IX International Symposium on Lightning Protection

26th-30th November 2007 Foz do Iguau, Brazil

IN-SERVICE TESTING AND DIAGNOSIS OF GAPLESS METAL OXIDE SURGE ARRESTERS

Doble TransiNor As Doble TransiNor As Vegard.larsen@doble.no Kjetil.lien@doble.no Sorgenfriveien 9, N-7037 Trondheim, Norway
Abstract - This paper describes testing strategy and risk assessment for on-line in-service diagnosis of gapless metal oxide surge arresters (MOSA) mounted on insulated base. Different case studies are presented to show field experience with procedures for testing, diagnosis and risk assessment based on different levels of available information of the surge arrester and its past history. Risk assessment is based on comparison with baseline readings performed when the arresters were commissioned, on trend analysis over time and/or on comparison with maximum recommended resistive leakage currents specified by arrester manufacturers. This implies that the system gives the necessary information about the arrester conditions in order to utilize their lifetime and to take them out of service before they fail.

Vegard Larsen

Kjetil Lien

increasing number of failures raise the question whether the apparatous has an adequate protection. 2 IN-SERVICE DEGRADATION OF MOSA In service the surge arresters will be exposed to a combination of stress originating both from the network and the local environment. These stress, separately or together in different combinations, may cause ageing or damage to the MOSA-blocks. The main categories of degradations of the surge arresters are: Degradation of the insulation properties Degradation of the protective characteristics

1 INTRODUCTION The surge arrester is known to be a rather in-expensive component in the power system. The destiny of the surge arrester is normally to be specified, purchased, installed and forgotten. For this reason the surge arrester is often overlooked when condition assessment of a substation is considered. The fact is that the arrester is one of the key components for protection of crucial high-voltage apparatus like power transformers, cables etc. against overvoltages. In cases of arrester failures, increased safety risk for the maintenance staff and severe damages to neighbouring apparatus may be the consequences. Aged surge arresters may offer reduced overvoltage protection especially for (old) equipment with degradation of the insulation system. In addition, experience has shown that is far more economic to replace the surge arrester before it fails than to deal with unplanned outage and interruption of supply. Failure statistics from the insurers in the utility market (Marsh and HSB) show a substantial increase of significant transformer events over the last 15 years. HSB reports that about 45% of the failures are due to electrical disturbance out of them 16% caused by lightning.[4] This

There is a whole range of mechanisms that can cause degradation of MOSA or in worst case failure of the MOSA: Sealing defects leading to ingress of moisture Discharges due to surface contamination Overloading due to temporary and transient overvoltages Long term ageing during normal service voltage, e.g. incorrect arrester specification corresponding to actual system voltage and overvoltage stress Internal partial discharge

Overloading typically occur after fault situations with high temporary overvoltages in the network. If the rated voltage of the arrester has been selected too low, this will further increase the risk that the arrester could be overloaded even for the temporary overvoltage that it should be dimensioned to withstand. One consequence of the degradation of the protective characteristic of the MOSA is an increase with time of the resistive component of the continuous leakage current flowing through the arrester will increase with time.

Increase in the resistive leakage current will cause an increase in the power losses and hence increased temperature of the ZnO-blocks. The resistive leakage current may, at a certain instant, exceed a critical limit where the accumulated energy in the ZnO-blocks exceeds the energy capability of the arrester (the energy that can be dissipated to the surroundings). The arrester will then get thermally unstable (thermal runaway) and fail. 3 FAILURE MODES OF SURGE ARRESTERS An arrester failure may appear in different ways: An arrester with porcelain housing may in worst case explode and cause severe damages to the surroundings. Such a failed arrester is shown in Figure 1. In case of arresters with polymer housing, the housing may burst open, but the risk for objects being scattered is more limited. The arrester can be causing an earth fault due to internal flashovers etc. Such arresters can be difficult to locate. Aged or overloaded arresters may show reduced protection against overvoltages, i.e. during severe transient overvoltages, for instance due to multiple lightning strokes or high-energy temporary overvoltages, the arrester can fail before it actually has suppressed the overvoltages. Thus, the apparatus that the arrester is set to protect may be subject to overvoltages that can cause damage to it.

Off-line measurements provide a testing environment with good control of parameters that affect a reliable and repeatable measurement. This approach requires to deenergize the arrester and either use a separate/portable voltage source or take the arrester to a laboratory. Online measurements are usually done on a temporary basis using portable instruments or permanent installed devices. Solutions for on-line continuous measurements are also available. On-line methods have the advantage of providing data to condition assessment without taking the arrester out of service. Off-line tests are employed as well to retest surge arresters that are taken out of service. This combined approach could be used to verify conclusions from on line measurements in cases of doubts [8]. A detailed overview of the different applied methods/indicators can be found in Ref [1, 2]. The most used methods in service are: Visual inspection Surge counters Temperature measurements - thermo vision Leakage current measurements Visual inspection is a common and valuable approach for locating external abnormalities on the surge arrester. Experienced service crew can detect external deterioration of the end fitting seal areas, damage of the arrester housing, surface contamination etc. However, this method gives little or no information about the internal life of the arrester and should be combined with other methods for obtaining a reliable and more complete condition assessment of the surge arrester. Surge counter with/without mA- meters for measurements of the total leakage current are frequently installed on MOSA. These indicators are of no practical use for diagnosis of condition of the arresters [1]. Temperature measurements with infrared thermo vision are a very frequent used multi purpose maintenance technique. This technique is employed for surge arresters as well. Experience shows that thermal imaging can be used to track surge arrester degradation. [2] The measurements are considered only to be indicative with regards to the condition of the arrester because of the sensitivity to detect increased block temperature on the housing surface of the arrester. Leakage current measurements are the most used diagnostic method for assessing the condition of MOSA. A range of different on-line and off-line methods for measurements of leakage current are frequently in use. In the field this current is normally measured only at the earthed end of the arrester. The arrester must be equipped with insulated base and earth leads separated from earth potential to measure the leakage current. For on site in-

Fig.1 - MOSA with porcelain housing that failed catastrophically in service. 4 METHODS FOR MONITORING MOSA DEGRADATION Several different methods/indicators are used by the power industry today for in-service monitoring, diagnosis and assessment of the MOSA. These methods vary greatly both in handling complexity and the level of information provided. The two main approaches are on-line measurements and off-line measurements respectively.

service measurement the method with indirect determination of the resistive leakage current component by means of third harmonic analysis with compensation for harmonics in the voltage (THRC) is providing the best available information quality with respect to diagnostic efficiency [1,3]. 5 ELECTRIC PROPERTIES OF MOSA DETERMINATION OF THE THRC 5.1 Current-voltage characteristic In normal service the arrester is carrying a continuous, but small leakage current, typically in the range of 0.2-3 mA. The leakage current is dominated by a capacitive current component, while the resistive component may be in the range of 5-20 % of the capacitive component. Furthermore, the resistive component is temperature and voltage dependent as seen from the typical currentvoltage characteristic in Figure 2 [1]. Thus, the ZnOelements of the MOSA can be represented by the electric equivalent circuit shown in Figure 3, where the equivalent resistance is nonlinear. The typical operating voltage U (phase-to-ground) for a MOSA is in the range of 50-80% of its rated voltage Ur*. The definitions may vary depending on ANSI/IEEE C62.11 or IEC 99-4 is used.
1,2 1,0 U / Ur 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,01 0,10 1,00 Current - mA AC resistive, +20 C AC resistive, +40 C AC capacitive 10,00 100,00

5.2 Leakage current The current-voltage characteristic shown in Figure 2 is representative for a MOSA when it is stressed by a pure, sinusoidal voltage (fundamental frequency component only). The total leakage current flowing through the ZnOelements can be divided into different components: Fundamental capacitive leakage current component Fundamental resistive leakage current component 3rd harmonic resistive current component due to the nonlinear resistance of the ZnO-elements said to be generated by the arrester itself. The resistive components (1st and 3rd) will at a specific voltage and temperature reflect the operating point at the current-voltage characteristic of the arrester and therefore change with it due to ageing. Both these components can be used as a measure of the arrester condition. For field measurements in three-phase configurations, however, the only practical solution is to determine the 3rd harmonic component of the resistive current. The leakage current for the same arrester can vary within a wide range due to: Harmonic content of the system voltage Actual temperature of ZnO elements caused by both ambient condition and discharges Operating voltage 5.3 Effects of harmonic in the operating voltage Presence of harmonics in the operating voltage can generate a 3rd harmonic capacitive component in addition to the 3rd harmonic resistive component. These two components can not be separated if only the total 3rd harmonic leakage current is measured. This 3rd harmonic capacitive leakage current component may be of the same size or higher than the 3rd harmonic resistive component generated by the arrester itself. The evaluation error in this case may be large. For instance, if the third harmonic content in the voltage is 0.5% or even 1%, the evaluation errors in the third harmonic component will be in the ranges of 50 % and 100% respectively [1]. Furthermore, since the harmonic content varies with the load and thereby with time, it will not be possible to tell if an apparent increase in the resistive leakage current is due to true ageing/increase in the resistive leakage current or simply due to varying harmonic content in the operating voltage, which is of no relevance. Measurements in the transmission grid (300420 kV) have shown that the 3rd harmonic content typically is in the range of 0.2-1%. [5]. A method for compensation (THRC) of the effect of harmonics in the operating voltage is widely used since many years [3].

Fig.2 - Typical current voltage characteristic for a MOSA.

It
0.2-3 mA

Ic

Ir U

10-600A

Fig. 3 - Equivalent electric circuit for a MOSA.

5.4 Effects of actual temperature and operating voltage on the resistive leakage current The influence of the block temperature and the operating voltage can be significant. For this reason it is recommended to measure both the operating voltage and the ambient temperature. Ambient temperature measurements can be used to estimate the block temperature by keeping in mind that the time constant for temperature changes of the blocks are in the range of a few hours. By doing so, the measured values of the resistive leakage current can be recalculated and referred to the so-called standard reference conditions, i.e. to an ambient temperature of 20oC and an operating voltage 0.7 times the rate voltage. In this way, measurements performed at different temperatures and/or operating voltages can be compared directly. Table 1 below illustrates variations of the leakage current with temperature and operating voltage for the same condition of specific MOSA for 420 kV systems. For instance, if two measurements have been performed at ambient temperatures of 0oC and 40oC and the same voltage respectively, the actual measured values may deviate by more than 100% relative to each other, even o though the normalized values referred to 20 C should be the same as long as the arrester condition is unchanged. Table 1 : Influence of temperature and operating voltage on resistive leakage current.
Temperature [oC] Operating voltage [kV] Measured resistive leakage current [A] Measured value normalized to o 20 C and U/Ur=0.7 [A] 0 0 0 20 20 20 40 40 40 380 400 420 380 400 420 380 400 420 31 39 47 47 48 70 67 82 99

II.)

III.)

IV.)

Consider to re-test the MOSA in one or two days to confirm the high reading. If the high reading is confirmed, proceed with step III or IV. The reason for re-testing the MOSA is: The MOSA could have been subject to a transient overvoltage causing a temporary higher current for several hours due to the transient energy absorbed. Monitor the MOSA continuously to follow the development in the resistive leakage current. If the resistive leakage current increases from the already advanced level, proceed with step IV. Contact the arrester manufacturer and consider replacing the arrester due to the high resistive leakage current.

The threshold value for the resistive leakage current will vary from arrester type to arrester type. Threshold values may be established in different ways: Some manufacturers provide data as so-called maximum recommended levels for the resistive leakage current for each arrester type. When maximum recommended values are given, the corrected values for resistive leakage current can be compared directly to the maximum recommended levels. Maximum recommended levels may be in the range of 100-500 A depending on type. If maximum recommended resistive leakage current values are not available from manufactures, risk assessment or threshold values for the arrester type can be established based on experience as follows: o Measure the resistive leakage current just after commissioning. Use this as a baseline reading for the arrester. If the leakage current later increases by a factor larger than 3-4 times the baseline value, this indicates severe ageing. Go to step II) to IV). o Make an individual comparison of all three arresters in a three-phase configuration of the same type. If one arrester shows consistently and significantly higher levels than the other arresters, this might indicates aging of this arrester. o Compare the resistive leakage currents in all arresters of the same type in the grid: First, if one or a few arresters show significantly higher levels than the other arresters of the same type, this may indicate ageing and thereby requires closer followup. Second, if a number of arresters show low values at the same level, these may be used as good/acceptable levels for this arrester type. Third, if one or some arresters have been operating in service for just a couple of years, the measured values are expected to be close to baseline readings for the arresters. In general, it is recommended to conduct testing of the MOSAs after special fault situations and after periods with rough climatic/pollution conditions in the grid.

46

46

46

46

46

46

46

46

46

6 RISK ASSESSMENT AND TESTING STRATEGY For metal oxide surge arresters, the best practice of risk assessment is based on the trend and level of the resistive leakage current at standard reference conditions. If the resistive leakage current exceeds a certain threshold value, use the following steps in the final evaluation/judgement: I.) If the resistive leakage current is unrealistically high, i.e. in the mA-range and many times higher than MOSAs of the same type, check that the arrester base and the earth lead are properly insulated from the arrester pedestal. If the arrester base is non-insulated, circulating currents will be induced in the earth system and cause incorrect measurement of the leakage current.

The following testing strategy is recommended for MOSAs but can be modified based on local experience: I.) Classify all arresters (name of substation, bay/line and phase, nameplate data (manufacturer, type designation, year/date of commissioning etc.), historical data/failure rates, importance etc.) Establish threshold levels/maximum recommended levels for the resistive leakage current for each arrester type. Define action limits (good condition, re-test/monitor continuously, replace) Define measurement regularity (normal, frequent, monitor continuously, after special fault situations) Define verification actions after replacement (laboratory test, dissection/inspection). Evaluate measurements, action limits, regularity of measurements and verification tests to possibly improve the testing strategy. 7 CASE STUDIES Below are four case studies presented to show risk assessment for surge arresters based on THRC leakage current measurements. Further experiences can be found in references [6, 7, 8, 9]. 7.1 Testing of 420 kV MOSAs at transmission utility Single measurements were performed for 24 MOSAs of three different brands at a transmission utility. The results are shown in Figures 4 to 6. The following is concluded: Figure 4: Seven arresters showed low resistive leakage currents, i.e. around 20% of the maximum recommended level. The condition of these arresters is good. One arrester showed approximately 90%, i.e. several times the values of the two neighboring phases as well as the main arrester population. This unit should be monitored closely to check for further increase of current, either with frequent measurements or by continuous monitoring. The four remaining arresters showed values of 45%, 50%, 60% and 70%. Especially the unit showing 70% could be tested more frequently, for instance every six months. Figure 5: Four out of six units showed readings around 20%, i.e. the condition is good. The two last arresters showed readings around 50-55%, i.e. the condition is satisfactory. New measurements should be performed in 1-2 years, depending on the age of the arresters. Figure 6: One arrester showed a resistive leakage current significantly higher than the 5 other arresters. No maximum recommended level was available for this type of arresters, but by looking at the 5 mentioned units, it seems reasonable to assume that the resistive leakage current should not exceed 700 A (ref. the

recommendation in Section 6). If the insulated base and the insulation of the arrester earth wire are checked and found satisfactory and there is no indication of temporary heating due to transients, the arrester should be replaced as soon as possible. The five other arresters are in good/satisfactory condition.
Resistive leakage current in percent of max. recommended (100%) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Arrester number Bay 1 Bay 2 Bay 3 Bay 4

II.) III.) IV.) V.) VI.)

Fig. 4 - Twelve arresters of type A in two substations. Operating voltage: 415 kV, ambient temperture: 18 oC.
Resistive leakage current in percent of max. recommended 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arrester num ber

Bay 7 Bay 8

Fig. 5 Six arresters of type B in one substation. Operating voltage: 415 kV, ambient temperature: 27 oC.
Resistive leakage current (uA) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arrester num ber Bay 5 Bay 6

Fig. 6 - Six arresters of type C in the same substation. Operating voltage: 410 kV, ambient temperature: 18 oC. 7.2 Testing of 145 kV MOSAs at chemical factory The factory had six 145 kV MOSAs installed at a switching station. All six arresters were of the same make and type and commissioned in 1984, i.e. probably first generation MOSAs. The factory is located in a costal area and the arresters may therefore be exposed to external pollution, which might cause accelerated ageing of the ZnO-blocks. The factory owner had no information about the condition of the MOSA, except that the surge counters had not been operating since 1989 and showed

just a few counts. The factory owner still had concerns about the condition of the arresters since a failure with an outage would cause high production losses. Measurements of the resistive leakage current were performed in 2002. The measurements showed the following results in per cent referred to the maximum recommended leakage current: 2 units showed around 130%. 3 units showed around 90-95%. 1 unit showed 70%. Two arresters showed resistive leakage currents significantly above the maximum recommended level, while three other arresters showed values close to this. Due to the potential consequences in case of a failure, the factory owner decided to replace all six arresters. In 2004, the six replacement units (same make, but different type from the original MOSAs) were tested after two years in service. All six units showed resistive leakage currents in the size of 35-40% of the maximum recommended level, i.e. good condition. New measurements are scheduled for the autumn of 2007. 7.3 Testing of remaining 300 kV MOSAs after failure A transmission utility experienced a catastrophic failure/explosion of a 300 kV MOSA after approximately 9 years in service. The two remaining arresters were then tested with the following results: One unit showed 545% The second unit showed 60%. Hence one of the remaining arresters in service was severely aged and was immediately taken out of service to prevent a second arrester failure. This arrester was sent for laboratory check. The reason for the aging appeared to be the coating of the ZnO-blocks, which caused internal partial discharges and a partly conductive surface. 7.4 Testing of 110 kV MOSAs

During early 2007, measurements were performed on 18 MOSAs of the same type in one 110 kV substation. Two of the arresters had significantly higher readings (230% and 400% respectively) than all other as shown in Figure 7. The utility contacted the manufacturer, which took the arresters out of service for laboratory testing. This test showed ingress of moisture that caused internal heating and increase of the resistive leakage current. 8 CONCLUSIONS Leakage current measurements based on THRC have proven to be a reliable and efficient system for assessing the condition of gapless metal oxide surge arresters in service in accordance with the recommendation from IEC [1]. By implementing a testing strategy for the arresters in the grid, it will on one hand be possible to utilize the lifetime of the arrester and on the other hand to replace bad or aged arresters before they fail. This will contribute to increase the reliability in the power supply, reduce the failure and outage costs and increase the safety for the personnel. 9 REFERENCES
[1] IEC International Standard 60099-5 Surge arresters - Part 5: Selection and application recommendations, Edition 1.1, 2000-03. [2] Techniques for Evaluating Substation Surge Arresters: A Field Guide for Technique Selection, EPRI, Palto Alto CA: 2002.1001784. [3] Lundquist, J. et al: New method for measurement of the resistive leakage currents of metal-oxide surge arresters in service. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1990. [4] Bartley,W: An analysis of Transformer failures http://www.hsb.com/thelocomotive/story [5] Schei, A: Content of 3rd harmonic voltage in transmission and distribution systems. Error in arrester leakage current measurements, presented Session panel 1 CIGRE, Paris 2000 together with paper P1-05. [6] Schei, A. et al: Resistive leakage current measurements on metal oxide surge arresters in service measuring equipment and results from measurements in 145 kV and 300 kV stations. CIGR symposium, Berlin, 1993, paper no. 140-01. [7] Leemans, P. and Moulaert, G. G.: Experience with leakage-current testing of 380 kv MOV surge arresters in the field, utilizing an LCM portable instrument. Doble Client Conference, 1994. [8] Tyagi, R. and K., Sodha, N. S., Jain, S. M.: Condition monitoring of surge arresters through third harmonic resistive leakage current measurement. Doble Client Conference, 2001. [9] Akbar, M. and Ahmad M.: Failure study of metal oxide surge arrester, Electric Power Systems Research 50, 1999, pp 79 -82.

Fig. 7 - Measurements on 18 surge arresters.