of failures per year is
2.14 the constant sample size is 100 transformers, and the number of
simulation years is 1000 years, which is a very common selection in order
the Monte Carlo simulation to provide reliable results.It is assumed that the
transformer failures follow the normal distribution.
2. Poisson Distribution
The Poisson distribution is a discrete probability distribution for the counts
of events that occur randomly in a given interval of time (or space).
The data for the Poisson distribution is the average value of failures per
year is 8.36.
3. Binomial Distribution
The data for the binomial distribution is the average value of failures per
year and per transformer is 0.084 and the sample size is 100 transformers.

Table 4.3: Transformer failure cumulative probability (%)computed without the

pro-posed protection system

Figure 4.1: Transformer failure cumulative probability computed without the proposed protection system.
Fig. 4.1 presents a graphical comparison of the results (yearly failures
probability) of the three methods (Monte Carlo simulation, Poisson distribution,
and binomial distribution). In Fig. 4.1, the straight line parallel to the horizontal
axis shows the 5% limit, which corresponds to the 0.05 signi cance level, or
equivalently to the 95% statistical certainty.

4.3 Failure
Estimation
of
Transformers
Equipped with the Proposed Protection System
For the Monte Carlo simulation method, the cumulative probability for the
yearly failures to be from 0 to 3 is 2.112% (which is smaller than the signi cance
level of 5%),the proposed protection is signi cant. Similarly, from Table 4.3, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1. According to the binomial distribution, if the yearly failures are from 0 to 3,
then the proposed protection is signi cant, because for number of failures
from 0 to 3, the cumulative probability of the binomial distribution (2.135%)
is less than the signi cance level of 5%.

2. According to the Poisson distribution, if the yearly failures are from 0 to 3,

then the proposed protection is signi cant, because for number of failures
from 0 to 3, the cumulative probability of the Poisson distribution (3.316%)
is less than 5%.
Consequently, the three di erent methods (Monte Carlo simulation, binomial
dis-tribution, and Poisson distribution) provide the same conclusion: if the yearly
light-ning and surge related failures are from 0 to 3, then the proposed protection
is signi cant.

4.4

Sample size

A sample size 'n' is selected to ensure with 95% statistical certainty (namely with
only 5% risk that if the average value of failures per year and per transformer with
the proposed protection is 0.03, then the control is selected to be able to detect
correctly the e ectiveness of the proposed protection in 70% of the cases, The risk
values of a = 0.05 and b = 0.30 are commonly used in the statistical sampling as
very satisfactory for the study of failures of industrial equipment.
Minitab is an easy-to-use, general-purpose statistical software package, covering the basic range of statistical analyses and high-resolution graphics. Used widely
by statisticians, especially in teaching, it also has a relatively simple command structure that allows you to perform complicated analyses using a small number of commands.Based on the above data and requirements, and using the Minitab 16
software package. it is computed that the minimum sample size is 103 transformers.

4.5

Duration of Transformer Monitoring

Using three di erent methods, it was concluded that if the yearly lightning and
surge related failures are from 0 to 3 in the sample of 100 transformers, then the
proposed protection is signi cant. If the yearly lightning and surge related failures
are above three, the answer is given by applying the Monte Carlo simulation.
Table 4.4: Determination of number of monitoring years

Chapter 5
Conclusion
Distribution transformer is a very important equipment that allows the delivery
of electricity with a high degree of capillarity. As a consequence, all of the
conductors of a distribution network become a way for bringing into a transformer
voltage surges, especially those yielded by lightning.The application of low
voltage lightning arresters as an e cient way to shield the transformer against
overvoltages caused by surges of atmospheric discharges.The Rayvoss
transformer protection system is a proposed solution for the problem.
Based on the above study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The proposed protection is e ective with 95% statistical certainty, if, in the
sample of 100 transformers, the lightning and surge related failures are
from zero to three. In this case, one year is needed to monitor the sample
of 100 transformers to draw a statistically safe conclusion for the e
ectiveness of the proposed protection system.
2. Twenty-nine, months after the installation of the proposed protection equipment on the sample of 100 transformers, there are zero lightning and surge
related failures.Thus,the proposed solution constitutes an excellent means
for lightning and surge protection of distribution transformers.

References
[1] P.S. Georgilakis , A.G. Kagiannas . A novel validated solution for lightning
and surge protection of distribution transformers,Electrical Power and
Energy Systems 63 (2014) 373381
[2] IEEE Transformer Committee. Secondary (low-side) surges in distribution
trans-formers. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 1992;7:74656.
[3] Puri JL, Abi-Samra NC, Dionise TJ, Smith DR. Lightning induced failures in
distributed transformers. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 1988;3:1784801
[4] Georgilakis PS. Spotlight on modern transformer design.London: Springer; 2009

[5] Rayvoss
surge
protective
device.
Available
http://www.rayvoss.com [accessed on 10th August 2015].

online

at:

[6] Dugan RC, Kershaw SS, Smith SD. Protecting distribution transformers from
low-side current surges. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 1990;5:1892901.
[7] Dugan RC, Smith SD. Low-voltage-side current surge phenomena in singlephase
distribution transformer systems. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 1988;3: 63747.