SHORT-CIRCUIT WITHSTAND OF T&D COMPONENTS

R.P.P. SMEETS A.G.A. LATHOUWERS

rene.smeets@kema.com andre.lathouwers@kema.com

KEMA T&D Testing Services

The Netherlands

1. SUMMARY

In present day networks for transmission and distribution, the level of maximum short-circuit current
is rapidly rising, creating increasing electro-dynamical and thermal stresses. In the present
contribution, the authors wish to share their experiences in verification of short-circuit withstand
through testing.
The following topics will be highlighted:
Power transformers: the large experience of transformer short-circuit withstand is discussed. It is the
author's experience that 30% of the transformers fail upon first access of the test-site. Test-methods
and test results will be presented.
Internal arcs: A typical thermal stress related to a fault is the effect of internal arcs in switchgear
panels and GIS compartments. Backgrounds of the test, interpretation, result and failure modes and
statistics will be presented. Also, the problem is discussed how to deal with SF6 filled metal enclosed
switchgear, causing great environmental challenges in internal arc testing.
Finally, guidelines will be given on the allowable amount of supply voltage reduction in the
performance of these tests.
Few other components will be highlighted as well, among others:
Busducts: conductors, connecting power plant generators with downstream components have to
endure extraordinary large short-circuit forces during a fault. Adequate testing can guarantee survival
of this crucial connecting component.
Disconnectors: Disconnectors need to conduct short-circuit current in closed position. Various
experiences from testing, as well as failure modes will be presented.

2. SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT ASYMMETRY

2.1 Asymmetrical current

The wave shape of short-circuit current right after its initiation is strongly determined by the X/R ratio
of the circuit (part) in which it arises. This quantity is related to dc time constant ( ) and power factor
(cos ) in the following way:
1 X X
= ; cos = cos arctan
2 f R R
with f the power frequency, X circuit reactance and R resistance.

The effect of the DC time constant is the appearance of a DC component with a time constant of decay
, superimposed on the symmetrical AC current, the latter entirely determined by driving voltage and
short circuit impedance. As a result, the sum of the two components has an asymmetrical shape, the
peak value of which can be substantially larger than without DC component. This is illustrated in fig.
1, where the interruption of a three-phase asymmetrical fault current is shown. The maximum
asymmetrical current peak (case of fig. 1) will appear when short-circuit current starts at a zero
crossing of the system voltage.
It is this high peak value that causes 2.0
electro-dynamical stresses to all circuit asymmetrical peak = APF/1.42
1.5 R
parts in which the asymmetrical current R
flows. In addition, there are thermal 1.0 S
stresses due to the resistive heating of
0.5
conductors. T
0.0

The asymmetrical current peak factor -0.5

(APF) is an important quantity in this S
respect and is defined as follows: -1.0
T
i -1.5
APF = 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
I rms
time (ms)
with the peak value of asymmetrical
current and IRMS the RMS value of the Fig.1: Asymmetrical three-phase fault current (maximum asymmetry in
AC current. phase R) and dc component (dashed) for an ungrounded 60 Hz circuit
In table 1, values of APF are tabulated with = 45 ms.
for power frequencies of 60 and 50 Hz
and various relevant dc time constants.

Both thermal and electro-dynamical stress are proportional to the square of momentary (short-circuit)
current, making it necessary to adapt the
design of equipment as well as its lay-out f req. (ms) 45 60 90 120 133
in a station to the maximum value of
APF. Also, testing of equipment, as X/R 14.1 18.8 28.3 37.7 41.8
50 Hz
described in the various standards should APF 2.55 2.61 2.68 2.72 2.73
take into account current asymmetry X/R 16.9 22.6 33.9 45.2 50.1
without compromise. 60 Hz
APF 2.59 2.65 2.70 2.73 2.74
Table 1
2.2 Tendencies of increasing DC time
constant

Partly initiated by economical considerations, DC time constants have increased in recent years [1],
[2] because of:
the introduction of local energy generation within networks. Herewith, the large values of
(sub)transient time constants of the generator become manifest;
tendency to use low-loss transformers (smaller copper losses, leading to a decrease of resistance,
thus to higher DC time constants);
installation of power transformers with high short-circuit reactance in order to reduce the number
of standard voltage levels in systems at the expense of larger tapping capability to reduce voltage
drop (larger short-circuit reactance leading to higher DC time constant);
a move towards the use of transmission lines with larger cross sections and more conductor
bundles in order to expand transport capability of existing lines (the transmission lines at UHV
levels > 800 kV have DC time constants > 100 ms);
greater use of reactive components for short circuit limitation (e.g. reactors), often used as a
solution to postpone the investment of switchgear with higher short-circuit current breaking
capability.

As a result, asymmetrical peak current has increased accordingly.

This has led to the introduction of alternative time constants (besides the traditional = 45 ms) in the
relevant IEC standard for circuit breakers (IEC 62271-100):
120 ms for rated voltages 52 kV, generally for transformer dominated networks
60 ms for rated voltages from 72,5 kV up to and including 420 kV
75 ms for rated voltages 550 - 800 kV
120 ms for rated voltages > 800 kV (proposal for future IEC 62271-100 standard)
In the IEEE standard C37.09, a preferred value of 45 ms is also recognized, but any other value,
suggested by the user of the equipment, is acceptable.
In the past, a DC time constant of 45 ms was assumed to be adequate in all cases. This is no longer a
fact.

3. SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT STRESSES TO POWER TRANSFORMERS

The effects of short-circuit currents in transmission and distribution networks for electric energy are
tremendous, both for the equipment and for the stability of the networks. Since short circuits occur quite
often, the short-circuit withstand capability is regarded as belonging to the main characteristics of the
equipment installed. Transformers, like series reactors,
have the ability to limit the short-circuit currents to values
predominantly determined by the transformer's impedance.
The control of the forces and stresses exerted by the same
short-circuit currents inside the transformer must be an
integral part of the design process [3].

With an increase of the short-circuit power during the

years, the most severe short-circuit currents will appear
when the transformer is aged. These short-circuit currents
have to be withstood without impairing the transformer.
Short-circuit withstand capability should also cover the
ability to withstand several full asymmetrical short-circuit
Fig. 2: Buckling: Collapse of the cylindrical
currents in each phase and in each representative tap winding shell (photo ABB [5])
position without impairing the transformer suitability for
normal service.

One of the methods for purchasers to assess the short-circuit current withstand capability of
transformer is to conduct a design review, based on calculation results only. CIGRE issued guidelines
on this method [4]. However, serious limitations of this method have been explained [5, 6, 7, 8, 9], as
well as the possibilities to achieve a higher degree of reliability with respect to short-circuit withstand
capability through full-scale testing in accordance with the international standards [10, 11, 12, 13].

3.1. Short-circuit stresses in the windings

By means of all the short-circuit currents calculated for the different network conditions the electro-
dynamic stresses can in principle be determined.
The electro-dynamic forces are proportional to the vector product of the current in a conductor and the
magnetic induction at that location. The magnetic induction in and between the coils of a winding is
varying in the radial direction as well as in the axial direction of the windings.
Also, from the centre towards the ends of the coils, the direction of the magnetic induction is varying
from predominantly axial to predominantly radial, influencing in this way the radial and axial stresses.
The magnitude of the leakage fluxes is dependent on the currents and current directions in the different
coils forming one phase. Such coils are for instance the coils forming one or two LV-windings, the
HV-windings, the tapping windings and the compensation windings (when applied).

The electro-dynamic forces appear in the radial direction (pushing the inner core inwards and the outer
coil outwards) and in the axial direction (with a pulsating compression force). Related to the
conducting material the forces can be translated into stresses: radial stresses and tangential stresses of
a tensile or compressive nature. The stresses then can be compared with the material's characteristics
in order to judge the probability of over-stressing the conductors and its supports.
Radial stresses regularly lead to buckling of the winding (see fig. 2), axial and radial forces have been
observed to result in spiraling (see fig. 3) and/or tilting.
The electro-dynamic stresses are varying in time and space. By means of simplifications it is possible to
calculate approximately the highest stresses that occur. The simplifications are: disregard of the influence
of the other phases on the magnetic fields in a certain winding, calculate
the forces and stresses for the current peaks and RMS values only,
consider the windings as rigid (i.e. without any flexibility or settling
effects), consider the coils as circular symmetrical, etc. The most onerous
circumstances can be selected by such calculations and simulations.
The transient mechanical behaviour of the windings (natural frequencies,
damping, non-linear effects) and the production tolerances (tolerances in
materials, processing, assembling, etc.) make it very complicated to
exactly simulate the winding's behaviour. At the design stage extra
margins are implemented to cover such effects.

3.2. Test practice

Two methods of applying the short-circuit are defined in the standards: the
pre-set and the post-set short-circuit method:

a. Post-set short-circuit (fig. 4 upper). With the post-set method the

transformer is energized at one side (the other side is open) and after the
inrush currents have disappeared the short-circuit is switched in at the Fig. 3: Spiraling: Tangential
shift of the end turns in helical-
other side. Before short-circuiting, the source voltage Us appears at the type windings (photo ABB [7])
terminals of the transformer, so that the source voltage has to be limited in
relation to the transformer voltage Ut. In the IEEE Standards a
maximum source voltage of 110% related to the rated tap
voltage of the transformer under test is allowed and in the IEC
standards 115%. Because of the very large power needed, this
method can in practice only be used by test stations that are fed
directly from the power grid. The advantages of post-set testing
are:
representative of the real network situation Fig 4: post-set (upper) and pre-set testing
accurate control of peak value of asymmetrical current is
easier than in the pre-set situation (see below), especially if the transformer under test is fed through a
short-circuit transformer and the make switch is placed upstream at generator voltage.

b. Pre-set short-circuit (fig. 4 lower). With the pre-set method one side of the transformer is short-
circuited before the application of the voltage. The source voltage Us may differ to a large extent from
the transformer voltage Ut, as long as the required short-circuit current flows. With the pre-set method
the short-circuit current is superimposed on the inrush current, but, thanks to the short-circuited LV
windings between the core and the energized winding, the inrush current is not comparable with a
normal inrush current or the inrush current of the post-set method.

Single phase testing methods. Three-phase transformers should preferably be tested three-phase. In case
the voltage range is not sufficient or the short-circuit power is not enough, the testing authorities may use
single-phase testing instead of three-phase testing. Like with three-phase testing, at each test one phase is
subjected to the specified (peak) current value. During later tests the other phases are subjected to the
required current.
A much more realistic approach is the 1.5 phase method, that (unlike pure single phase methods), takes
into account the dynamic interaction between the phase windings. With the 1.5 phase method, the phase
under test is connected in series with the other two phases, which are connected in parallel.
The currents in the two parallel connected phases are 50% of the specified three-phase value. At the
moment of the peak in the phase, tested with 100% current, the current in the other two phases has equal
value (1.28 pu) and polarity as would be in a three-phase test. Only half the power (single-phase power)
is required from the test station compared to three-phase testing.
3.3 KEMA's experience on short-circuit current withstand 1996 2009

Having available 8400 MVA of direct generator-fed short-circuit power (world's largest), KEMA can
test transformers up to very high MVA and kV ratings. Thanks to the generators, there is a good match
of supply voltage with test-object, as well as sufficient time constant, and availability of power supply,
which is not always the case in test stations that are supplied by the grid.

An evaluation is made of short-circuit test 40

results in the 14 year period 1996-2009. The initially not OK
tests are performed in accordance with IEC 32

number of transformers
initially OK
standard or IEEE standards on transformers
24
with power 25 - 440 MVA and voltage 20 -
500 kV. 16

The population includes single-phase and 8

three-phase transformers, auto-transformers,
0
step-up -, railway-, auxiliary- and three- 25-50 50-100 100-200 >200
winding transformers, 16 2/3, 50 and 60 Hz MVA (rated)
transformers, YD-, DY-transformers and
Fig.5: Initial failure rate for various ranges of MVA rating
YY autotransformers.
The largest transformers tested are 250
MVA single-phase and 440 MVA three- 36

phase. 32 initially not OK

number of transformers

28 initially OK
24
In detail, the test-experience is as follows:
20
16
During the past 14 years, in total 133 times a 12
test access for a transformer larger than 25 8
MVA (119 transformers from which 14 are 4
re-tested) has been counted: 0
86 Transformers showed no problem at 20-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 >400
kV (rated)
the test-site. These transformers initially
passed the short-circuit test. The final Fig. 6: Initial failure rate for various ranges of kV (primary) rating
test-result is not always known because
there was not always KEMA
involvement in the subsequent routine tests, the inspection and the identification. In four cases,
routine testing and/or visual inspection at the manufacturers site revealed an unacceptable problem
that was not detected during short-circuit testing and its assessment. In total, 57 transformers were
inspected at the manufacturer's site.
33 Transformers showed a problem due to short-circuit stresses that became immediately apparent at
the test site. Mostly, this problem was an unacceptable increase of short-circuit impedance due to the
short-circuit stress, but a range of other more evident problems also occurred.
14 Transformers from the latter group had been re-tested after modification in the factory and did not
show a problem at the test site at the re-test.

From these results, an initial failure rate is defined as the ratio of test objects that resulted in failure to
pass the test at first access (33 transformers) and the total number of transformers (119). Thus, the initial
failure rate is 28%.

This is in the same order as the experience reported by another major test laboratory, that reports a
failure rate of 20-25% out of 20 units > 100 MVA [14]. Other sources [15] state an overall failure rate of
23% for a total of 3934 tests.
In figs. 5 and 6 results are shown, differentiated in both power- and voltage class, not clearly showing a
tendency of initial failure dependency on power or voltage.
In fig. 7, the testing volumes and failure rates are indicated of tests at KEMA (>= 25 MVA). As can be
seen, there is a significant increase in testing need in recent years. The overall tendency of failure rate is
slowly decreasing in time, insofar the small population allows such a conclusion.

Commonly, the reason of not passing 18

short-circuit tests is because the winding 16 initially not OK

number of transformers
14
reactance change (usually an increase) is 12
initially OK

larger than specified in the standards. 10

8
A wide variety of defects are revealed 6

such as: 4
2
Axial clamping system: Looseness of 0
force in axial clamping, of axial 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
year
compression force, of axial supporting
spacers and of top and bottom Fig. 7: Initial failure rate during the past 14 years 1996 - 2009
insulating blocks;
Windings: Axial shift of windings, buckling, spiraling of windings (helical or layer winding);
Cable leads: Mechanical movement, for instance from tap changer to regulating windings; deformed
or broken leads, outward displacement and deformation of exit leads from inner windings; broken
exit leads;
Insulation: Crushed and damaged conductor insulation; displacement of vertical oil-duct spacers;
dielectric flashover across HV-winding or to the tank; displacement of pressboard insulation; tank
current due to damaged conductor insulation;
Bushings: Broken or cracked LV-bushings;
Enclosure: Spraying of oil, exhaust of hot gases, evaporated oil, measurement of current to enclosure.

In the cases (the majority) that the reactance change is within the tolerances set by the standards, it is
KEMA's observation that (visual) inspection only rarely (approx. 5% of the cases) still leads to rejection
of a certificate. Nevertheless, visual inspection is necessary, because deformations and displacements in
supporting structures, clamping systems, insulation materials, winding exit leads, external connections
from the coils to the tap-changer and within the on-load tap-changer can not be detected by the reactance
measurements only.
Defects to the voltage regulation winding, could in several cases by unveiled by careful inspection of the
pattern of reactance variations after each short-circuit tests. Later, by visual inspection, such defects
came evident [16].

The authors conclude that the reactance variation is a very good tool to assess short-circuit withstand
capability right after the short-circuit test.
KEMA's experience with the short-circuit reactance measurements is that for power transformers a
variation of more than 1.0% indicates a large deformation in one or more coils. Also a gradually
increasing variation during the short-circuit tests, although in total not more than 0.5% to 1.0%, indicates
a progressive movement of winding conductors. Variations of the reactance values between the short-
circuit tests in an unusual way are an indication of large flexibility of the windings.

4 SHORT CIRCUIT WITHSTAND OF METAL ENCLOSED SWITCHGEAR

A fault inside metal enclosed switchgear will lead to an internal arc. Internal faults inside metal-
enclosed switchgear can occur in a number of locations and will lead to internal arcs.
Internal arcs initiate various physical phenomena. The arc energy resulting from an arc in any
insulating medium within the enclosure will cause an internal overpressure and local overheating
which will result in mechanical and thermal stressing of the equipment. Moreover, the materials
involved may produce hot decomposition products, either gaseous or vaporous, which may be
discharged to the outside of the enclosure, and endanger personnel or general public.
Relevant tests are defined in the IEC standard IEC 62271-203 [17] (for GIS), IEC 62271-200 [18], 201
[19], and IEEE guide C37.20.7 [20] (for metal/insulation enclosed switchgear).

GIS > 52 kV (IEC 62271-203)

Evidence of internal arc
withstand of enclosure room simulation
against bursting and burn-
through shall be
demonstrated by the manu-
facturer when required by
the user. The IEC standard
allows evidence to consist of
a test or calculations based
on test results performed on
a similar arrangement or a
indicator
combination of both.
Procedures and applications
are described in [21, 22].

Tests shall be carried out

with the normal insulating
gas, usually SF6, at rated
filling density. The
switchgear is considered
adequate if no external
Fig.8: Indicator racks located at front and lateral side of MV panel for internal arc
effect other than the testing
operation of pressure relief
devices occurs within the specified time and if escaping gases are directed so as to minimize the
danger to personnel.
In test practice, because equipment of this voltage class is normally SF6 filled, and release of
(contaminated) SF6 into the environment may not be acceptable, KEMA has the policy that such
tests are performed on GIS (sections) that are contained in a pressure-resistant container of adequate
size.

Metal/insulation enclosed switchgear 52 kV (IEC 62271-200, -201, IEEE C37.20.7)

Internal arc testing of MV metal enclosed switchgear is intended to offer a tested level of protection
to persons in the immediate vicinity of switchgear in the event of an internal arc. Effects from
internal fault arc, such as overpressure acting on covers, doors, inspection windows etc., as well as
the thermal effects of arc(s), arc roots, ejected gas(es) and glowing particles are included. In contrast
to internal arcing in GIS > 52 kV, the relevant IEC standard leaves no possibility to verify internal
arc withstand through calculation, even not based on testing equivalent designs. For this reason, and
because of the generally much easier public accessibility of medium voltage installations compared
to high-voltage installations, internal arc testing of metal enclosed medium voltage switchgear is
very common.

4.1. Standardization status

With the advent of IEC 62271-200 in 2003 a classification (IAC, Internal Arc Classification) is
defined, taking into account various possibilities of accessibility of the switchgear:
Type A: Accessibility by authorized personnel only;
Type B: By general public;
Type C: Installation out of reach (pole mounted switchgear);
For assessment of the thermal effects of the hot gases, expelled from the installation due to pressure
rise from the fault arc, special black cotton cloth indicators (15x15 cm, in a steel frame to avoid
mutual ignition, see fig. 8) are used. The indicators are mounted on a rack (vertically and horizontally)
arranged in a checkerboard pattern, covering 40-50% of the area of the accessible switchgear side, or
of the 3x3 m2 area below the switchgear in case of pole mounted apparatus. The fabric imitates the
clothing of people close to the installation.
An important (the most critical) criterion to pass internal arc tests is the absence of ignition of
indicators by hot gasses. Ignition by glowing particles, however, is allowed, and in order to make a
distinction between the cause of ignition, high-speed video is normally used. However, in many cases,
the real reason of ignition (hot gases or particles) can not be identified.

Depending on the accessibility type, two degrees of flammability of the cotton indicator cloth are
required, expressed in their specific weight (150 g/m2 for type A, 40 g/m2 for type B, C). Indicators
have to be located at all accessible vertical sides of the switchgear, for type A at 30 cm distance and
for type B at 10 cm distance. In addition, horizontal indicators have to be installed in a prescribed way.
In order to represent the flow of expelled hot gases, the room in which the switchgear is to be installed
is simulated with a floor, ceiling and two walls perpendicular to each other (see fig. 8).
The room simulation does not represent the pressure- and temperature rise in the room, but is intended
to represent realistic guidance of exhaust gases directly around the switchgear.

Acceptance criteria to qualify the switchgear for an IAC classification are the following:
Criterion 1: Doors and covers may not open. Deformations may not touch the indicator racks or walls;
Criterion 2: No parts above 60 g may be projected; enclosure must remain intact during arcing;
Criterion 3: Arc may not burn through an accessible side lower than 2 m high;
Criterion 4: Indicators may not ignite due to the effect of hot gasses;
Criterion 5: Connection of enclosure with earthing point remains intact.

4.2. Test result statistics

Results of its internal arc 100%
tests have been analyzed not fulfilled fulfilled
by KEMA. Most recent 80%
statistics are based on 91
tests in 2005 and 2006. It 60%
is KEMA's experience
that in approx. 80% of the 40%
tests all criteria have been
fulfilled. The most pro- 20%
minent failure mode is
related to criterion 4: the
0%
absence of ignition of
1 2 3 4 5 total result
indicators. In 15% of all criterium as specified in IEC 62271-200 A6
tests, indicators ignited.
For comparison, earlier Fig. 9: KEMA's experience with rate of passing criteria of IEC 62271-200 (population:
91 tests in 2005 and 2006)
data (2001-2002 when
IEC 60298 was in use) are also evaluated (from 137 tests): 32% did not fulfill all criteria; also in that
period, in 23% of the tests vertical indicators ignited, and in 11% horizontal ones [23] (IEC 60298
made a distinction between ignition of vertical and horizontal indicators).

4.3. Conditions of current and voltage

The applied voltage should be equal to the rated voltage of the switchgear. In case of test-lab
limitations, internal arc tests can be performed with lower than the rated voltage. This, however at the
following conditions:
1. IEC 62271-200 stipulates that asymmetrical peak value of the short-circuit current should not be
lower than 90% of the peak under rated voltage conditions. The internal arc has a reducing effect
on the asymmetrical peak at reduced (low) voltages. With an arc voltage taken as 700 V calcu-
lations show that a 20 kA internal arc in switchgear with rated voltage between 12 and 36 kV,
when tested in circuits with lower voltages (all with 20 kA), may be subjected to a strongly reduced
 1
asymmetrical peak. This is quantified in fig.
10. Herein, the horizontal axis shows the fraction of prospective peak factor
fraction of rated voltage, used as source
voltage, and vertically the resulting fraction 0.95 36 kV
of the full asymmetrical peak factor (2.55 in
50 Hz circuits). 24 kV
2. In addition, in circuits with lower voltage, 0.9
there is the risk of premature arc extinction,
17.5 kV
which makes the test invalid.
3. AC current must be kept at a constant level 0.85
2.5 prospective peak
actual peak

during the test duration of up to 1 s, and if 2

this is not possible, duration of the test must

1.5
12 kV
1

be extended until the value of idt (taken as 0.8

0.5

being proportional to the arc energy 0

assuming a constant arc voltage) equals the -0.5

specified value (within 0 to +10% testvoltage -1

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
0.75
tolerance). This under the provision that the 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
first three ac half-cycles are as specified and Fig.10: Reduction of prospective asymmetrical peak
current shall not be reduced by more than factor(vert) by arc voltage (700 V) vs test voltage (fraction
of rated voltage, hor.) for4 rated voltages. Inset:
50% of the specified value at the end of the prospective- and reduced current peak
test.
Such calculations, however, can only be performed at hindsight, since arc behaviour cannot be
predicted, and leads to imprecise representation of stresses.

4.4. Nameplate designation and certification

As a result of an internal arc test, IEC classification based on tests is denoted in the nameplate as
follows:
- Classification IAC BFLR ("B" means accessibility type B, "FLR" means the Front, Lateral and Rear
sides have been confronted with indicator racks and passed criterion 4 and the other criteria);
- Internal arc 12.5 kA 0.5 s (means test have been performed with 12.5 kARMS and 0.5 s duration).

KEMA (and other labs belonging to the Short-circuit Testing Liaison) does not issue certificates on
internal arc tests only. Reasons for this are the following considerations:
- Identification of the relevant parameters in the design verification is not clear. A well-defined system
of documentation does not exist yet. Too little is known on what design parameters determine a
positive result of a test
- The results of tests have been found to depend strongly on arc initiation (method, single vs. three-
phase, location) and this, in turn, may depend on application
- There are questions regarding the reproducibility of test results.

4.5 Internal arc testing in SF6 insulated switchgear

The background of having this on the agenda is the present discussion on banning SF6 as filling gas
during internal arc testing of medium voltage SF6 insulated switchgear. In the present standard IEC
62271-200 it is stated (clause A.3.1): "It is permitted to replace SF6 with air at the rated filling
conditions ( 10%)".
From environmental reasons there is a clear motivation for this, since solid (metal-sulphides and -
fluorides) as well as gaseous SF6 decomposition products, especially in the presence of humidity
(SF4, H2S, SO2, HF, CF4, S2F10, S2OF10) are mostly very poisonous. In addition, test-labs wish to
minimize their emission of clean SF6, a greenhouse gas, and certainly polluted SF6.

A series of new tests were performed (KEMA USA), purely aimed at comparing the effects of arcing
in SF6 with air under identical conditions of current, driving voltage, arc duration, geometry, contact
material etc. Test parameters were: arc current 14.2 0.3 kA, driving voltage 15.5 kV and tank
volume 0.53 m3.
4
The following differences arcing volume
between (short-circuit) arcing in
air and SF6 were reported [24]: 3

pressure rise (bar)

a. Arc energy (at constant short
circuit current). In literature there 2
are quite different statements
about the value of SF6 arc voltage
compared to that in air at the 1
same pressure: In some
experiments a lower voltage was exhaust volume
obtained, in others a higher one. 0
0 500 1000 1500
Analyzing these results it seems
time (ms)
to depend mainly on electrode
Fig. 11: Pressure rise in arcing- and exhaust volume for air-filled
geometry. If the arc is somehow
(blue) and SF6 filled (red) arcing volume (1 s arc duration).
stabilized and/or arc bending is
Vertical markers: pressure relief action (diaphragm burst)
impeded, SF6 arc voltage is lower
than in air. On the contrary, if the
arc is allowed to move and bend and especially with strong metal evaporation (e.g. at longer arc
duration), the voltage of SF6 arcs is higher. From this it follows that the arc energy of arcs in air in a
worst-case situation should be regarded as being lower than in SF6.

b. Pressure inside the arc compartment. As shown by several authors the maximum pressure in a
closed arc compartment is higher if it is filled with air instead of SF6. This can be seen in fig. 11,
where it is clear that both rate-of-rise of pressure as well as maximum pressure are higher in the air-
filled container. This effect is true even when the arc energy in SF6 is higher than in air. The reason is
the larger heat capacity of SF6, which compensates the higher arc energy. The smaller heat capacity of
air leads to a faster pressure rise and an earlier burst of the rupture disc.
With a relief opening of the arc compartment the pressure rise is limited. In tendency, the opening will
act at a higher pressure in air due to inertia effects.
From this it follows that the arc compartment will be stressed in comparable or even more severe way
by an arc in air.

c. Exhaust of gases via an intermediate compartment. If the overpressure of the arc compartment is
directly discharged into the environment (room), the hot gas stream will affect the indicators
immediately. However, in general, metal-enclosed switchgear consists of several compartments with
only the "arcing" compartment filled with SF6. In this case, hot SF6 first of all will exhaust to a neigh-
bouring air-filled compartment (intermediate room, e.g. cable compartment, pad mount enclosure)
within the switchgear before leaving it e.g. through fissures. In this case the overpressure within the
intermediate compartment will be lower if the arc compartment is filled with air instead of SF6 (due to
the lower energy content of the heated air). This effect can be seen in fig. 11, where pressure rise in
the air-filled exhaust volume reaches a higher value if the arcing volume is filled with SF6.

5 OTHER T&D COMPONENTS

Apart from the cases described above, high current withstand (with or without arc) is verified also for
the following cases:

a) Surge arresters: the relevant test for the surge arrester is the short-circuit test (formerly referred to
in the IEC standard as "pressure relief test"). Hereby, conditions are created in which an internal
short-circuit is forced by suitable pre-conditioning [25]. As shortly as possible after initiation of an
(internal) fault arc in the arrester body, pressure rise that might cause explosion must be mitigated by
suitable pressure relief measures. This is
explained in fig. 12, showing the expulsion of
the high-current arc outside of the arrester by a
venting system at both terminals of the device.
In case no special venting outlets are built-in,
the venting is through the polymer housing.
IEC describes that the arrester passes the short-
circuit tests if:
there are no ceramic (ZnO, porcelain) frag-
ments heavier than 10 g expelled outside a
defined circumference around the arrester;
the arrester must be able to self extinguish
flames within 2 minutes.

b) Disconnectors: the relevant issue is that
disconnectors have to remain in closed position
at full fault current. KEMA has experience up
to 80 kA for 245 kV disconnectors.
c) Busducts: busducts are the conductors in the
power plants, and may have to endure extreme
currents. KEMA has experience with short-
circuit current testing up to 275 kARMS (three-
phase current) during 0.7 s. Main failure mode
are the insulators, that are observed to be very critically stressed.
Fig 12. Operating principle of porcelain and tubular
design. Left: Arrester in its healthy state.
Middle: Arrester has failed short-circuit, pressure
relief plates open and gas begins to be expelled
through the venting ducts
Right: The two gas streams meet and the internal arc
is commutated safely to the outside. This must
normally occur before the first peak of current approx.
within 5 - 10 ms.

d) Overhead lines and accessories: KEMA has experience with overhead line testing up to 100 kA,
including power arc tests at 100 kA. Power arc tests are tests to verify the integrity of line insulators
under the influence of very severe arcing in the immediate vicinity. The challenge of high-current tests
in which fault arcs are involved is to supply the arc current at sufficient voltage, i.e. a voltage much
higher than the arc voltage. Especially at long arcs (with corresponding high arc voltage, this is a
demanding matter.

e) Complete substations: In some cases, the critical components of stations (disconnectors, busbars,
insulators) are assembled in the laboratory in order to make a representative model of a station. In
various instants, the suitability of an upgrade of short-circuit current from 63 to 80 kA has been
verified.

REFERENCES

[1] CIGRE WG13.04: Specified Time Constants for Testing Asymmetric Current Capability of
Switchgear, Electra, 173, 1997, pp.19 - 31
[2] W.M.C. van den Heuvel, A.L.J. Janssen, G.C. Damstra, "Interruption of Short Circuit Currents in
MV networks with Extremely Long Time Constant", IEE Proc., vol. 136, Pt. C., No. 2, 1989,115 -
119
[3] CIGRE WG 12.19: "The Short-Circuit Performance of Power Transformers", CIGRE Technical
Brochure 209, August 2002
[4] CIGRE WG 12.22: "Guidelines for Consulting Design Reviews for Transformers 100 MVA and
123 kV and above", CIGRE Technical Brochure 204, August 2002.
[5] T. Fogelberg, "Short-Circuit Withstand Capability of Power Transformers", ABB Review 2008
[6] G. Bertagnolli, "Short-circuit Duty of Power Transformers", Book printed on behalf of ABB
Trasformatori Legano (Milano), Italy, 3rd ed. 2006.
[7] A.J.L.Janssen and L.H. te Paske: "Short-Circuit testing experience with large power transformers",
CIGRE SC12 Session 2000, report 12-105.
[8] Macor, G. Robert, D. Girardot, J.C. Riboud, T. Ngegueu, J.P. Arthaud, E. Chemin, " The Short-
 Circuit Resistance of Transformers: The Feedback in France Based on Tests, Service and
Calculation Approaches". CIGRE Conference, paper 12-102, 2000.
[9] N.V.C. Sastry, H. Gupta, "Short-Circuit Test on EHV Transformers", 9th Int. Conf. on Short-
Circuit Currents in Power Systems, Cracow 2000
[10] IEC standard 60076-5: Power Transformers - Part 5: "Ability to withstand short-circuit", 2000
[11] IEEE Std C57.12.00-1993: "IEEE Standard General Requirements for Liquid-Immersed
Distribution, Power, and Regulating Transformers"
[12] IEEE Std C57.12.90-1993, Part I: "IEEE Standard Test Code for Liquid-Immersed Distribution
Power, and Regulating Transformers"
[13] IEEE Std C57.12.90-1993, Part II: "IEEE Guide for Short-Circuit Testing of Distribution and
Power Transformers".
[14] M. de Nigris, "Checking the Short-Circuit Withstand of Power Transformers: CESI perspective",
KEMA Int. Symp. on High Power Testing, Nov. 2004
[15] Mengyun Wang, "1995-1999 Fault Statistics & Analysis All Transformer Type in China",
Electrical Equipment 2(1), 2001
[16] R.P.P. Smeets, L.H. te Paske, "Thirteen Years Test Experience with Short-Circuit Withstand
Capability of Large Power Transformers", 8th Int. Conf. on Transformers, TrafoTech 2010,
Mumbai, India
[17] IEC Int. Standard 62271-203: Gas-insulated metal-enclosed switchgear for rated voltages above
52 kV, 2003.
[18] IEC Int. Standard 62271-200: AC metal-enclosed switchgear and controlgear for rated voltages
above 1 kV and up to and including 52 kV, 2003.
[19] IEC Int. Standard 62271-201: AC insulation-enclosed switchgear and controlgear for rated
voltages above 1 kV and up to and including 52 kV, 2006.
[20] IEEE Standard C37.20.7 IEEE Guide for Testing Medium Voltage Metal-Enclosed Switchgear
for Internal Arcing Faults, 2001.
[21] N. Giao Trinh, "Risk of Burn-Through - a Quantitative Assessment of the Capability of Gas
Insulated Equipment to Withstand Internal Arcs", IEEE Trans. on Pow. Del, vol.7 no.1, 1992
[22] CIGRE WG 23.03, "Pressure Rise in Metal-Enclosed Switchgear of Single Phase Enclosure Type
due to Internal Arc. Evaluation of various International Test Results and Study of Calculation
Procedure", Electra 93, pp.25-52, 1984.
[23] P.P. Leufkens, prepared contribution, Int. Conf. on El. Distr. (CIRED) 2003.
[24] R. Smeets, J. Hooijmans, H. Bannink, H. Barts, P. Leufkens, N. Uzelac P. Milovac, D. Kennedy,
G.J. Pietsch, K. Anantavanich , "Internal Arcing: Issues Related to Testing and Standardization",
CIGRE Conference Aug. 25-29 2008, paper A3-207
[25] R.P.P. Smeets, H. Barts, W.A.van der Linden, L.Stenstrm, "Modern ZnO Surge Arresters under
Short-Circuit Current Stresses: Test Experiences and Critical Review of the IEC Standard", CIGRE
Conference 2004