Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 45

INABB/CTR ( 1 ) Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Controlled Switching of Circuit Breakers

Contents

Basic principle of controlled switching Todays common applications and their benefit Future applications of controlled switching General trends

INABB/CTR ( 2 )

Literature
CIGRE WG 13.07, "Controlled switching of HVAC circuit breakers. Guide for application. Lines, reactors, capacitors, transformers. Part I," Electra, 183:pp. 4373 Apr 73, Apr. 1999 1999. CIGRE WG 13.07, "Controlled switching of HVAC circuit breakers. Guide for application. Lines, reactors, capacitors, transformers. Part II," Electra, 185:pp. 3757, , Aug. g 1999. CIGRE Task Force 13.00.1 of Study Committee 13, "Controlled switchinga state of the art survey. Part I," Electra, 162:pp. 65-96, Oct. 1995. CIGRE Task Force 13.00.1 of Study y Committee 13, , "Controlled switchinga g state of the art survey. Part II," Electra, 164:pp. 39-61, Feb. 1996. U. Krsi, K. Frhlich and J. H. Brunke, "Controlled Transformer Energization Considering Residual FluxImplementation and Experimental Results," Proceedings of IASTED int. Conf. on Power and Energy Systems, Tampa, Florida, USA, Paper Nr. 328-143, pp. 155-160, 19.-22. Nov. 2001.

INABB/CTR ( 3 )

Purpose of Controlled Switching

Close and/or open the breaker precisely point on wave in order to

avoid or reduce transients in the system reduce d stresses t at t breaker b k and d other th equipment i t

INABB/CTR ( 4 )

LIMITATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL INTERRUPTION


Circuit breaker operation depends on Thermal Limit i.e. i e The magnitude of the current to be interrupted Dielectric Limit i.e. The magnitude of transient recovery voltage Dielectric Limit

Transient Recovery Voltage

INABB/CTR ( 5 )

Current to be interrupted

LIMITATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL INTERRUPTION


The magnitude of the current to be interrupted dictates the construction t ti of f th the circuit i it b breaker k Large volume of interrupting medium (SF6) is required for faster cooling and de-ionization of the contact gap. A puff with higher pressure is required to take away the ionized gasses quickly and regain the dielectric property in contact gap. q result in higher g energy gy operating p g All the above requirements mechanisms and larger size of interrupting chamber.
INABB/CTR ( 6 )

LIMITATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL INTERRUPTION


The magnitude of the transient recovery voltage dictates High speed contact separation. A larger gap between the moving contact and the fixed contact. High TRV also requires that external insulation of the interrupting chamber should withstand higher dielectric stresses stresses. All the above requirements also result in higher energy operating mechanisms and larger size of interrupting chamber.
INABB/CTR ( 7 )

What can be done


Can we increase the circuit breaker arc interrupting capability and also l i increase it its service i lif life without ith t h having i stronger operating mechanism and larger volume of the arc chamber Controlled switching is one such method that can be used to enhance the breaking capabilities of a circuit breaker

INABB/CTR ( 8 )

Can Controlled interruption help


Voltage Dielectric limit Random interruption Additional performance b controlled by t ll d i interruption t ti ???

? ?

?
Thermal limit

INABB/CTR ( 9 )

Current

How Controlled Switching work

CB

Traditionally the circuit breaker switching is controlled by substation control. i.e. either by protective relays or by manual switching

circuit breaker control

In controlled switching a local breaker controller is place between the circuit breaker and the station control.

Controller substation control


INABB/CTR ( 10 )

It controls the exact instant of circuit breaker contact separation to achieve lower stresses on the breaker

Timing for controlled switching

INABB/CTR ( 11 )

Cases of extending dielectric limits


Voltage Random interruption Possible upgrading area by means of f controlled t ll d switching it hi

INABB/CTR ( 12 )

Current

No thermal interrupting stress

Cases of extending dielectric limits

Energization and de-energization of capacitor banks Energization and de-energization of shunt reactors Energization of unloaded power transformers g and de-energization g of unloaded transmission lines Energization

INABB/CTR ( 13 )

Energization of capacitor banks


Problem: Excessive, high frequent inrush current Solution: Close at zero of voltage across breaker

voltage

controlled ll duncontrolled

INABB/CTR ( 14 )

current

Controlled Capacitor Bank Energisation - Benefits

Technical Implication

Monetisation

Breaker

reduces contact burn reduced current forces in breaker no closing resistors (Increases availability of breaker) Inrush current ages g bank nuisance relay tripping

5k$ - 15k$ qualitative 15% - 30% of breaker qualitative qualitative qualitative

Adjacent Compon. System Aspects


INABB/CTR ( 15 )

avoidance of overvoltages in remote places Power auality improvement

qualitative qualitative

Example

Estimate of economical benefits due to Controlled S it hi Switching in the Furnas power system (10 capacitors banks)
Investment: Elimination of: pre-insertion resistors auxiliary chambers Reduction of: dielectric strength capability in capacitors cells Operation costs: elimination of maintenance costs for resistors and auxiliary chambers -25% ( (Compared to CB costs) )

-45% (Compared to capacitor costs)

Not considered Total: 7 MUS$

INABB/CTR ( 16 )

Controlled Capacitor Bank De-Energisation


I
+

+ UB

US
_

UC
_

Interruption

Voltage across CB

UC
INABB/CTR ( 17 )

Load side voltage

time

US = UC

US

Bus voltage

De-energization of capacitor banks


Problem: Potential jeopardy of restrikes Solution: Avoid small arcing time

t2 current t

t1 Arc voltage

t
RV contact separation
INABB/CTR ( 18 )

recovery

Controlled Capacitor Bank De-Energisation


0 T/2 = 10 ms at 50 Hz Recovery voltages Capacitive current case RRDS: - Rate of Rise of Dielectric Strength Time

Voltag ge across contacts

INABB/CTR ( 19 )

Typical RRDS starting at minimum arcing time (0 ms)

Typical RRDS starting several ms prior to current zero resulting in proper interruption

Controlled Capacitor Bank De-Energisation - Benefits


Technical Implication Monetisation

Breaker

reduces restrike probability nozzle puncture, maintenance interv.

Qualitative ??

Adjacent Compon Compon. System Aspects


INABB/CTR ( 20 )

nuisance relay tripping avoids step voltage fronts in bank

qualitative qualitative

avoidance of voltage transients and voltage escalation, saves arrestors power quality improvement

qualitative qualitative qualitative

De-energization of a shunt reactor curr rent Accepted zone vo oltage

UR

Critical window

UR 2 0 s

UR

INABB/CTR ( 21 )

De-energization of a shunt reactor


Voltage withstand characteristic of the circuit-breaker contact gap at opening, RRDS

RRDS at min. arcing time Typical: yp TARCMIN 4 ms (Shorter arcing times will result in re-ignition)

Contact separation Instant 1 2

SAFE contact parting area

Uacross across CB CB Current REACTOR CURRENT INTERRUPTION

Tarcmin
INABB/CTR ( 22 )

USource Window Wi d allowing ll i Reignition-free operation

Controlled Reactor De-Energisation Benefits

Technical Implication Breaker


Increase of Maintenance interval, Catastrophic failure (probability < 0,3 o/oo reduced by factor 100)

Monetisation
several k$ several l 100k$

Adjacent Compon. System Aspects


INABB/CTR ( 23 )

potential of reactor failure risk unknown significantly reduced

several 100k$

Reduction of transients, , EMI in secondary system

qualitative q

Nozzle and contact burn after numerous reactor deenergisations

INABB/CTR ( 24 )

Rough Estimate of the probability for a catastrophic breaker failure


20 reactors in the system switched twice daily over 30 yrs Critical window 1ms 2 breaker explosions occured
21900 operations x3 = 65700 single phase operations 6500 reignitions probability for an explosion is 1/3000

INABB/CTR ( 25 )

Probability P b bilit for f loss l of f several 100 k$ is > 0.3 o/oo

Energization of shunt reactors

Problem: Inrush current up to 3.5 pu Solution: Close at voltage peak

Disadvantage: Transient overvoltage of steep wave front

INABB/CTR ( 26 )

Inrush current and overvoltage versus closing angle


Over rvoltage / Inrush Curren nt [pu]

4.0

I Inrush h C Current
3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

Overvoltage

1.5

1
INABB/CTR ( 27 )

Deviation from optimum switching instant [ms]

Magnetic flux in steady state


Symmetrical Flux Flux

Hysteresis

time Voltage

Current

time

Magnetizing current

INABB/CTR ( 28 )

time

Inrush currents (2)


Flux Asymmetrical magnetical flux time Hysteresis current

Some problems caused by inrush currents: Damage to the transformer False operation of transformer protections Adverse effects on power quality Direct Di t current t problems bl
INABB/CTR ( 29 )

Inrush Current

time

Inrush current of an unloaded power transformer with controlled switching (state of the art)

.2000

.1000

voltage
2 1 .0700

0.0

.0900

.0100
-.1000 kV x 10**3 -.2000 .8000

.0300

.0500

SECONDS 3 2 1

.4000

current
1 2 .0700 2 .0900 1 13

INABB/CTR ( 30 )

0.0

.0100
-.4000 kA -.8000

.0300

.0500

SECONDS

500A

Advantages of controlled reactor energization

Technical Consequence Reduced current forces in reactor (inrush) Avoid A id nuissance i relay l t tripping i i Reduced contact burn Increase of power quality Avoid A id sympathetic th ti i inrush hi into t other transformer

Financial consequence Increase of life expectancy Reduced failure risk Reduced maintenance

INABB/CTR ( 31 )

Optimum closing moment


Residual flux 1 [p.u.]

1 U dt w
INABB/CTR ( 32 )

Prospective magnetic flux

Steady state magnetic flux

Peak inrush current

Worst Phas se Peak In nrush Curre ent Amperes 2%

Peak Inrush Current as a Function of Closing Time Scatter

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Closing Time Scatter (3 sigma) - ms
Zero Residual 70% Residual

INABB/CTR ( 33 )

Transformer burn in Montana

INABB/CTR ( 34 )

Controlled Reactor Energisation Benefits

Technical Implication

Monetisation

Breaker

No significant impact

no

Adjacent Compon. System Aspects


INABB/CTR ( 35 )

Inrush current ( (< 3pu) ) ages g reactor

qualitative qualitative

sympathetic inrush to transformer in case of series compensation nuisance relay tripping

Qualitative (loss of power delivery)

Energization of unloaded transmission lines

Problem: Excessive overvoltages S l ti Solution: Close Cl at t zero of f voltage lt across b breaker k

transmission line

system t
INABB/CTR ( 36 )

Voltage across breaker at auto reclosing (1)


2

V o ltag e [p .u .]

-1

-2 0 50 100 150 T im e [m s] 20 0 25 0

INABB/CTR ( 37 )

line compensation 30%

Voltage across breaker at auto reclosing (1)

1800kV

Field test in 500 kV system of BC-Hydro, Canada

INABB/CTR ( 38 )

Voltage across breaker at auto reclosing (2)

2,5 2 Voltage [p. .u] 1,5 1 0,5 0

25

50 Time [ms]

75

100

INABB/CTR ( 39 )


No line compensation

Voltage across breaker at auto reclosing (3)

50
INABB/CTR ( 40 )

100

time [ms] No line compensation p Decay of trapped charge

Controlled Energisation of Unloaded Transmission lines- Benefits

Technical Implication

Monetisation

Breaker

no closing resistors (Increases availability of breaker)

15% - 30% of breaker qualitative

Adjacent Compon. System Aspects


INABB/CTR ( 41 )

Overvoltage reduction on line Reduction of phase to phase clearing

20k$ / km (at 500kV)

Avoid nuisance relay tripping

qualitative

Advantages of unloaded line energization


Technical Consequence Reduces transients phase to ground Reduced risk of fault reinception at O-C

Financial consequence Saves closing resistors De-rating De rating of surge arrestors Reduced line dimensions

INABB/CTR ( 42 )

FUTURE? Controlled fault interruption?


Increased I d electrical l t i l lif life and di improved d performance f compared dt to random fault interruption?
Blast pressure Pressure at current zero, new CB Pressure required for interruption
Narrow window with increased interrupting capability

Reduced pressure build-up at current zero in worn CB Normal "arc extinguishing window >1/2 cycle
INABB/CTR ( 43 )

Tarc

Future potential of controlled switching

Load interruption p Fault interruption Energization of unloaded power transformers considering remanence flux Control for existing breakers

INABB/CTR ( 44 )

Conclusion

In I future f t controlled t ll d switching it hi will ill b be a software ft i issue rather th th than a h hardware d problem Controlled Co t o ed s switching tc g will beco become e a normal o a feature eatu e for o aC CB

INABB/CTR ( 45 )